As to Alito, unfortunately Ms Alito's (not her professional name) bit of crying ... viewed by many as somehow the Democrats' fault (yes, there is more b.s. at there than sewage in a sewer) ... somehow was a major blow according to more than my local tabloid and the likes of Drudge per the NYT:
"Had she not cried, we would have won that day," said one Senate strategist involved in the hearings, who did not want to be quoted by name discussing the Democrats' problems at the hearing. "It got front-page attention. It was on every local news show." ...
Beyond that, they said Judge Alito had turned out to be a more skillful witness than they had expected
What? Yes, the Dems are a bunch of f-ing weenies. They repeatedly let disgustingly cynical tactics be used against them without proper counterattacks. Alito cynically uses CAP membership (Sen. Specter suggests he never belonged ... oh, so he just LIED about it, then? yeah, that is a reason for you to support an anti-choice nominee, Arlen*) and it is the Democrats' fault for calling him on it? Sen. "sleazy homespun" Graham drawls out an apology for the Dems actually doing the job of the Senate -- oversight is so mean, after all -- and the Dems must therefore go into their whole and cry?
I say all those middle of the road senators (you know, all five of them) who vote to confirm should be targeted relentlessly maybe with pictures of little girls being searched or wives being required to tell their husbands intimate details because it is for their own good.
Wah wah! He was soooo skillful! Again, what? I caught some of the hearings (on the radio/tv ... they are being rebroadcast as I type) and read some of the record and wonder why we should be soooo impressed. Yeah, he played the game. I do not think he played it better than most ... he was not as tough as Judge Roberts or anything. And, since some of these senators have been doing this for years, maybe you would think they might have a bit of an edge too. If they keep on doing the same old shit, yeah, maybe the public and better yet the media, will just yawn.
Are media accounts such as these a preview of some 65-35 confirmation vote? Is this the reason why everyone said we had to hold our noses and vote to confirm John Roberts? If so, count me as pissed. It reaffirms the fatalism of some who say that "hey, Alito will be confirmed anyway, so let's forget about this CAP business, hell with filibuster, and let's just get ready for Roe et. al. to be flushed away." They miss the forest for a single tree. They sigh over reports against illegal wiretaps, but do not see a connection to nomination of judges whose ideology (which a single cry -- feminism be damned -- allows to be hidden without harm) justifies it. Or, just fail to supply a truly all points attack.
Are we supposed to believe that if Alito actually was more actively involved in CAP in the 1970s that maybe a filibuster would be feasible? Are you serious? Maybe, this is the problem -- still, ideology and overall presidential wrongdoing (unpopular wrongdoing ... following recent polls alone) is not what really matters. Independent qualifications and no Republican counterattacks (they make us look bad! we really wanted to be tough, really we did!) is what really matters. The only way to lose is to have a perfect storm (Bork) with even an inexperienced sexual harasser (well, yeah, he is black ... like a woman crying, that matters) not able to be defeated.
Some say, we don't control the Senate or the presidency nor do moderate Republicans seem willing to come over. In a few areas, including preventing Bolton from being voted in, they have. And, a filibuster would at least have put some pressure on pro-choice moderates wary about being seen as bootlickers. But, the signals say that they very well might not even try.
After all, Alito's wife cried and her husband did not. I want better leaderhip. Now. Yeah, it would be nice later too, but later starts now. See, Oct. 2002 and its aftermath. See, how the Republicans actually gain power in the 1990s. Dems don't seem to get the whole flavor of that old maxim -- yes, you retreat and be alive to fight another day, but before you do so, it is often useful to put up some fight.
---
* Other things from his old job application should raise eyebrows too. For instance: "In college, I developed a deep interest in constitutional law, motivated in large part by disagreement with Warren Court decisions, particularly in the areas of criminal procedure, the Establishment Clause, and reapportionment. I discovered the writings of Alexander Bickel advocating judicial restraint, and it was largely for this reason that I decided to go to Yale Law School."
The Establishment Clause? He was called on this by Sen. Durbin and he raised some of the confusing applications from the Burger years. Other than upholding supplying textbooks to religious schools (which easily could have cleared up some of those Burger applications) and allowing Sunday closing laws, the cases dealt with school prayer and bible reading, bans on teaching evolution, broadly defining conscientious objection and religious exemption rules for unemployment compensation, and not allowing a religious test to become a notary.
What one of these did Alito disagree with?