Bush Picks Judge Samuel Alito for Supreme Court

I have no problem with newspapers publishing the transcripts of the hearings. I have a problem with superficial heat-of-the moment crap, repeated over and over on TV, affecting important political decisions. I have a problem with senators posturing for cameras instead of listening to the nominees answer. (The New York Times expressed this aptly in a recent headline: "But enough about you, judge -- let's listen to what I have to say!") TV coverage of Senate hearings greatly add to the latter problem without adding much transparency and publicity.

(The New York Times expressed this aptly in a recent headline: "But enough about you, judge -- let's listen to what I have to say!")

But the political aspects are terribly interesting too. The campaign waged by the administration and those who support Alito has been really masterful. The goal was/is to set Alito up in the public's mind such that any aggressive attack on him would be perceived as evil doers attacking apple pie. There is, of course, absolutely no legal relevance in the facts of family or even in whether he is a 'nice man'. The wife's tears may or may not have been a tacky pre-planned trick but that is precisely how the episode functioned, "How COULD those nasty Democrats DO such a thing!?" - and the PR boys in this administration are often brilliant at creating such scenes.

SPECTER: The committee staff, accompanied by representatives of Senator Kennedy, went through the Rusher files yesterday, finishing up their work, I'm advised, at about 2 a.m. this morning, and provided me with a memorandum that the committee staff reviewed more than four boxes of documents from the personal files of William Rusher concerning CAP.

Judge Alito's name never appeared in any document. His name was not mentioned in any of the letters to or from the founder, William Rusher. His name was not mentioned in any of the letters to or from CAP's long-term executive director, T. Harding Jones. His name does not appear anywhere in the dozens of letters to CAP or from CAP.

The files contain canceled checks for subscriptions to CAP's magazine, Prospect, but none from Judge Alito.

The files contain dozens of articles, including investigative exposes written at the height of the organization's prominence, but Samuel Alito's name is nowhere to be found in any of them.

The Rusher files contain lists of the board of directors, the advisory board and the contributors to both CAP and Prospect magazine. But none of the lists contains Samuel Alito's name.

The files contain minutes and attendance records from CAP meetings in 1983 and 1984, just before Samuel Alito listed the organization on his job application, but Samuel Alito did not attend any of those meetings, at least according to those records. He's not even mentioned in the minutes.

The files contain dozens of issues of CAP's magazines, but nones of the articles was written by, quoted or mentioned Samuel Alito.

SPECTER: CAP founder William Rusher said, quote, "I have no recollection of Samuel Alito at all. He certainly was not very heavily involved in CAP, if at all."

In a post I already commented on but would like to comment on again, blatham wrote:

But the political aspects are terribly interesting too. The campaign waged by the administration and those who support Alito has been really masterful. The goal was/is to set Alito up in the public's mind such that any aggressive attack on him would be perceived as evil doers attacking apple pie. There is, of course, absolutely no legal relevance in the facts of family or even in whether he is a 'nice man'. The wife's tears may or may not have been a tacky pre-planned trick but that is precisely how the episode functioned, "How COULD those nasty Democrats DO such a thing!?" - and the PR boys in this administration are often brilliant at creating such scenes.

I had no problem with this assessment of yours, at least not as far as it goes. I also have no problem with your pointing out the importance of activism. The only (minor) beef I have is that it overstates the impact of marketing by not mentioning the quality of the product. From looking at primary sources in Alito's record -- most importantly, at the opinions he wrote on the bench -- it seems clear to me that he is a very good judge. He seems as worthy of sitting on the US Supreme Court as any judge who already sits on it.

As to Alito's ideology, the Democrats were simply wrong when they branded him as an extremist. They even seem to continue the mistake, judging by an article in today's New York Times: "In interviews, Democrats said the lesson of the Alito hearings was that this White House could put on the bench almost any qualified candidate, even one whom Democrats consider to be ideologically out of step with the country." But Alito was not ideologically out of touch with the country. The Democratic leadership could have checked this with a quick search on Pollingreport.com. It is the Democratic party line that was "out of step with the country" here.

On abortion for example, the majority of Americans opposes radical steps such as overruling Roe v. Wade, but favors marginal restrictions within the current framework. That's exactly the policy Alito advocates in his now-famous 1985 memo. About the "war on terror", the predominant opinion is that the president has gotten the tradeoff between security and civil liberties "about right". (This is eroding in favor of "He went too far", but it's still the majority opinion.) Respondents to the polls are split almost evenly on whether Bush was right or wrong to wiretap without court orders. (Right: 50%, Wrong: 46%, Margin of error: 4%) So if Alito should turn out to be lenient on presidential powers, he may be wrong, but so would be 50% of the American people he's allegedly so of touch with. We don't need to discuss the merits of these majority positions here. But it seems pretty clear from the polls that wherever the Democratic party line disagrees with Alito, the majority of Americans sides with Alito and opposes the Democratic party line.

So not only did the Republicans present a good candidate (after knocking down the terrible Harriet Miers), the Democrats also waged a campaign against a candidate who didn't resemble the candidate they were voting on. Given such fundamental misjudgments about reality, good marketing campaigns can't make that much of a difference. I agree that to the extent it did make a difference, the Republicans were doing well. But you know what I think of this statement. If Alito is confirmed, that should be a reality check for the Democrats' platform writers, not their marketing agency.

PR campaigns for or against a mis-portrayed candidate (or a cause or a 'product') very often succeed quite regardless of that disconnection from what is so. See "connection between 9/11 and Sadaam". See Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. See "compassionate conservatism". See "I'm a uniter, not a divider". See "the administration today released very positive economic figures." See the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Polling figures tell us what thomas? They tell us about perception, not about reality.

Would you have been so sanguine about this matter had Ronald Dworkin been the nominee, supported by Dem political dominance and an activist/PR support network comparable to what is the case now?

As you likely understand, there is nothing comparable on the left - in terms of singular ideological purpose, effectiveness and depth and history of organization, and of access to power and influence - like the Federalist Society.

Feel free to point to the "worthiness" of the new Toyota Corolla. I'll take on the task of sharing how the showroom salesman will be complimenting your "beautiful child!" at the same time as he is shafting you on the blue book value of your trade-in.

Not only are the Republicans trying to control the legislative branches, they are trying to control the country's economy and, through that, the foreign policy, including the military, of the US to protect our world dominance.

But that's not the point I am arguing here. I am arguing that the Democrats are wrong when they call Alito "radical" and "out of the mainstream." Right or wrong, the mainstream of public opinion in America fits closely with the positions Alito has taken. Polls are perfectly adequate evidence for this assertion of mine.

... It is certain that I would not support a Republican smear campaign of the kind that the Democrats ran against Bork, Thomas, and (in a somwhat milder form) Alito. And one aspect the C-Span replays show quite clearly is that the Republicans never ran comparable campaigns against Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer. Unlike the Democrats, they appeared to realize that this tactic would be stupid.

To whom are you addressing your criticisims of Democrats and those who defend them? It is unclear because neither Batham nor I are Democrats. I've stated several times I voted for Gore and Kerry because George W. Bush scared the sh*t out of me. Same reason I voted for McCarthy out of well founded fear or Richard Nixon.

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

To whom are you addressing your criticisims of Democrats and those who defend them? It is unclear because neither Batham nor I are Democrats. I've stated several times I voted for Gore and Kerry because George W. Bush scared the sh*t out of me. Same reason I voted for McCarthy out of well founded fear or Richard Nixon.

I guess this was addressed to me. I don't know your political affiliations, or those of Blatham. However, I would be very surprised if either of you are Republicans. That doesn't leave many other possibilities.

[ In other words, I put my country before Party interests. I wish more Republicans would do that.

The problem is that while current Republican pundits are cynical and self-serving about their misrepresentations, they know they are misrepresentations. The Democratic leadership seems to be much worse: They are idealistic about it, so tend to believe their own marketing lies.

I find the insistence posted here by Blatham and BBB - in the face of so many facts that point to the contrary- that the success of ideas and political parties that they oppose, must necessarily be the exclusive result of an evil PR conspiracy, quite amusing. The tortured rationalizations are themselves quite remarkable. Though he described his reservations as minor, Thomas' rejoinder was devastating in its factual completeness.