DNC Talking Points on Alito

[SilverNRed]

Stumbling out of the gate

 

Every time I think the Republicans are completely out of whack, the DNC does something even dumber.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Stumbling out of the gate

 

Every time I think the Republicans are completely out of whack, the DNC does something even dumber.

492957[/snapback]

 

Standard response: That memo was actually constructed by Karl Rove to frame the Democrats.

 

Because in the midst of defending himself against a perjury indictment, he's got the time for that. He's very Bruschi-like in his ability to do everything at once.

[RI Bills Fan]

Okay, we're gonna have the Republitards/Conservitards jump all over this aren't we.

 

Of Course, nobody knows who authored that document, which seems to be a simple and straight forward listing of why the Conservative Alito doesn't fit a Liberal's concept of who should be nominated for the USSC at this point.

 

Oh and CTM, we all know Rove didn't write that. It doesn't contain any outright smears or personal attacks.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Of Course, nobody knows who authored that document, which seems to be a simple and straight forward listing of why the Conservative Alito doesn't fit a Liberal's concept of who should be nominated for the USSC at this point.

492993[/snapback]

 

I've got your full and complete list right here:

 

- He's not a liberal.

 

Really, why does everyone try to pretend that this whole process isn't partisan politics at its worst? Conservative presidents nominate conservative justices. Liberal presidents nominate liberals. Conservative senators support conservative nominations and bash liberal nominations. Liberal senators support liberal nominations and bash conservative nominations.

 

That's all this is. Nothing else. It's "Bush bad" writ large...just as everything was "Clinton bad" writ large eight years ago.

[SilverNRed]

Okay, we're gonna have the Republitards/Conservitards jump all over this aren't we.

 

Of Course, nobody knows who authored that document, which seems to be a simple and straight forward listing of why the Conservative Alito doesn't fit a Liberal's concept of who should be nominated for the USSC at this point.

 

Oh and CTM, we all know Rove didn't write that. It doesn't contain any outright smears or personal attacks.

492993[/snapback]

Actually, it's a pretty good bet that everyone knows who authored the document

 

This document started circulating, unsigned, yesterday on Capitol Hill and among the press. As has been noted elsewhere, the mouthbreathers who produced it forgot the first rule of e-mailing sensitive Microsoft Word documents -- don't do it at all. The metadata clearly indicates that the author of this goes by the name "prendergastc", most likely Chris Prendergast, who works on the DNC. By displaying the document properties in Word, one finds out that the company holding the license for the copy of Word that created the document is -- the DNC. The last person to edit the document was AdlerD, which Redstate thinks would be Devorah Adler, also of the DNC, and who makes considerably more than Chris Prendergast does. That moves the problem from an out-of-control flunky to one of deliberate smear attempts by the Democratic Party itself.

Microsoft Word is a B word.

[RI Bills Fan]

Actually, it's a pretty good bet that everyone knows who authored the document

Microsoft Word is a B word.

493015[/snapback]

 

Do you use word? Exactly how long do you think it takes to change the setting that controls that litttle function?

 

I could write all sorts of douments on my computer and e-mail them in a way which would make it appear that some mouth-breathing piece of proto-matter called SilverNRed not only authored but mailed all of them...

 

But of course you know who did this, because the author of some republitard talking points told you who did it, right?

[RI Bills Fan]

I've got your full and complete list right here:

 

- He's not a liberal.

 

493006[/snapback]

 

Wow, the Monkey got something right!

 

I'm Impressed!

[SilverNRed]

Do you use word? Exactly how long do you think it takes to change the setting that controls that litttle function?

 

I could write all sorts of douments on my computer and e-mail them in a way which would make it appear that some mouth-breathing piece of proto-matter called SilverNRed not only authored but mailed all of them...

493050[/snapback]

Ouch, my feelings!

 

But of course you know who did this, because the author of some republitard talking points told you who did it, right?

Considering the fact that the Word that made the document was licensed to the DNC and Chris Matthews expressing no doubt where it came from (and if there was doubt, he wouldn't have been all over the document as he is very sympathetic to the Democrats), I'd say this isn't some sort of Rovian plot.

 

Than again, I don't wear a tinfoil hat so my mind works a little differently than yours.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Wow, the Monkey got something right!

 

I'm Impressed! 

493053[/snapback]

 

Yeah...and it's a pretty !@#$ing stupid reason. Political leanings as a litmus test for nominees is just as stupid (perhaps even more so) than Roe v Wade as a litmus test. The ONLY litmus test that should be used to determine the capability of a possible Justice is: can said nominee faithfully defend the legal foundation of our country. NOT whether or not they can defend the philosophies of one party or another.

[Alaska Darin]

Yeah...and it's a pretty !@#$ing stupid reason.  Political leanings as a litmus test for nominees is just as stupid (perhaps even more so) than Roe v Wade as a litmus test.  The ONLY litmus test that should be used to determine the capability of a possible Justice is: can said nominee faithfully defend the legal foundation of our country.  NOT whether or not they can defend the philosophies of one party or another.

493103[/snapback]

Stop that.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Stop that.

493109[/snapback]

 

Stop what? Differentiating between party loyalty and loyalty to one's country?

 

Sorry, you're right...there is no difference. The Democrats ARE America, and the Republicans are evil Nazi intruders bent on stealing the country away from them. At least until the roles are reversed next election.

[SilverNRed]

Yeah...and it's a pretty !@#$ing stupid reason.  Political leanings as a litmus test for nominees is just as stupid (perhaps even more so) than Roe v Wade as a litmus test.  The ONLY litmus test that should be used to determine the capability of a possible Justice is: can said nominee faithfully defend the legal foundation of our country.  NOT whether or not they can defend the philosophies of one party or another.

493103[/snapback]

*head explodes*

[Mickey]

I've got your full and complete list right here:

 

- He's not a liberal.

 

Really, why does everyone try to pretend that this whole process isn't partisan politics at its worst?  Conservative presidents nominate conservative justices.  Liberal presidents nominate liberals.  Conservative senators support conservative nominations and bash liberal nominations.  Liberal senators support liberal nominations and bash conservative nominations. 

 

That's all this is.  Nothing else.  It's "Bush bad" writ large...just as everything was "Clinton bad" writ large eight years ago.

493006[/snapback]

Exactly.

 

Both sides have litmus tests and both pretend that they don't so that they can lambaste the other side for having one.

 

The constitution created this very situation, two branches having to decide together what happens to a third. Interdependency is all part of the checks and balances. It is a political process and it was meant to be that way.

 

Blame the founders.

[Mickey]

Stumbling out of the gate

 

Every time I think the Republicans are completely out of whack, the DNC does something even dumber.

492957[/snapback]

I guess I am missing something, why isn't the conviction record of a prosecutor a legitimate basis for both praise and criticism?

 

If conservatives can praise his work as a prosecutor, why can't others be critical of that same work?

 

For example, GOP Bloggers has this entry in their bio of Alito promoting his nomination:

 

"From 1987-1989, Alito served as U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey where he is best know for prosecuting white collar and environmental crimes, drug trafficking, organized crime, and violations of civil rights." GOP Bloggers

 

If his prosecution of organized crime can be praised, why is it out of bounds to indicate that he lost one of his biggest cases against organized crime?

[SilverNRed]

I guess I am missing something, why isn't the conviction record of a prosecutor a legitimate basis for both praise and criticism? 

 

If his prosecution of organized crime can be praised, why is it out of bounds to indicate that he lost one of his biggest cases against organized crime?

493224[/snapback]

Probably because they cherry pick some quotes from Alito to make it sound like he didn't care or try his hardest to win that case. And how about point no.1 of the memo being an attempt to characterize his record as a prosecutor based on one case? His work "embarassed" the government?

 

Alito Embarrassed Government by Failing to Obtain Crucial Mafia Conviction

U.S. Attorney Alito Failed to Obtain Conviction of 20 Mobsters, Saying “You Can’t Win Them All.” Federal law enforcement agencies sustained a major rebuff in their anti-mafia campaign with the August 1988 acquittal of all 20 defendants accused of making up the entire membership of the Lucchese family in the New Jersey suburbs of New York. The verdict ended what was believed to be the nation’s longest federal criminal trial and according to the Chicago Tribune, dealt the government a “stunning defeat.” Samuel Alito, the US Attorney on the case, said, “Obviously we are disappointed but you realize you can’t win them all.” Alito also said he had no regrets about the prosecution but in the future would try to keep cases “as short and simple as possible.” Alito continued, “I certainly don’t feel embarrassed and I don’t think we should feel embarrassed.” [Guardian, 8/29/88; Chicago Tribune, 8/27/88; UPI, 8/26/88]

Classy.

[Mickey]

Probably because they cherry pick some quotes from Alito to make it sound like he didn't care or try his hardest to win that case.  And how about point no.1 of the memo being an attempt to characterize his record as a prosecutor based on one case?  His work "embarassed" the government?

 

Classy.

493235[/snapback]

Is it any more classy for his supporters to trumpet his bio while leaving out the bad stuff? Really, why is it okay to cherry pick good stuff and not bad stuff?

 

 

I think that whether or not such a huge loss is an embarassment is kind of a subjective determination. The fact that Alito himself felt at the time that it was necessary to defend the awful result certainly tells me that he was worried that it really was a pretty embarassing result. I think his performance in that case should be looked at closely and then the public can decide for itself whether he embarassed the government or just got stuck with a freak jury. I am not taking the word of some unknown source that he screwed up the case but I am not going to take Alito's word for it that he didn't nor am I willing to rope it off as out of bounds.

 

Since you accuse the unknown sources of that "quote" of "cherry picking" quotes of Alito regarding the results of that case, can you tell me what quotes they left out so I can compare them with the ones that were included?

 

I think the fact that he lost one of the biggest cases he ever tried is certainly worthy of discussion now that he is being appointed to the highest court in the land. The hysterical reaction to the notion that this be discussed is, lamentably, par for the course. I guess we can all talk about how brilliant he is, how brilliant the President is for nominating him, how brilliant conservatives are for supporting him and just how brilliantly brilliant he is. We just can't talk about how brilliantly he lost a huge case because that might show that maybe, just maybe, he isn't all that brilliant.

[SilverNRed]

Is it any more classy for his supporters to trumpet his bio while leaving out the bad stuff?  Really, why is it okay to cherry pick good stuff and not bad stuff?

I think that whether or not such a huge loss is an embarassment is kind of a subjective determination.  The fact that Alito himself felt at the time that it was necessary to defend the awful result certainly tells me that he was worried that it really was a pretty embarassing result.  I think his performance in that case should be looked at closely and then the public can decide for itself whether he embarassed the government or just got stuck with a freak jury.  I am not taking the word of some unknown source that he screwed up the case but I am not going to take Alito's word for it that he didn't nor am I willing to rope it off as out of bounds.

493262[/snapback]

All prosecutors make statements after cases whether they win or lose. Even the statements they picked out didn't seem that defensive. His statements seemed pretty straight forward to me. I don't know what else he was supposed to say.

 

Since you accuse the unknown sources of that "quote" of "cherry picking" quotes of Alito regarding the results of that case, can you tell me what quotes they left out so I can compare them with the ones that were included?

Nope, not my problem. They brought this up and they're the ones framing him as a prosecutor who blew a huge case and really didn't seem to care. I mean, he said he wasn't embarassed - so what? What is the point of this and why is it an important issue here in 2005? They had to think those quotes were of some special significance or they wouldn't have included all of them. Either they're trying to imply that he's a sloopy prosecutor who didn't care or something worse.

 

I think the fact that he lost one of the biggest cases he ever tried is certainly worthy of discussion now that he is being appointed to the highest court in the land.  The hysterical reaction to the notion that this be discussed is, lamentably, par for the course.  I guess we can all talk about how brilliant he is, how brilliant the President is for nominating him, how brilliant conservatives are for supporting him and just how brilliantly brilliant he is.  We just can't talk about how brilliantly he lost a huge case because that might show that maybe, just maybe, he isn't all that brilliant

Discuss all you want, but don't grab a few quotes from him to make it seem like he didn't even care and that it wasn't a big deal to him. I'm sure it was a big deal to him. You don't get as far in the profession as he has without being very good at what you do. Remember the old Jordan commercial where he talks about all the shots he missed and all the games he lost?

[SilverNRed]

Of course, the DNC talking points memo still wasn't as bad as Chuck Schumer suggesting Alito would roll back the gains Rosa Parks made (essentially turning her coffin into a soapbox).

[/dev/null]

Okay, we're gonna have the Republitards/Conservitards jump all over this aren't we.

492993[/snapback]

 

now there's a well thought out and eloquant argument!

 

BushBad!

BruschiGood!

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Exactly.

 

Both sides have litmus tests and both pretend that they don't so that they can lambaste the other side for having one.

 

The constitution created this very situation, two branches having to decide together what happens to a third.  Interdependency is all part of the checks and balances.  It is a political process and it was meant to be that way. 

 

Blame the founders.

493181[/snapback]

 

Blame the founders for party politics that puts vested self-interest ahead of the good of the nation? Sometimes you say the downright stupidest things.