Fox's Kelly minimizes Alito's link to "conservative alumni group" -- but Alito didn't
SUMMARY: Megyn Kelly said that Samuel Alito "had almost no connection" to the Concerned Alumni of Princeton. But Alito himself regarded his involvement with CAP as worthy of mention in an application for a job with the Reagan administration in 1985.
During Fox News' July 15 coverage of Judge Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court confirmation hearing, co-host Megyn Kelly said that during Justice Samuel Alito's confirmation hearing, Sen. Ted Kennedy "would not get off of that Concerned Alumni of Princeton [CAP], to the point where Arlen Specter had to begin the hearings the next day by reading a statement underscoring that the nominee had had almost no connection to that group." But Alito himself regarded his involvement with CAP as worthy of mention in an application for a job with the Reagan administration in 1985.
Alito listed his membership in the group in the "Personal Qualifications Statements" section of his 1985 application for the position of deputy assistant attorney general with the Reagan administration, in which he described CAP as "a conservative alumni group." From Alito's application:
Fox News itself previously reported of Alito's "membership in CAP" in a January 2006 FoxNews.com article:
In 1985, the then-assistant to the solicitor general composed a memorandum requesting promotion in which he listed his membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton as proof he had the criteria to move up in the Reagan administration. CAP, which disbanded in 1987, was formed in 1972 in response to changes in Princeton University's admissions and campus activities.
[...]
The fact remains that Alito has been unable to explain his membership in CAP, and for those who fear he is more insensitive to minorities and women than Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the moderate conservative he is tapped to replace, Alito's disavowals offer no comfort.
"Why would you put on a job application your membership in an organization that you know so little about?" [NAACP Washington bureau executive director Hilary] Shelton asked. "I get the impression that is he is fudging [his response]. He believed it was helpful to him at one point in his career advancement, but not for his present career advancement."
Leonard Gross, co-author of "Supreme Court Appointments: Judge Bork and the Politicization of Senate Confirmations," was similarly incredulous.
"He remembers everything else under the sun, including cases decided years and years ago," said Gross, a law professor at Southern Illinois University School of Law. "His explanation rings hollow."
Similarly, a January 12, 2006, Washington Post article reported:
Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s membership in this group, which he touted among his conservative credentials in a 1985 application for a political appointment in the Reagan Justice Department, touched off a bruising political battle yesterday during the third day of confirmation hearings.
[...]
Alito, a 1972 Princeton graduate, testified yesterday that he has no recollection of joining the group, and that he would not have done so if he had known of its writings about women and minorities. "I deplore those statements," he said. "I would never be a member of an organization that took those positions."
He said he assumes he joined only because he supported the return of ROTC to the Princeton campus.
Media Matters for America Senior Fellow Jamison Foser has documented other media figures rewriting the history of Alito's CAP membership.
From Fox News' July 15 coverage of Sotomayor's confirmation hearing:
BRET BAIER (co-host): Can we, Megyn and Chris, talk about the contrast between this committee hearing, this confirmation process, and the confirmation of John Roberts and Sam Alito? What you saw back then, and what you're seeing with the questioning now. Chris first.
CHRIS WALLACE (co-host): I don't know that I think that it was so different. Obviously, the -- it was a Republican nominee and you had the Democrats -- it was role reversal. The Democrats were going after the nominee and the Republican was defending. They made a big deal, as Megyn pointed out yesterday, about the student group, the Concerned --
KELLY: Alumni of Princeton.
WALLACE: Yeah. And just as the Democrats -- Republicans have in this particular case about the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, I actually thought that they were probably -- the Democrats were tougher on Alito and Roberts than the Republicans have been on Sotomayor. Do you agree with that?
KELLY: I absolutely agree with that last statement. I mean, I -- the cross-examination of Sam Alito was downright brutal. I mean, Mrs. Alito was in tears and it wasn't because she was overreacting. They were very tough on him. And Senator Ted Kennedy -- and Joe Biden was tough, too -- but Kennedy all but called him a bigot and would not get off of that Concerned Alumni of Princeton, to the point where Arlen Specter had to begin the hearings the next day by reading a statement underscoring that the nominee had had almost no connection to that group. I don't know whether we'll see the same with her. A lot of people think that never should have happened to Sam Alito and nothing similar should happen to Sonia Sotomayor. What today brings, remains to be seen.
Instead of asking, "Why is this here?", Tommy, ask yourself why you're here. You can't enjoy having your ignorance highlighted daily, or maybe you do, since you're the one that puts it on display.
Do you?
Kelly: "...Arlen Specter had to begin the hearings the next day by reading a statement underscoring that the nominee had had almost no connection to that group." (Emphasis added)
By stating that Spector "had" to begin the proceedings that way she was editorializing, not reporting. By using the word "underscoring," she attested to the truth of what Spector read.
If she had been reporting it would have read more like, "Spector began..." and... "a statement claiming..."
Guess what that lack of responsiveness to this post by you tells everyone else with half a brain? That he's not here to address any issues. He's paid to be a troll who derails threads, and people need to ignore him when he does so and insist upon re-directing the attention to the point being made by Media Matters.
But tell me Sue, how exactly did Kelly falsely characterize what Spector did?
Don't accuse me of some word games when you can't defend what you keep insisting. It may be too nuanced of a distinction for you, but that's not my fault. Instead of reflexively disagreeing with me, look at what it is you're disagreeing about and how you, and Sue's, assertion makes no sense. Slow down, maybe that will help you.
What Specter did not do was "beg(a)n the hearings the next day by reading a statement underscoring that the nominee had had almost no connection to that group."
Specter could not have done that. He could not have underscored that Alito had almost no connection with the group, because he DID have a significant connection with the group.
So, she was saying that Specter debunked the assertion of Ted Kennedy that Alito had a significant connection to the group. Specter couldn't do that, and didn't do that,
and her portrayal of his behavior as accomplishing that 'goal' is conservative misinformation. She mischaracterized what Specter did.
And Tommy/JamesB/RightON, you are out of bounds and out of your mind with your accusations, but it fits with the multitude of other ways you are wrong.
The only way this conversation makes any sense is if you're asserting that Specter himself wasn't presenting his argument as if it was supposed to be taken as the truth. Like he was just joking or something. Otherwise it seems pretty odd to split hairs between the concepts of Specter's intent and the actual validity of his argument.
You are nothing but a word parser when it comes to defending whatever your feel like defending, or whining about.
Look at your own posts. 95% of them are word parsing where the casual reader has no idea what you are typing other than that you defending your previous post.
What you type is not really reason or logic (which I appreciate from everyone) but selective understanding / defense of words, minus the context.
She tried to use Specter's words as evidence. His false assertion cannot be used as evidence.
How like you to think that repeating a lie gives it some kind of strength. What Specter did, trying to provide cover for Alito, was a falsehood. Her repitition of it doesn't make it any less of a falsehood. But her repitition of it does make what she did conservative media misinformation!
This would seem to be a good thing. Would you rather he denied the meaning of the word "underscoring", or what? If he gets four negative votes for conceding the point instead of taking the clearly worse option of denying the clear meaning of what Kelly said, then I don't know what's being set up as the proper course of action here. If you're upset about his early tone, I would understand, but outside of that it seems like once those initial posts were put online that there was no "right" thing he could have possibly said to correct himself.
it's not what specter actually said, we know what he said and no one is arguing that, it's the fact that she referenced his statement as proof that alito was unfairly attacked. and to make it clear, i think she knew perfectly well specter's statement was false. either way, i don't think it's incorrect to say that she mischaracterized his statement as clearing alito of the charges. i'm not the one who is word parsing, as others here have pointed out. i'm quite aware he conceded the initial point, but then it moved to something else being discussed and i got told to "focus". i already was. that was the flow of the argument.
right on asked "what exactly is kelly saying about what he said or did that is a mischaracterization?" quite obviously, implying that specter's statement cleared alito is a mischaracterization of what specter "did".
Is there a post that was deleted? I'm not grasping the provocation for the extended discussion here. That's my issue. Note that my post says that Kelly was relating what Specter said as fact, and he didn't disagree with that. If I were him, I'd be baffled as well. I'd have to imagine you could only be talking about misrepresenting Specter, otherwise it's a redundant argument.
Only someone trying to derail the thread could still not understand this.
I have backed up my claim numerous times in this thread, and other people have too, but you are simply trying to derail the thread - it's quite clear.
The comment that Specter made was a misrepresentation of the facts. As someone else explained it,
Kelly: "...Arlen Specter had to begin the hearings the next day by reading a statement underscoring that the nominee had had almost no connection to that group." (Emphasis added)
By stating that Spector "had" to begin the proceedings that way she was editorializing, not reporting. By using the word "underscoring," she attested to the truth of what Spector read.
But what Specter said wasn't accurate either. He claimed that he had to do something. He didn't. She acted like he was justified. He was not.
I think you should stick to derailing threads, when you try and stay on topic you just look foolish.
Troll not making any sense at all, totally missing the point, lying about what other people have done, who they are, what they've accomplished, how they spend their time, and the value they add.
LuvLuLu making all kinds of sense, really irritating the troll.
Funny. Entertaining for LuvLuLu.
Aggravating for the troll who has had to change his name, and is fighting desperately to not have to stop using this screen name like he had to stop using the previous two he had because he lost all credibility and all semblance of being a reasonable person.
as my4cents pointed out, right on has a habit of changing what he is saying from post to post. kelly mischaracterized what specter "did". right on said she didn't. mmfa obviously thought she did, because that is the focus of this. most of the posters here feel the same way. you can't admit you were wrong and then go back and then repeat the same argument. if you and your friend are "baffled", there isn't much more that can explain it.
Specter was trying to minimize Alito's connection also. If I say "the sky is green" and then someone else says "he rightfully pointed out that the sky is green", that is not a misrepresentation. Here's the key quote (emphasis mine):
I don't see any rebuttal regarding Specter's intent after that. That would be a good point to make, if possible.
Where is the answer to my question about how those two things are separated? If it's acknowledged that she was minimizing Alito's ties to the group, then obviously Specter didn't actually prove anything. So what? If she didn't give his actions credence, then how would she possibly mention what he did while furthering the impression that he clearly was trying to make?
He's not repeating the same argument. They are two separate concepts, as he said. Kelly was minimizing Alito's ties, and at the same time she was conveying what Specter said with complete accuracy. That's how the word "misrepresent" is used. If I relate what someone said in a way that is inconsistent with the impression they clearly meant to make, that is misrepresenting.
As for "friend", you can go shove it. You know better than to pull that binary-brained BS on me. My point is that this antagonism has no basis here, and it discourages him from acting in a reasonable manner since there's no difference in result no matter what he does. Your idiotic suggestion that I have some sort of allegiance or sympathy with him only tells me that you're arguing emotionally, which supports the impression that the extended argument is made from spite instead of reason. If righton is who he is widely believed to be, and I definitely see the basis for that belief myself, then everyone knows that I'm not a fan. But I was somehow able to take the concession and let it go, instead of twisting myself into a pretzel trying to figure out some way of extending the argument.
But Kelly tried to assert that Specter HAD completed a necessary task. Again, he hadn't, so she misrepresented what he DID. He pretended to accomplish something that needed to be accomplished. It was a strawman argument tho, so he doesn't get to claim credit for that accomplishment, and she doesn't get to give him credit for that non-accomplishment.
This is really not that hard to understand, Brabantio, and you usually are up to an argument like this.
Kelly misrepresented the truth, of course. So did Specter. I don't see how she's going to further his point (which is minimizing Alito's CAP ties) without "misrepresenting" what he "did". It's necessary for achieving that goal, because otherwise she's not giving his actions any credence.
So as I asked mefirst, how do you separate this argument from the "minimizing" one? And if you can't, then why shouldn't you accept a concession of the "minimizing" argument as addressing "misrepresenting" at the same time? Without that answer, I fail to see your reasoning for bringing up the question at all.
If there was some "yeah, but" in his response, then there would be grounds to pursue that point. There wasn't. He abandoned several strings of conversation here, and he conceded the main point. So whether or not he originally acted in haste, he corrected himself. This is a good thing. This is preferable to the more common behavior that you're criticizing him for in the very post I'm responding to. If he had played some childish game in response to me, I would have gone on with my point. He didn't, so I didn't.
If this is who we think it is, it's never been a question of that person always being wrong. It's a question of percentage, how many reasonable moments as opposed to off-the-wall fallacies and self-contradictions. Now, if you see an example of proper behavior, such as conceding an argument instead of breaking all rules of logic and reason, then there's no purpose to attacking that or questioning the sincerity of it. It's also incredibly short-sighted. At any point down the road, you can't ever suggest that he should just concede an argument because all he has to do is point to this and say "I tried that before, and this is what I got". What could you say in response? Whether it's likely or not, the possibility that he actually wants to behave better is going to be stymied by knee-jerk antagonism.
That's looking at it logically. Most of us claim at one point or another that we don't hate all conservatives, we just want to deal with reasonable ones. So it only makes sense to make efforts to increase the percentage of reasonable behavior from everyone, otherwise it's clearly counterproductive.
Got that?
He makes the distinction quite clear. He repeats the concession and explains that Spector was not mischaracterized. Some context for "at all", since it clearly makes a difference in interpretation:
The fact that he didn't buy into your "did" argument doesn't mean he was going back on his concession. It means that he feels Spector's intent was not mischaracterized, and that you're merely engaging in a semantic argument. That's his opinion, and you've provided nothing to show why it's unreasonable, much less how it negates the concession. Your argument is redundant, and you've done absolutely nothing to counter that point.
But that's just if you think about it.
I'm not sure where the part about the basing of beliefs is coming from.
JOURNALISTS are not STENOGRAPHERS!!!!