Thursday, January 12, 2006

Cry me a river, Martha Alito

Voted in high school "Most Likely to Get Misty," I have trouble not sympathizing when someone is moved to tears -- over practically anything.

Previous sodden blog entries attest to the fact everything from little kids Christmas pageants, good songs to, oh, watching fellow citizens die on the streets can and does make me cry. But Mrs. Alito's strange outburst yesterday is beyond words. Ditto for the media feeding frenzy over it, and the right-wing's attempt to use female tears as political talking points.

Where were these bloggers and media for the ten years Oxy Limbaugh made fun of Chelsea Clinton and Hillary's moments of public displays of emotion? I mean, if crying in response to tough questioning makes the questioners such meanies, their collective silence on the two ladies' above, as well as taking a hardline against Katrina victims, screams hypocrisy of the highest order.

Martha Alito's tears strike me as both opportunistic and shallow. Sue me.

For three days she's been a disruptive, smirking presence in the Senate, mostly during serious questioning of her husband's self-professed affiliation with Concerned Alumni of Princeton, or CAP.

If my husband chose to affiliate with a group of raging misogynists, I'd cry, too. But I'd have divorced him, either before 1985 or right after he proudly noted this relationship on his resume.

If my husband promoted strip-searches of ten year olds, I'd bawl my eyes out. But we'd be talking child support, visitation and alimony ten minutes later.

Frankly, I'd be weeping most of the time just reading his judicial opinions. And then introducing them as Exhibits A-Z in the divorce proceedings.

It's hard to muster up a whole lot of sympathy for a woman who chooses to stay with someone like Sam Alito, other than to wonder what type of internal war she must have with herself: "Do I support my husband more than myself? Does his lack of support for women in general translate into disrespect for me?"

Mrs. Alito, take a look around: from Iraq to Katrina, our economy beholden to Asia, the civil liberties your husband and others are taking away from United States' citizens, there's plenty of real, serious issues you could cry over.

Unless, of course, your tears indicate newfound understanding of why a Republican like Lindsey Graham (who, incidentally, was part of last weekend's "dress rehearsal" of Alito's hearings....hmmm) would actually have to ask your husband if he was a closeted bigot.

Perhaps you were crying because he's not really in the closet on his views, and you know it firsthand.

Please show me where I assigned blame on who made her cry?
Please show me where I gave a reason for her tears?

Your mendacity is clear.
Your empathy with people's pain is astonishing!

Could it not have simply been just a bit much even for those hardened to the political arena?

I stand by what I said Anne, simple human compassion for someone hurting.
Great post - this is the first time I've visited your blog, but I'll be back for more.

Given that we don't know why Mrs. Alito was actually crying it's a bit dishonest to call it "simple human pain."

For all you know, she was crying over the stress of the proceeding, crying out of pride for her husband given Graham's glowing tribute, or crying from physical distress.

The problem I have is the fact people such as yourself are trying to turn her tears into a Republican drum beat. Without reason. Without proof. For political gain.
Kilo, you ask:

Please show me where I assigned blame on who made her cry?
Please show me where I gave a reason for her tears?

One need only click on your name and read your own blog post on the subject. The implications are quite clear:

"We all know that Alito's wife left the hearings in tears, only to return hand in hand with her husband. What a bad move by the dems."

Now, who is mendacious, again? Why, that would be you for implying Dems are to blame for the unknown cause of Mrs. Alito's tears.
And if I were married to a bitch like you, I would have divorced you well before 1985.

And why did Graham have to ask the question? Because after the multiple statements by DemoHack Senators, it was time to give the man a chance to face the question directly. After all, the DemoHacks were more than willing to make the charge implicitly, but not one of them had the testicular fortitude to actually make the charge.
Testicular fortitude, RWR? Are you implying that courage has is connected to testicles? I'm sure Ann is crushed that a gem like you doesn't want to be married to her.

They have nothing substantive to add to the conversation, being fully aware that in order to get Alito passed through the nomination process he had to be stripped, fumigated, and redressed as a faux Cary Grant.

Which really proves one thing: the "mainstream" is not conservative, and would be appalled at Alito's real positions and views. So they had to hide them.

Because of that, all they can do to support Alito is devolve into a "lowest common denomination" discussion, regressing to comments on genitalia.

Perhaps next we'll get a great insult on dear old mom!

In this kind of climate, I suggest we go play dodgeball or hopscotch and leave thickheaded bullies like that swinging from their monkey bars.
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours? : He's On Our Side
Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Image hosted by