Conason: Alito's ugly association (CAP)

[kskiska]

It's easy to tell when conservatives feel most embarrassed by a particular political revelation because indignation immediately swells while memory grows dim. Whatever the outcome of Samuel Alito's Supreme Court nomination, his membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton is the kind of issue that conservatives clearly prefer to avoid.

They don't like to be reminded of their historical opposition to civil rights, their continuing hostility to the advancement of minorities, or their bad habit of coddling and cultivating bigots.

That is why Sen. Orrin Hatch angrily demanded to know why anyone would dare ask Alito about CAP, why Sen. Lindsay Graham theatrically apologized to Alito and his family about the controversy, and why author Dinesh D'Souza, who once edited the organization's magazine, dismissed the subject as a "diversion." That is why Fox News and the conservative media are exploiting his wife's tears to suggest that those questions were somehow illegitimate.

That is also why Alito himself has claimed to be unable to recall his decision to join the reactionary group of wealthy Princeton graduates (founded in 1972), which became notorious for its opposition to women and minorities on campus, its vicious bigotry against homosexuals, and its defense of the interests of affluent white male alumni and their sons. A convenient credential back when he was applying for a post in the Reagan administration, where his résumé would be perused only by like-minded right-wingers, membership in CAP became troublesome under the hot lights of a Supreme Court nomination hearing.

more…
http://salon.com/opinion/conason/2006/01/13/alito_controversy/

[KeepItReal]

1. If I had joined "Concerned Brothas"...think I could get a Supreme's slot?

Being a member of a group advocating against less White males and females at my University?

And all I'd have to say is that I don't remember doing anything with the group??

Yeah, right...


:eyes:

[AlGuest]

2. loads of BS in there

As a percentage more members of the Republican party voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964
than Democrats. Also there was a guy called Abe Lincoln...

:)

[leftstreet]

3. ...

:popcorn:

[MADem]

5. Well, if the article was ABOUT the Civil Rights Act, or Abe Lincoln

...that might be a valid point! But it is about Alito and CAP...and his attempts to polish a turd.

[AlGuest]

8. what about this part?

"They don't like to be reminded of their historical opposition to civil rights, their continuing hostility to the advancement of minorities, or their bad habit of coddling and cultivating bigots."

Seems like my point is valid given this remark in the article.

[MADem]

11. Historical opposition to civil rights

isn't just talking about the Civil Rights Act. But that aside, many of the "Democrats" who voted against it switched to the GOP, publicly changed their stance or got out of politics, so that's a matter of philosophical viewpoint, not what your voter registration happens to be at the time a vote was taken. If the Democrat/Dixiecrats are so damned successful, they'd have all the seats and Dems would win all of the south in national elections, wouldn't they? Nixon's "southern strategy" wouldn't have work, now, would it have? Not an awful lot of the people who voted on that measure are alive today. It ain't an accident that the GOP standard-bearer back in those days, Barry Goldwater, also voted aginst the 64 act.

Two rather famous examples of Republicans who used to be Democrats, and switched because of the Civil Rights plank of the Democratic Party platform: Strom Thurmond (who filibustered the bill for over a DAY), and Jesse Helms...the other big Dixiecrats either changed their tune and atoned (Robert Byrd, e.g., who has apologized innumerable times for his actions) or retired. Trent Lott used to be a Democrat in his youth, isn't that interesting?

But civil rights isn't just a vote back in 57 or 64--if you think that, you're high. It is also about real world issues of import today, about choice, it's about affirmative action, rights for gays, rights for people of all faiths or no faith at all...all the things that are Enemies of the GOP state. And how can you possibly take issue with the remark about coddling and cultivating bigots? Two words: Pat Robertson. Two more: Bill O'Reilly (DildO Really).

Seems like you are drinking kool aid and getting "talking points" from a bad crowd. Why are you here? What is your goal? Your points are not valid, they are crap. I think you may have taken a wrong turn on these here internets, frankly.

[gabeana]

10. coservatives

 Conason clearly is talking about conservatives not
republicans.There once was such a thing as liberal republican
in our past such as La Guardia and LaFollette to name just two
but the liberal republican is extinct.Look at the history of
our country conservative have been on the wrong side of every
great endeavor that has tried to correct an injustice in our
nations history. The abolition of slavery was pushed and
prodded by liberal factions in the U.S. Lincoln is the
antithesis of what republicans/conservatives are today Imagine
how would the republicans would react to the president
interfering in an state issue (slavery)by force. According to
the right the south was victim look up Gale norton, ashcroft,
spencer abraham on this issue. For the civil rights act many
southern democrats switched to the republican party and
vice-versa. Leon panetta and Norm Minetta both republicans
switched to the democratic party because of the stance of
republicans/nixon on civil rights. It is important to be clear
and know accurate approach your thinking in a critical
fashion. :) 

[AlGuest]

12. article is still inaccurate

I know a little about the civil right movement. The Republicans who voted
in favor of civil rights were a mix of "conservatives" and "liberals". This
fact can be found by simply looking up the voting records of the time. The
writer of the artical did not do any research and just sings the same
old "conservatives are bigots" song that's long been shown to be untrue.
Voting against big government programs that create new definitions of
"underprivileged" and spending billions accomplishing nothing is not
bigotry. This issue of Alito's membership of CAP 25 years ago is completely
bogus and is why 75% of the public thinks he deserves a vote in
the Senate. And no, I don't believe it's because the public is stupid
like some have suggested on this board.

And yes I do happen to support Alito and I am thinking critically. There
are some here who are just repeating Sen Kennedy's remarks rather than doing
their own research into what Alito actually stands for and that's not
critical thinking.

[MADem]

13. Alito's first political hero was Barry Goldwater, who voted against the

Civil Rights act and was the GOP standard bearer against LBJ. Go back and check the GOP party platform back when the first act was passed. They didn't want federal protections for civil rights. By their words and deeds we know them. You aren't thinking critically, you are spouting GOP talking points.

But you are correct in one point, you do know a little--a very little, and what you do know is inaccurate--about the civil rights act. You might want to read more scholarly "articles" in your quest for knowledge.

[gabeana]

14. could I get a list of the conservatives

please give me the names of these conservative republicans that supported the civil rights act. by the way the voting went according to regional lines not party line and I do know that the republicans that did support it were of the moderate wing However are your telling me that the southern strategy never happened that was implemented by nixon which was crafted by Kevin Phillips? Or that reagan did not go to Philadelphia, Mississippi and his speech to kick off his campaign did not use the white racist code word "States Rights" Or that reagan in his 1966 campaign to become Governor of California, endorsed repeal of California's Fair Housing Act, saying, "If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, it is his right to do so."

Now tell me something do you believe in the 14th amendment and 15th amendment or is that the govt overstepping its jurisdiction in to state affairs? That was the argument of the segregationists.

[MADem]

4. This guy who founded CAP--a real neanderthal asshole

as Conason notes: The founder and chief financial supporter of CAP was an immensely wealthy investment banker named Shelby Cullom Davis, who served as ambassador to Switzerland under President Nixon and, aside from his enormous generosity to his alma mater, spent his fortune promoting right-wing causes and institutions. Davis made no secret of his opinion that diversity at Princeton, including the admission of women, was identical with decline. In "The Chosen," a recent history of admission policies at Harvard, Yale and Princeton by Jerome Karabel, Davis is quoted trumpeting his nostalgia for the homogeneity of his father's college class -- meaning an era when the Ivy League admitted no women, virtually no blacks or Hispanics and precious few Jews.

Demanding a reduction in the number of women and minorities permitted to enroll, Davis opposed sex-blind admissions as well as affirmative action (except for the children of alumni, of course). "Why should not a goal of 10 percent to 20 percent women and minorities be appropriate for Princeton's long-term strength and future?" he wondered.

With lavish subsidies from Davis, who also spent millions to help found the Heritage Foundation around the same time, CAP published a magazine called Prospect, which expressed the same sentiments, though sometimes in far coarser terms. Among the editors of Prospect was D'Souza, a Dartmouth graduate who has endorsed the repeal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and has argued that what Americans regard as racism is only common-sense discrimination. ...


Stinking rich old coot...it's always all about money with them. He died in '94, and I think the Heritage Foundation funding is about to run out--I think it was a limited grant. From what I can tell, the guy was rolling in dough, and spread it around to his causes...pity he didn't go broke, we'd probably all be better off.

[minkyboodle]

6. Dinesh D'Souza

the man that dated both Ann Coulter and Laura Ingram.....nuff said :)
this was a great article btw.

[CottonBear]

7. See post #2. The Lincoln was a Republican argument is a favorite. n/t

[CottonBear]

9. Republicans try to deny rights & Democrats work to give rights

This is the real issue at hand. No matter how much the GOP wants to deny this, they can't. No ammendment to the US constitution has ever stood that denied rights to the American people.