Thursday, January 12, 2006
Alito update: More on the Concerned Alumni of Princeton
[My wife] and I have been comparing memories of C.A.P. from 25 years ago, and I figured that I would add them to yours. [She] wrote for Prospect. They PAID!!! And she went through the try-outs for the University Press Club and they had no problems with her writing. [The University Press Club was a selective group of students who were paid stringers for major papers and wire services, in today's argot the "mainstream media." During my day it included several students who are now very well-known journalists, including New Yorker editor David Remnick, Todd Purdum, until recently with the New York Times, Marc Fischer of the Washington Post, and others. - ed.] She was specifically told at the end of the process that since she was known to be conservative politically they would not accept her -- Republicans and "anti-commmunistas" need not apply. This was specifically not based on any of the articles she wrote for the try-outs, but on the surmise that her writings might show a conservative slant in the future. She was bummed at the time because she could have used the income! [TigerHawk was also rejected by the University Press Club -- I still remember the glum look on David Remnick's face when he delivered the news. However, I did not hear that my political views were on the table -- my rejection appears to have been on the merits... - ed.]
CAP was reacting to that atmosphere on campus....
Both of our recollections are that the avowed aims of CAP were pretty non-controversial in a very National Review kinda way, but that they did also attract the real disgruntled flakes who held all sorts of wacko opinions. I seem to recollect that Prospect had a letters section....scary thought -- was this where Teddy was reading from?
Alito's ROTC issue was still very much alive in the period 79-83. The ROTC people that I knew did have to travel off-campus. ROTC was in those barrack-like hovels alongside Palmer stadium next to Washington Street that were left over from the Manhattan project. It was the back of beyond and the nastiest spot the University could find to put them in.
I also had friends in ROTC, including several in the NROTC Marines program. They had to go elsewhere -- I think Rutgers -- because the Navy did not return to Princeton after its expulsion. This much I do know, because my father was Navy ROTC at Princeton in the previously discussed Class of 1957, and regarded the ejection of the Navy as a great loss to both institutions. He was in this undoubtedly correct.
While my ardor for Alito has cooled slightly since he snarked on children of alumni and members of all-male eating clubs, the idea that mere membership in CAP amounted to an endorsement of every whacko thing ever written by every member is asinine. CAP was conservative, to be sure, but it took legitimate political positions (against coeducation and affirmative action, pro- ROTC). Its primary purpose was to fight the unapologetic leftism that had dug into the campus during the seventies. If anything, it was an amateurish precursor of David Horowitz's various groups, bespoke for Princeton.
UPDATE: Cass sent me this link to Byron York at the Corner, who reports that Kennedy's staff came up with nothing in the CAP papers William Rusher provided:
Committee Staff reviewed more than four boxes of documents from the personal files of William Rusher concerning CAP.
Judge Alito’s name NEVER appears in any document of any kind anywhere:
* His name was not mentioned in any of the letters to or from founder William Rusher.
* His name was not mentioned in any of the letters to or from CAP’s long-time 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 exposés written at the height of the organization’s prominence, but Sam Alito’s name is nowhere to be found in any of them.
* Rusher’s files contain lists of the board of directors, the advisory board, and contributors to both CAP and Prospect magazine, but none of the lists contains Alito’s name.
* Tellingly, the files contain minutes and attendance records from CAP meetings in 1983 and 1984—just before Alito listed the organization on his job application, but Alito did not attend those meetings and he was not even mentioned in the minutes.
* The files contain dozens of issues of CAP’s magazine, but none of the articles was written by, quoted, or even mentioned Sam Alito.
As our friends on the left say so often, stick a fork in it.
17 Comments:
By 
Cassandra, at
Thu Jan 12, 03:06:00 PM:
Anyone want to bet this dies down and they start in on the Federalist Society?
I was tracking the Constitution in Exile rumors as a dark horse for a while too just because the paranoid conspiracy theories are so funny, but I think that's too ridiculous even for Ted Kennedy.
By 
, at
Thu Jan 12, 03:08:00 PM:
My recollection is that by 1982, CAP's sole effect on the university campus was to greatly annoy president William Bowen. I'm sure the editors of the "Prince" and contributors to PAW occasionally worked themselves into a froth over CAP as well. I don't recall CAP publishing anything more venomous than what came from the left.
That is what I can remember. I'm fairly certain that I browsed a few issues of "Prospect" back then. Then again, this former "Polish Revolutionary" had more important things to do.
By , at
Thu Jan 12, 04:02:00 PM:
Guess I am double-snarked as son of alum and all-male eating club member. I wasn't planning on running for office or applying for an appointed government position, fortunately.
Indespensible -- may I assume that you are the "Polish Revolutionary" in'82 who was also in an all-male club?
TIGOBLUE
By TigerHawk, at
Thu Jan 12, 04:12:00 PM:
If Polish Revolutionary sends me his email address I will happily pass it along to TIGOBLUE.
By , at
Thu Jan 12, 04:20:00 PM:
Yes, you assume correctly.
In case you are wondering about "IndispensableDestiny," it has to do with Maryland politics.
By Gordon Smith, at
Thu Jan 12, 04:23:00 PM:
Y'all have managed to go through this whole process without ever once focusing on Alito's judicial record. Bravo.
The whole thing stinks to high heaven, and shame on the Democrats for not having the nuts to call the man a liar for "forgetting", for changing his story on Vanguard, and for not openly discussing the role his "moot court" mentors play in the cases he may soon be deciding.
Alito is anti-abortion, but he runs away from this stance during testimony. He is anti-affirmative action, but he runs away from this during testimony. He is against environmental legislation. He is against congressional oversight of the executive. The man is a menace.
Think Progress, who Cassandra holds in the highest regard, has more on this.
It's a nasty piece of theater that the corporate media hasn't taken at all seriously. And then I come here to get a thinkpiece on the guy and it's all chuckles about white guy's clubs. It's embarrassing really. I don't know what I'll tell the grandchildren.
By Charlottesvillain, at
Thu Jan 12, 04:38:00 PM:
Screwie, you can tell them John Kerry lost the election of 2004.
Regardless of his personal views, there is little evidence that Alito is an idealog. He sounds like a good judge to me.
Who cares if he is against abortion. It will never be illegal again, and you know it. If you're lucky, RvW will be overturned, the legislature will sort things out, and you won't have to explain to your grandchildren why every question must be viewed through the lens of abortion. Its a ridiculous place to be at this place in our history, and is a big contributor, IMO, to the stunning collapse of Democratic Party fortunes over the last ten years.
By TigerHawk, at
Thu Jan 12, 05:09:00 PM:
Screwy, how do you think confirmation hearings are supposed to go? He's not supposed to state political views, and the Senators aren't supposed to ask them. You can get "all critical legal studies" on me and say that all law is just politics, but that's not the prevailing paradigm, even post Bork, Thomas, etc.
But here's the real point: there has been plenty of focus on his judicial record -- he has sat in almost 5000 cases. I have stayed up late watching between 6-8 hours of hearings replayed on C-Span, and most of the discussion, when there is discussion, is about particular cases. The problem is, there isn't much discussion. In this case, it isn't because of Alito -- he isn't charming his way through the way Roberts seemed to do -- it is because of the Democratic Senators. Friggin' Joe Biden, the smartest of the lot by a good margin, talked for 25 minutes before he even got to a question! Didja see the graphic in the New York Times? So the Democratic Senators make speeches about the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, eating clubs, etc., and we derivative types in the blogosphere respond. And this blog is in a particularly good position to respond, because I was on campus in the early eighties, and my father was in the Class of 1957, the reunion of which gave rise to the Frederick Foote article that started this ball rolling over the weekend.
Also, we have delivered some substance as well -- I have yet to hear a good response to my post on the Ted Kennedy's attack on freedom of association. That business yesterday was outrageous, and if a Republican tried it against a leftist group the media would have exploded with indignation. Instead, nada.
I'm sure Sam Alito would like nothing more than to talk cases, but the Democrats aren't interested in that because he has them massively overmatched. So they talk trash, and we talk about them talking trash.
Finally, Screwy, the fact that you even bring up the Vanguard case shows how messed up this discussion is. The case was, in effect (although not formally), an "interpleader" case, in which Vanguard was merely trying to figure out who among contending parties owned some assets under its management. It was not at risk for any liability itself, and did not, in the abstract, care what the outcome was. Yes, it was technically a party, but in practice it was not. This is entirely different from a case in which Vanguard might actually have something to lose. It is not a legal conflict of interest -- not according to any conflict rules I know of -- and while it technically violates the "promise" embedded in Alito's questionnaire answer, the facts are so different from those we normally worry about in judicial conflict matters that it is really hard to see what all the fuss is about (other than the obvious -- a defense of Roe v. Wade and other case law cherished by the left).
By , at
Thu Jan 12, 05:16:00 PM:
Screwy,
Will you apply the same standard to Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsberg?
http://www.nationalreview.com/whelan/whelan200511151448.asp
http://levin.nationalreview.com/archives/086968.asp
*crickets*
Didn't think so.
By , at
Thu Jan 12, 05:19:00 PM:
As someone posted at Blamebush.org, a fine progressive site, there should be no fear that Alito will abort Roe v. Wade.
And since it wasn't original with me, and I fergit who posted it, let me also say that I find high irony in feminists telling government to get out of their wombs, while demanding that government give them a choice...one they have always had without it.
By Cardinalpark, at
Thu Jan 12, 05:30:00 PM:
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/SusanSullivan/2006/01/12/182113.html
Screwy: Please go read the attached op-ed piece from Susan Sullivan, a former clerk of Alito's and avowed liberla, as you will read.
Then please take a quaalude or something to chill out. He's not a menace. He's the living, breathing example of the American dream working, exactly what a proper liberal should rejoice in. As opposed to a pacifist, reactionary...like you maybe?
By DWPittelli, at
Thu Jan 12, 09:23:00 PM:
"His name does not appear anywhere in the dozens of letters".
Wanna bet the next attack is that Alito lied or exaggerated when he "proudly" claimed membership in CAP?
By Doug, at
Fri Jan 13, 06:54:00 AM:
Laura Ingraham edited their magazine early on.
Judge Napalitano hired her.
He reports that the demise of ROTC occurred after the ROTC Building was BURNED to the ground by leftist radicals, and the damned university would not rebuild!
The Princeton Faculty did not want to consider the ROTC instructors part of their faculty even though one was a Stanford PhD, and another was a Georgetown PhD.
The famous quotations used by Kennedy were from an article that was supposed to be read as Satire!
Far be it from the Paleoprogressives to appreciate humor.
By TigerHawk, at
Fri Jan 13, 07:33:00 AM:
Doug, he knew damned well it was satire. He was being extremely disingenuous. The fact that the mainstream media did not make note of this point is yet another example of how horrendous it is, at least whenever it thinks abortion is on the line.
By Cassandra, at
Fri Jan 13, 08:59:00 AM:
How can you say that Doug?
Progressyves appreciate humor!
Look how much unintended humor they generously provide on a daily basis. Here's an example:
http://littledemocrats.net/index.html
ThinkProgressyve alone generates enough of a laugh quotient to keep me going for about a week with just a single post.
Smile, Screwy :)
By Gordon Smith, at
Fri Jan 13, 09:02:00 AM:
Cardinalpark,
Whenever a pro-war water carrier for the Republicans starts telling me what a proper liberal ought to feel, I'd better perk up my ears and listen. You're a pissy one.
To everyone else -
Anti Affirmative Action
Anti Enviro Regulations
Anti the Little Guy v. Corporate interests
(and anti that thing that no one likes to talk about so we'll call it privacy)
Anti Privacy Rights
and
It appears he'll be happy to get Bush off the hook should any of his extralegal activities get as far as the SCOTUS.
and
When a judge has a financial interest (especially as big as Alito's was) in a corporation before his court, he ought to recuse himself. There's this little tid called "appearance of impropriety" even if the guy a really, really swell guy who would Never NEVER sell his vote. No dice, Hawk.
The whole thing stinks.
By TigerHawk, at
Fri Jan 13, 09:13:00 AM:
But Screwy, the whole point was that the Judge didn't have a financial interest in the corporation before his court. He held assets under management. The Dems position on this makes no more sense than saying that if a judge has a Citibank credit card he should not adjudicate cases in which one of the parties is also a Citibank debtor. Less sense, in fact, because in both those situations it is Citibank with the theoretical leverage.
