Remember Mrs. Alito?

note: Lynn and Liz Cheney.

They're ridiculous for the things they go out and argue as public figures. They make themselves spokespersons for dumb causes, so they're not off limits. If Lynn just stuck to writing naughty cowgirl novels, I'd say leave her alone.

Barbara got out there and mixed it up, called Geraldine Ferraro a bitch long before there even was a GD:P.

But other political spouses don't go out there and make themselves opinion shapers. Laura Bush is an example--she did less as FLOTUSILF than any FLOTUS since Mamie Eisenhower. She went out for public photo ops, but unlike Hillary Clinton or Barbara Bush or Nancy Reagan, she didn't play a leading role in any public debates. A better contrast would be Michelle and Jill. Michelle is everywhere making America a little better. Jill plays a public role when called upon to join someone on stage, but mostly she's a lit professor. I don't get too worked up if Michelle ends up in an unflattering cartoon (it wouldn't work anyway). Jill's just doing her job.

Alito's wife stood by her man--an admirable quality--and got emotional in a vulnerable moment, but never asked for a public role. I don't see the point in holding her up to ridicule, which I gathered to be the intent of the OP.

They have the wife put on a show and everyone backs off. I wonder how poor Mrs. Alito would react to the names Sonia Sotomayor is being called.

...that when Democrats brought up his membership in an organization whose express intention was to block the advancement of women at Princeton, pointing it out during questioning was seen as "off limits" -- among other reasons, because it made his wife cry. Yet those same people who thought the Democrats went too far, are at this very moment accusing Ms. Sotomayor of being a racist because of a statement she made 8 years ago that was really pretty mild, and because she's a Latina and therefore cannot be expected to put aside her own biases (unlike the white men, who, of course, always put aside their biases because they, in fact, do not have any biases). So he gets to be a member of a bigoted organization and we are not allowed to point it out, while the other side can accuse Sotomayor of being racist just because they feel like it, and no one says they've gone too far.

That's what I thought the point was, not to mock Mrs. Alito.

If her emotional reaction is going to be used against her husband's critics, then the door is open for analysis of her, as well. If she wants to be there to support him, fine. But she should sit quietly and refrain from offering her own little testimonial.

her husband. i mean, forget her husband, just look at all the attacks on her. and she never went out there and cried about it.

not be permited in the court where the killer is being tried.

How's this parallel?

hearing in which someone they love has something personal at stake.

Why is my analogy so confusing?

Someone will always see the emotional response from connected parties in any intense hearing that is televised.

How can you ban that? And why should we?

EDIT:

Obviously, this is just my opinion, which is worth zilch. I don't actually recall the media "using" that, but if you say so, I agree.

I think the media use the emotion of "loved ones" all the time, especially in criminal trials.

In fact, a better word than "use" is simply "exploit." Emotion sells. It is the common denominator of all drama, and has been as long as two sides have opposed each other.

Alito is one of the most dangerous people to ever be seated on the Supreme Court. He is a member of the secret cult of Opus Dei. This cult is determined to destroy the Republic and establish a theocracy. He is no different than the extremist Taliban. These madmen are deter minded to bring about a confrontation between the Islam and Christianity. These are the same end-time nitwits that took us into war in the Middle East with their dreams of bringing about the Parousia.

tougher than the toughest, bravest Liberal Man ...

but poow widdle Misses Alito went and cwied because someone suggested her husband might have not been truthful ...

while BUsh was speaking.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

He credited himself with belonging to an organization opposed to women and minorities attending Princeton, he wrote it on his resume, and when it came up in the confirmation hearings she stomped out of the room until the questions stopped. He credited himself with the affiliation, Congress questioned his stance, and you call that a smear? I won't bother to welcome you to DU, if you're still here.

You share hobbies with both Dick Cheney and Clarence Thomas.

:eyes:

This is perfect comeback for all the right wing koolaid drinking family and others I have to deal with in my life who say one word about Sotomayor's statement that the rw msm can't seem to get enough of.
And will someone remind me: did the grand old CNN have an extra running banner when H fucking Meyers was nominated???
That should be KO's WTF!!
I know I'm not the only one sick of seeing that!