Posted on 01/26/2006 10:22:20 PM PST by Congressman Billybob
On 12 January, 2006, the New York Times ran an article entitled “Thrust into the Limelight, and for Some A Symbol of Washington’s Bite.” It was a mini-biography of Mrs. Martha-Ann Alito, and it purported to explain the reasons for Mrs. Alito’s tears during her husband Samuel’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. It blamed them on a follow-up question by Senator Lindsay Graham, rather than on the verbal savaging of Judge Alito by the Democrats on the Committee, led by Senator Ted Kennedy.
The Times should have gotten the story right, because one of the three reporters on the story was in their New Jersey Bureau, and based in Caldwell. But they didn’t. Here are the operative paragraphs from that article on the cause of her tears:
She has sat behind him [her husband] all week, a pleasant-looking woman in sensible clothes, peering through rimless glasses as Democrats grilled Judge Alito about his investments and his affiliation with a conservative Princeton alumni group and Republicans tried to provide him some relief.
On Wednesday, one of those Republicans, Mr. Graham, tried to mock the Democrats with a question about the alumni group, which opposed affirmative action.
"Are you really a closet bigot?" Mr. Graham asked, at which point Mrs. Alito drew her hands to her face and left the hearing room weeping.
Source: http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F20C14FD3C5B0C708DDDA80894DE404482
As the article explained, Mrs. Alito is “fiercely protective” of her husband. And she was upset by the attacks on him as if he were dishonest, or a bigot, or a poor judge. But there was an additional reason, much older and much darker than what happened at that hearing. It concerns the fact that Senator Kennedy led the attack against Judge Alito.
Mrs, Alito was born Martha-Ann Bomgardner in Ft. Knox, Kentucky. The family moved with her father’s profession as an air traffic controller to New Jersey, where she attended Rancocas Valley Regional High School in Mount Holly. After earning bachelor’s and master’s degrees at the University of Kentucky, she returned to New Jersey and became a librarian in the US Attorney’s office, where she met her husband.
Through her husband’s family, she learned of their personal friendship with another young woman who was also an only child. This other woman and her family were staunch Catholics. On occasion, they attended the same church in Roseland, New Jersey, as the Alitos, Our Lady of the Blessed Sacrament, one of only two churches in that town of 5,298. The Alitos live in Caldwell, population 7,584, where this other woman graduated from Caldwell College, probably as a commuter student from her home, rather than a resident student.
From the personal memories of this woman that Mrs. Alito got from her husband’s family, and from her own understanding of what it means to be an only child, Mrs. Alito knew of the worst thing that any human being could do to another. She also heard of its impact on the family.
That other woman’s name was Mary Jo Kopeckne. She was killed by Senator Ted Kennedy, in an auto accident on Chappaquiddick Island, Massachusetts, on 18 July, 1969. That was the other reason for Mrs. Alito’s tears.
[Author’s notes: The author did not bother any of the three families referred to here in writing this. All the information was gathered from reputable Internet sources. If the Times puts a competent reporter on the story, it can find the same information. It should also then apologize for its original article, in which the three reporters presented their personal assumptions as facts on the cause of Mrs. Alito’s upset at the hearing.]
John_Armor@aya.yale.edu
You don't have to tell me. You misunderstood my earlier post.
I have a copy of your filth. And I will keep it.
>>>I wonder if we will ever know the Truth about the depravity of the Kennedy family?<<<
We mere mortals will never know. I take significant comfort in knowing there is at least One in heaven that does.
>>>I have a copy of your filth. And I will keep it.<<<
Can we trust you to keep it intact, or doctor it in some way to portray Congressman Billybob in a false light?
I don't trust you...
From what I learned from Edgartown locals (always talk to the cab drivers) at the time of the event, you are most likely right that they had no relationship.
I think most of it is out there to see.
Like one of the Supremes said, "I know it when I see it." That's not filth - it's funny. I suspect the mod pulled it because it just didn't fit the context of this thread. I kept a copy too. It will go out in some emails today, but not in conjunction with this story by the Critter Billy Bob.
Please, lighten up.
I don't trust you...
I have an unaltered JPEG and documented correspondence with the Admin Mod.
I am also sending your comment (with my graphical record) to Jim Robinson for safe-keeping.
Great! The more to prove you a loon the better. Thank you very much. Really.
The Coast Guard requires that Kennedy keep flotation vests and emergency flares on board each of his automobiles now.
I read an article years ago which had an interesting take on Chappaquiddick
The article stated this premis:
Teddy and MaryJoe were drunk leaving the party
They may have had a tryst
At some point Teddy gets out lets her drive the car while he walked home alone and goes to sleep
The Constable(or someone) finds the car in the water, calls Teddy ...
He goes to the car dives in the water finds Mary Joe,calls his lawyer .
Because of the law it was better for Teddy if he claims he is driving the car instead of giving it to a drunk woman unfamiliar with the road.
They cook up the accident BS..
Teddy has to live with it but "gets off " and is not indicted for man-slaugter.
Ever hear this one?
I was impressed with the article as it works out a number of inconsistencies
You seem to be missing a point.
Your repost here has been removed and the original, elsewhere, has not.
If the post was removed for its "filthiness," then the original, being that it is the exact same picture, is equally filthy and would have been removed as well.
I'm guessing that your repost of the picture was removed from this thread because it was a distracting, disruptive, irrelevant, embarrassing element herein.
I hope you're asleep.
I did nothing but post a screen print of his post. If it's embarassing, that's his fault.
Thanks for reminding me. I will post a link to the original!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.