California Conservative

That’s the headline on Drudge’s frontpage and it’s something to be wary of. It seems that Demcorats are totally content with being ‘The Party Of The Endless Smear Campaign’. They can’t defeat Alito on the merits so they turn to their ‘Anita Hill Playbook’. Here are the details:

Senate Democrats have put into place a plan that includes one last push to take down the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito as he heads into his confirmation hearing next week, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. Senate Democrats intend to zero in on Alito’s alleged membership to an organization, a witness will claim, that was sexist, racist and out-of-the-mainstream on a variety of issues.

The star witness on the Senate Democrats newly unveiled witness list for Alito’s hearing is freelance journalist Stephen Dujack. Dujack is a ’76 Princeton graduate and a longtime critic of Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP). Dujack was the author of a highly critical 1986 op-ed in the PRINCETON ALUMNI WEEKLY titled “The Contradictions Of CAP.” Dujack slammed the group for its policies opposing Princeton’s decision to admit women and minorities.

Dujack now says: “Judge Alito will have to explain to the Senate Judiciary Committee why he paid dues to an outfit whose modus operandi was deceit and dirty tricks. He will have to explain how he permitted himself to belong to an organization that was overtly racist and sexist for its entire 14-year existence, at times passionately so, too.”

However, THE DRUDGE REPORT has learned the Democrats’ star witness comes with baggage of his own. Dujack penned an op-ed in 2003 that compared farm animals to Holocaust victims and gave money to the Kerry presidential campaign. In the April 21, 2003 LOS ANGELES TIMES, Dujack wrote: “Like the victims of the Holocaust, animals are rounded up, trucked hundreds of miles to the kill floor and slaughtered.” Dujack went on, “To those who defend the modern-day Holocaust on animals by saying that animals are slaughtered for food and give us sustenance, I ask: if the victims of the Holocaust had been eaten, would that have justified the abuse and murder?”

In 1987, while Dujack was editor of THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL, a picture on its cover showed a readable copy of the government’s most sensitive intelligence document, the CIA’s National Intelligence Daily. At the time, THE NEW YORK TIMES reported that when government officials questioned Dujack, the individual who took the photograph, about giving up the slide, he “responded the he would refer the matter to counsel but that he doubted he would accede, citing freedom of the press guaranteed under the first amendment.”

THE DRUDGE REPORT has also uncovered a purported $2,000 donation Dujack made to John Kerry’s presidential campaign in 2004.
One Republican strategist warned, “Democrats plan on making this hearing all about personal smears. If their star witness to do this compares eating a Big Mac to what the Nazis did during the Holocaust, they better rethink their strategy.”

It seems to me that this man’s allegations won’t play well with Americans. They’ll be utterly repulsed when they hear about his likening the slaughter of animals to the Holocaust. They’ll question him for his publishing this highly classified document that likely put operatives in harms way just for a headline. And they’ll discount his testimony as that of a paid political operative once his campaign contributions are brought into the light of day.

If Democrats intend on playing hardball, then Republicans had best come with their ammunition to shoot right back.

Finally, I’d advise the RNC to use this man’s words in internet and paid commercials, starting the day that he testifies. There’s no reason for this man’s record to not be brought into plain view of the American people.

They want to play rough. Fine. Let’s start throwing punches and see who’s left standing. I’ll put my money on Senate Republicans in this fight.

UPDATE: Foxnews.com is reporting that Stephen Dujack has been scratched from the list of witnesses to be called by Judiciary Committee Democrats. Here’s a portion of their article:

In a November editorial in the Daily Princetonian, a university publication, Dujack wrote: “From its founding in 1972 till its unlamented demise in 1986, CAP was an organization that at first openly opposed full coeducation and the representative inclusion of minorities at Princeton, and then when those became ’settled issues,’ continued its opposition to the mere presence of women and minorities at Princeton through tactics ranging from code words to open harassment.”
—–
Stephen R. Dujack, editor of The Environmental Forum magazine and fellow Princeton University alumnus, was expected to testify about a controversial student organization that counted Alito as a member. Dujack confirmed to FOXNews.com late Friday that he was no longer testifying, but said he could not elaborate.

That’s an interesting choice of words. Why can’t Mr. Dujack elaborate? After all, this is America and we do have First Amendment protection to say what’s on our mind, don’t we? Or is Mr. Dujack saying that he prefers not to have become a national laughingstock? That isn’t quite the same as saying that you CAN’T elaborate, is it?

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRing

This entry was posted on Saturday, January 7th, 2006 at 12:00 pm and is filed under Activism, Author: Gary Gross, Judiciary, Law, Liberals. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.