January 09, 2006

Intelligent, Hot, Conservative Men?

I love Samuel Alito. I just heard him speak, and he's got sort of a cute nasal-y voice. Everyone knows that I have a thing for Supreme Judicial Hottie John Roberts, but could Samuel Alito give him a run for the money in my heart? I'm thinking that he's definitely on his way. We already know that he bags his own groceries, is a devoted family man, has a thing for pizza, and is brillaint, mild-mannered and unfailingly polite, one of the most likeable people you'll ever meet, humble, gracious and admirable, and very smart, if a touch shy and awkward.

His music tastes tend toward Beethoven and Bruce Springsteen [can't agree with him there, but nobodys perfect] but "I force him to listen to Scarlatti and Bach," Mrs. Alito said in a Washington Post interview published Monday. He once attended a ska festival - that's rock music, with a touch of reggae and horns.

Lately, her husband has been reading "Civil War stuff," Mrs. Alito says. Once, he began teaching himself Greek so he could read the philosophers in their original language. He also took up juggling.

"He's a great marksman - he can do double clays," she says, meaning he can hit two clay pigeon targets thrown simultaneously into the air before either hits the ground

And he's an awesome cook to boot:
Her husband is a gourmet cook, skilled in such delicacies as salmon pate, but don't expect dessert. "He's not a baker," Mrs. Alito said.
He's adorable! Check out the picture of him in his Little League Uniform!

There has been quite a bit of discussion lately, around here, on what men like in women, since we here went through a little self-conscious phase, and got weirded out by Maureen Dowd (after all, who hasn't?), and needed those around here to stroke our ego by making it very clear that just because some of us happened to have chosen to be a little more ambitious it didn't mean that we are doomed to live out the rest of our lives in that creepy house down the street, with 50 cats and and those weird piles of newspapers.

Unless that happens to be the most exciting caeer choice. I could be called to be the "cat lady." Its unlikely, since I'm allergic to cats, but equality feminism is all about choices.

But what about the men? What about the conservative men? Obviously, Sam Alito is totally cute, and totally smart, but after the liberals get through with him, he's going to be ripped to shreds, only after being bored out of his mind. All for being a conservative guy.

These days they seem to be getting kind of a bad rap. Conservative guys are not your hotsy-totsy, Kenneth Cole shirt and Zur shaving cream kind of guys. They don't have much of a reputation for being the hottest dressers or the most suave, and most of them probably preffered Chess Club to the local watering hole. They might bag their own groceries, tie their own shoes and pick out their own ties.

But they're also coming back into style. Suddenly, that guy who rivaled Doogie Howser for "inherent coolness" is getting his moment on the big stage.

Characterize (or smear) Sam Alito...but it still doesn't change the fact that his sort - the undersung and often-scorned Traditional Catholic Male - seems to be carrying the day. So what's the big whoop about these men who toil assiduously in their eager-beaver professions, early-to-bed, teetotaling types who live in gelato-free suburbs, where they bag their own groceries at the local ShopRite (as Alito has evidently been spotted doing) and prefer the tried-and-true uniform of a shirt, tie and (sometimes unlaced) lace-up shoes?

Well, for one thing, the recent ascension of this quiescent type in the form of Patrick Fitzgerald, John Roberts and Sam Alito has demonstrated that being grown-up and resolutely square has its advantages, including the ability to keep your randier impulses in check and your repression control set to high. For another, the visibility of this trio suggests that the more principled-seeming aspects of the Republican franchise - what were once billed as prudent but compassionate values - are not entirely in tatters

In fact, its kind of hot.

No. I take that back. The Traditional Catholic Male is very hot.

The New York Times is pretty convinced that its the fact that despite the easy classification based on the fact that Sam Alito isn't really all that embarassed that he has a giant bald spot (he joked whether he should wear a toupee or a baseball cap to his hearings), wears the same suit over and over, and has a really bad high school photo (right), Sam Alito just isn't afraid to be himself, and really that's the hottest thing that a guy can ever be. And that's probably true, but when you look at the available options, conservative men, despite the fact that their horn-rimmed glasses might get in the way, are the best option.

Maybe because when women look out for a good guy, they aren't looking for a superweenie girly-man liberal who cries at the end of Disney movies and likes to tell you "how they feel," while offering to bake you something and then take you shoe shopping. They don't want nasty little spineless wonders with no taste in sporting events and a propensity for carrying a man-bag. They want men with values, men with steadfast ideals, men who know what it means to be men. We want guys who are not only comfortable with their place in this world, who like being who they are, they like being men. And they happen to like being married, having families, and smart, conservative women.

And there is nothing sexier than a conservative voting record.


E.M. Zanotti is the principal blogger at Posted by E. M. Zanotti at January 9, 2006 05:18 PM | TrackBack


Nothing is sexier than a conservative voting record... until that drunken night where you get pregnant with my child. I will insist that it be home schooled... by myself, of course.

You will wish Alito made his feelings on Roe clearer. And then you will wish you had never supported him. And finally, you will think, wow... Steve is really hot and a panther in the sack, but was it worth all of this?

And the answer, of course, will be yes.

Posted by: Reverend Steve at January 12, 2006 12:46 AM

Since you like pictures of Alito, I uncovered a few and posted them on my site [keep in mind that what I wrote there is tongue in cheek, I am behind this guy 110%]:
Alito Papter Trail Continues
Alito a Phan

Hope you don't mind me posting these here, I would hate to be accused of being comment spam...I thought it would fit in...

Posted by: Tom G at January 12, 2006 07:53 AM

Wow, sorry Steve. Unless that drunken night involves a large diamond and a priest (and not in the kinky sort of way), you're out of luck on the whole "pregnant with your child" thing.

Posted by: E.M. at January 12, 2006 09:53 AM

Large diamond and priest... isn't that like the cult scene from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom? If that is your idea of a good time, I may be able to accommodate. Anything goes in Detroit.

Question: is your reply some kind of pro-choice affirmation? Kind of sounds like it.

Pro-choice or not, looks like your boy Alito is going to get the nod. Mark this on your calendar... this is where we stop agreeing to be "we" in the phrase "we the people."

Posted by: Reverend Steve at January 12, 2006 09:45 PM

I'm not pro-choice, but I'm not anti-choice, either. Its a hard middle. As far as abortion goes, I don't particularly believe legality makes much of a difference: there will still be abortion, either way. The only way to help women faced with abortion is to give them viable options, assist them financially and emotionally, and look out for the saftey of both lives at stake. Overturning Roe doesn't make abortion illegal, and technically, Casey overturned most of it, aside from the core "right to choose." Its highly unlikely that Roe is going to be overturned in that core principle after 30 years; its more likely that abortion will be more highly restricted (a move most Americans favor), and remain legal, at least in its most basic form, otherwise there is a whole mess of following cases that will have to be reexamined. Whether greater restrictions on abortion will give way to a new set of legal issues remains to be seen.

Alito is a strong, experienced justice with a core Constitutional theory. I highly doubt that his placement is going to have that great of an effect: Sandra Day O'Connor was not the "moderate" that she was portrayed, and Alito is not the extremist as he is portrayed--not nearly as much so as say, Ginsberg.

Posted by: E.M. at January 12, 2006 10:23 PM

Ahh yes... a "restricted" America. Who here doesn't miss blacks only water fountains and bathrooms? I do agree that after a certain length of time, things once abhorred (ex. women voters) become the norm in this country. So now that blacks have been so lovingly accepted into the mainstream, maybe there will only be 'rabs only bathrooms...

While I can hardly claim to be a liberal, you have to understand how all non-conservatives have one thing in common: we all view you as snakes. Example: (the paradigm of compassionate conservative, a moderate, non-national-builder until he is in office) Dub Dub. When someone like Alito comes along, and can't seem to give straight answers, we instantly go with our gut feeling... he's a snake.

By the way... I see that you live in the Great Lakes State too. Look around you... conservative fiscal policy doesn't work. John Engler has literally destroyed the infrastructure of our State and has bet the farm on the blackmail of the Big Three. I hope the Super-Bowl can save us... (emphasis overkill on the sarcasm)

Posted by: Reverend Steve at January 13, 2006 07:17 PM

Ah, yes. Ruth Bader Ginsberg couldn't seem to give straight answers either. Interesting double standards you expect conservatives to live up to. Unfortunately, Alito gave answers to something like 94% of questions; its just too bad they weren't the answers that Ted Kennedy and others were looking for.

The only racism in this country is perpetuated by the people who believe that minorities and the fairer sex need governmental assitance to achieve equality, or those who can't seem to understand moral clarity as opposed to political correctness. Please. John Lennons "Imagine" is so mid-60's pseudo-intellectual. Sticking scissors in the back of a viable childs head and sucking out its brains is soooo compassionate and, dare I say, progressive? Absolutely. We should definitely embrace that kind of respect for human dignity in our modern and enlightened society.

And as for Michigan, funny: Democrats have been in power for some time now, and nothing seems to have changed. Certainly throwing money at a problem is exactly the kind of creative solution that Michigan needs--and as for the Big 3. Perhaps its not the fiscal policy but, say, the ridiculously useless unions who keep the industry from cutting a profit.

Posted by: E.M. at January 13, 2006 08:15 PM

To be sure, our current governor has been largely ineffective. Having to deal with a shambles for a budget deficit and State infastructure would render any responsible person ineffective.

John Lennon didn't have the answers, but I imagine that he realized that if individuals were to assemble as a group (let's say, a society and a government) there should be group advantages and group solutions to problems at the individual and group level. Nothing wrong with trying to make the world a better place for everybody. However, if there are no advantages (except as an apparatus to make rich honkeys richer)... why do it????

And as far as the Big Three goes... they killed themselves with poor and greedy management. I will agree that the Auto Unions have also killed themselves with poor and greedy management. So... what is the common denominator?

The Big Three will never have an ounce of sympathy from me. One reason would be Poletown... do you remember that? For you suburbanites, that was when the government claimed emminent domain on a residental area so GM could build an auto factory and rebuild Detroit's tax base. Ahh yes... and helped Detroit it did! (Helped make it into an even bigger ghost town.)

It never ceases to amaze me how conservatives chose to be blind when it comes to corporate welfare.

Posted by: Reverend Steve at January 13, 2006 10:01 PM

"John Lennon didn't have the answers, but I imagine that he realized that if individuals were to assemble as a group (let's say, a society and a government) there should be group advantages and group solutions to problems at the individual and group level."

bwahahaha welcome to your worst nightmare....

Posted by: Jane at January 13, 2006 10:32 PM

Hmm...I'm a Constitutional lawyer. Poletown was overruled by Hathcock. What happened in Poletown can never happen again in the state, and frankly, Poletown was a blighted area, which was given over to the STATE to do with as it felt was necessary: the Big 3 were the highest bidders. If you can't run a damn town, you should be worried about the government taking it nowadays: the Kelo decision (eminent domain)? That's not a conservative mantra: take from the poor, "give it to the government and let them redistribute it to those who can use it better" is patently liberal. Pathetic.

And as far as I know, "honkey" is a racist term. Tolerant, aren't you?

It never fails to amaze me at the liberal shortsightedness. News flash! Communism failed. Socialism fails. Empowerment doesn't. And if you think the government has your best interests at heart, you've got another thing coming. Ever been to the DMV? Imagine that as your life. It certainly worked for people in the USSR. It'll certainly work for Detroit.

Get rid of a crap mayor, get rid of a dying industry, get rid of a navel-gazing city council, stop forcing people to go to failing schools, start forcing your government to compete in the private sector, start demanding results and they will come. But no...Detroit has never, in its history, been able to do that. It has never pulled itself up by its bootstraps, admitted failures, and taken those who cause those failures to task. As long as Detroit accepts and reelects failures, it will get failure, auto industry or no auto industry.

Posted by: E.M. at January 13, 2006 11:02 PM

Oh liberals always call conservatives racist, sexist, etc.-ist. While holding that minorities, women, etc. can't compete on an equal footing without special treatment - set asides, and quotas usually.

The think I loved was Kennedy having a fit over whether or not to subpoena the documents on CAP. They don't need to be subpoenaed - they are available for anyone to review at the Library of Congress. If he really wanted to know what those documents said he could go the LOC anytime and review them. They are PUBLIC documents. You might as well subpoena a copy of the Declaration of Independence (also a public document, copies of which are also available at the Library of Congress.)

Posted by: Zendo Deb at January 13, 2006 11:55 PM

And Detroit is in a world of hurt economically. The unions have driven the big 3 into the ground. GM loses money on every car it sells. It only makes money on the financing. Ford manages to just better than break even on every car though not by much. Chysler - being owned by the Germans - is less interesting to me.

The last time one of the Big 3 was in trouble, the foreign car companies were exactly that, foreign. Today, Honda and Toyota, et al have plants all through the South and West. Congress is not going to run to the aid of Michigan at the expense of Tennessee. Forbes had a great article on this. The Big 3 are in trouble and no one outside Detroit cares.

So you can expect the howling from Detroit to be loud. Today, and all this year through 2008 at least if not through 2012. They are in a world of hurt - of their own making (take a look at UAW contracts sometime) - and will want the rest of the country to bail them out. Anyone who stands in their way, or does not immediately say that helping Detroit is the best thing for the country will be labeled a racist. Like a spoiled brat who only wants his way, the unions have ignored the fact that we are in a global economy, and now want the rest of us to protect them from their own insanity. It will only get worse before it gets better.

Posted by: Zendo Deb at January 14, 2006 12:06 AM

The idea that the State has either the moral authority or legal right to take anything from any part of its citizens (especially for the sake of industrial "progress") is, well... Leninism. And as you said, it always fails.

This chip that you seem to have on your shoulder suggests to me that you could be living in Ann Arbor. You're a grown up now... you can stop being angry. Besides, it makes our baby cry.

Posted by: Reverend Steve at January 14, 2006 04:30 PM