Saturday, October 6, 2018

The Kavanaugh Mud-Wrestling Contest

So Kavanaugh was finally confirmed for the Supreme Court by a vote of 50 to 48, thus ending one of the worst mud-slinging campaigns in US political history.  Nobody came clean out of this one.

It was understood from the start that the Democrats would oppose any candidate Trump proposed, for fear of having a "conservative" SCOTUS for the next 20 years or more, and of course in revenge for the GOP holding up Obama's judiciary choices, but in this case the partisan tactics reached the downright disgusting level -- enough to p!ss off a sizable number of the voters.  What was Maxine Waters thinking when she ran around encouraging Antifaa and BLM, whipping up crowds to publicly harass elected officials -- and their staffs, and their families, in the hopes that this would pressure Congress into voting her way?  Did congressional aide Jackson Cosko think that broadcasting the private health information of GOP senators would be glossed over as legitimate "free speech"?  Did Senator Feinstein really believe that sitting on Dr. Ford's accusation for months, only to spring it just days before the scheduled confirmation vote wasn't an obvious political manipulation?  Now of course I could be biased, having hated Feinstein ever since she rode to her big career break over the body of Harvey Milk, but the way she's behaved during this whole campaign is really ugly.

Now, to be sure, the worst witness against Kavanaugh turned out to be himself;  in his testimony he lost his cool bigtime, ranting and whining like the very prep-school drunken frat-boy he's accused of being -- and he provably lied to Congress.  In a less ferociously partisan squabble, those would have been reasons enough to vote him down.  (I'm thinking of Bill Clinton telling Congress "I did not have sex with that woman").  The  problem was that the Democrats had likewise dug their own graves with their own mouths so thoroughly that Congress couldn't trust them -- or their supposed voter support --either.  The Democrats' antics actually made Kavanaugh look better by comparison!

Consider, there were holes and glitches in Dr. Ford's testimony that were never addressed, and should have been.  If the Democrats had succeeded in stretching out the investigation -- hopefully until after the election, as they wanted to -- all of these might have been exposed, to the detriment of the Dems' post-election hopes.  It could also be that the Dems have reason to worry about their expected "blue wave" come election time;  after all, they're already spreading rumors that Russian and North Korean hackers are going to "steal the election for Trump" (on what evidence?), which implies that they're making excuses in advance for a bad loss. 

Now the part of Ford's story that I find most intriguing is that at the age of 15 she managed to fight off a drunken 17-year-old frat-boy.  This implies that, assuming the story is true, Kavanaugh was a very incompetent teenage rapist!  His simply being a teenage frat-boy drunk wouldn't have been much of a scandal if he hadn't denied it before Congress.  Even his tendency to lose his cool under pressure wouldn't have necessarily disqualified him.  All of that put together didn't make him look worse than the Dems made themselves look with their foaming anti-Trump, anti-Kavanaugh hysteria. 

Why did they let themselves go like that?  Was it just because they really believed that Kavanaugh would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?  Not even the furthest-right of Trump supporters actually thought there was a chance of that, whatever hopes and dreams they may have cherished.  I have to wonder what the Dems were really afraid of.  Am I just being Anarchist-Paranoid in thinking that the Dems have been planning a big gun-control push, and knew that a non-leftist SCOTUS would never support it?

Or could it be that the Dems have begun to realize that the old definitions of Right and Left have come unglued, that the media don't have the power they think they have, and the American electorate is much less predictable than the analysts and experts thought?     

     

31 comments:

jdgalt said...

What absolutely cracked me up was the third accuser, saying she'd been gang-raped ten times at parties. Nobody in our office could figure out why she went to the second one.

I feel sorry for any real rape victims now, because after that circus nobody is going to believe a rape accusation for the next decade. They burned that much credibility. Thank Michael Avenatti.

As far as Russian collusion, that is just the cover story for Spygate, continued. It's like villagers in the Middle Ages who just "knew" that their more successful neighbors must have benefited from witchcraft, just because no better explanation could be found.

Paradoctor said...

Dr. Ford asked Feinstein to keep it on the QT. She said in testimony that she didn't want to be there but she was there out of civic duty. I guess that had it been up to her, the Senate would have quietly shelved his nomination and gone on to another reactionary.

What I heard was that Swetnick saw them spiking the punch, and lining out the door, for other girls; then one day it was her turn. I'd have told her not to be there in the first place, but I'm prejudiced against rich privileged frat boys, whom I think are scum.

Most sex crimes are private, but his were allegedly in public, with another boy, or a gang, cheering him on. How odd. Was this male bonding with the boyz in the 'hood? If true, then that would simplify finding witnesses, if the crimes were ever seriously investigated. It would also reveal a repressed homosexual component in dudebro love. K bragged of the "Devil's Triangle" in his skeevy yearbook entry; in such a threesome, the two males are not supposed to make eye contact, for that would be gay.

It may even be true that Kavanaugh gave up rape as soon as he graduated from Yale; but he's still a liar, and a perjurer, and probably a mean drunk too.

Of course the sex allegations are a distraction. The perjury charges are present, and easily provable, and would get K disbarred or even charged. Therefore accusing him of perjury is, from a Washingtonian point of view, the hardball attack; accusing him of mere rape is the genteel, collegiate, approach. But the masses don't see it that way.

Leslie Fish said...

Hmmm, yes, that "witnesses" comment in Ford's story bugged me, too. First she said there were no witnesses, then she said there were two other boys present -- but they didn't help her. Well, they certainly didn't help K, then, because *she fought him off*. That suggests that, at best, the "bromance" bond wasn't very strong. Personally, I doubt there were any witnesses. If there were, K would have become a laughingstock for being trounced by a girl two years younger, and he wouldn't have heard the last of it until he escaped to college. And there would have been plenty of witnesses to the story, anyway.

No, if the Democrats had dropped the whole rape story, denounced K as a drunken oaf of a frat-boy and produced their numerous witnesses to that, they could have done him a whole lot more damage -- *especially if he'd denied it to noisily as he did*. But no, they had to play the rape-card, had to make a big deal about K repealing Roe v. Wade if he got confirmed. Thereby they shot themselves in the foot.

Technomad said...

That assumes that any of the testimony about him is worth its weight in Confederate money. "Dr." Ford's stories are utterly useless...even the 1984 Thought Police would have trouble with a story of crime committed when they don't have a date or a place.

And who defines "drinking to excess" or "problem drinking?" You? Me? Rollin Kirby's "Mr. Dry" character? The WCTU? Delta Tau Chi fraternity?

By most people's standards, I led a life at college of strict virtue...and I admit freely, I came back to the dorm (St. Olaf has a "dry campus"...long story and not relevant) more than somewhat lit up. That was how I got my college nickname of "Sweeney Todd." I was heading for my room, belting out "The Ballad of Sweeney Todd," and my dorm-mates noticed. St. Olaf is one of the top music schools in the country. They knew how tough Sweeney Todd is (it's one of the most challenging scores in musical theater) and there I was, lit up like a Christmas tree, and doing it absolutely perfectly, not a single false note.

Paradoctor said...

Mothers, do you want to protect your sons from future accusations of sexual assault? Then raise them right! Keep them far away from prep schools, frat houses, football locker rooms, and other vile dens of drunkenness, debauchery, and entitled violation!

Alchemystudiosink said...

As if that would protect them. If there is a time they oppose certain people, you can damn well be certain that they'll try to pull this same sort of stuff. As Nancy Pelosi put it "Its a Wrapup Smear" Course she said it last year, so there is no way it could be anything related to the current day.

Even if they can't get it to stick, they could ask leading questions, like Techno put it. "Mr K, when you were drinking in excess, where you known to have a history of violence?"

If you say yes, that is obviously bad.
But saying No can be equally as bad.
Cause now we're not arguing over the definition of the word is. We're arguing over what is too much. What constitutes a 'history', and whether or not it was actually known, and known it was known.

Cause like with the Military, having more than a single beer was too much, and would have people starting to look at you because you said you drink 2-3 alcoholic beverages a week.

When I'm driving, a single beer is too much, unless I've got a lot of time to burn off the alcohol. When I'm gaming, I usually never drink alcohol cause it makes me sleepy, so I prefer to drink energy drinks instead.

The amount of alcohol is different in different kinds of beverages as well. Kombacha for example has a trace amount of alcohol. Moonshine could have a stupid amount. So rating it by number of drinks isn't really going to figure that out. Especailly if he was, as they say, chugging kegs.

SDN said...

"Blogger Paradoctor said...
Mothers, do you want to protect your sons from future accusations of sexual assault? Then raise them right! Keep them far away from prep schools, frat houses, football locker rooms, and other vile dens of drunkenness, debauchery, and entitled violation!

October 8, 2018 at 7:17 AM"

So how did that work out for the Scottsboro Boys? Or the witches at Salem, for pagans like Leslie? "Innocent until proven guilty" and "Not just accusations but EVIDENCE" are the standards because if they AREN'T, atrocities are the inevitable result.

SDN said...

Leslie, I would really like to see you remain cool and collected after someone has falsely accused you of horrible crimes where the only way to prove your innocence is to prove a negative 30+ years later, and then go after your family into the bargain.

Alchemystudiosink said...

@SDN - Or Emmett Till for that matter. The guy who had the infamous "A Man Was Lynched" flag that flew, when he was falsely accused of raping a white woman, and was assaulted by a mob and killed.

Paradoctor said...

SDN:
#NotAllPrepSchools
#NotAllFratHouses
#NotAllFootballLockerRooms

- but many are. Frat Houses, etc., have earned their bad reputation. In particular DKE, Kavanaugh's frat, which got kicked out of Yale after the boyz chanted to the Women's Center, "No means yes, yes means anal".

As for evidence; testimony counts as evidence. On September 27 the Senate heard two credible character witnesses against Brett Kavanaugh, from Christine Blasey Ford, and from Brett Kavanaugh. She was dignified, responsive and honest; he lacked those virtues.

Paradoctor said...

SDN, I would really like to see you remain cool, collected, charming, honest and an all-round 'attractive witness' (according to a Senator) when testifying about violence against you, to a biased panel, after anonymous death threats drove you from your home.

Paradoctor said...

Leslie, I think the D's played this as well as possible. Trump needs a judge in his pocket, the dirtier the better, for ease of control; so the order went down to his Senatorial underlings, and the fix was in.

Had the D's hammered on perjury just now, then they still would have lost, and afterwards the public would have shrugged. (Though the real politics-nerds would have had deep forebodings about Judge Perjurer.)

As is he's in, but it isn't over. Now he's Judge Rapist as well as Judge Perjurer. Expect hearings if there's a blue wave, an event now more likely, and likely to be larger, thanks to the way he got in.

He whinged; that's a sign of weakness; so they'll come for him if they can.

lou rivera said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Leslie Fish said...

SDN: Actually, something like that *did* happen to me, just last year, right here on Facebook. It was just after the Charlottesville caper, when I pointed out some obvious political staging, that some woman (whose name I don't know and whose face I don't recognize) sent out a clarion call denouncing me as a neo-Nazi, and a whole mob of doxxers jumped on the get-Leslie bandwagon on my page.

Well, see if you can call up those pages and see how I replied. I spent a week and more, practically around the clock, answering every last post with facts, facts, facts -- provable by news-videos straight off CNN and MSNBC, not to mention local vids submitted straight to FB. As for the idiot who threatened "We know where you live", I replied: "Bring it on; my shotgun is loaded, and my other guns too." Needless to add, nobody followed through on the threat. By the end of the little battle, the people still talking were the cool and rational ones who also quoted Internet-findable facts. That's the way you do it. I took a brief course in debate when I was in high school (as part of our Speech and Drama class, if you please), and the very first lesson we got was Who Loseth Their Cool Loseth All. How did Kavanaugh get through law school without learning that?

PapayaSF said...

In my opinion:

Something happened to Ford, but it wasn't Kavanaugh. Science has proven that memory is flawed. She wanted to be another Anita Hill, and Feinstein and the Democrats were only too eager to help. It's a funny coincidence that both Ford's father and grandfather were CIA bigshots, and the "beach friends" who advised her about what to do are ex-FBI agents who hate Trump and are connected to the Clintons. Kavanaugh got a bit too upset over all this, but I found that understandable. The claims that he "lied under oath" all seem weak to me. Matters of interpretation. Democrats went too far, out of Trump Derangement Syndrome, because their left wing is getting stronger, and possibly because they were tricked into this by Trump moles. (Is Avenatti working for Trump? Because he's helping Trump.)

The result is a fired-up leftist/feminist base, but they were pretty fired up already. On the other side, lots and lots of moderates, irregular voters, Republicans, and even Democrats are ticked off at the Democrat's abandonment of the presumption of innocence and due process. In the barber shops and taxis, people are saying the feminists are going too far. It's like Hillary's "deplorables" comment. The GOP is united and energized. Lindsey Graham is now a MAGA hero, for a big plot twist. Feinstein and others are potentially in big trouble for witness tampering, leaking, etc.

The result: no big "blue wave."

Leslie Fish said...

Ah, it'll be worth it if Feinstein gets booted out of power! Peace to the spirit of Harvey Milk, and the SanFran Gay community.

I wish that the centrists and moderate-right would stop calling themselves "conservatives", because technically most of them aren't; they're not actually racist, sexist, antisemitic, religious bigots, anti-foreigner, or even particularly homophobic -- which is a helluva difference from what "conservatives" were just a couple decades ago. It's nice to see that some of them (including Clint Eastwood, if you please!) have taken to calling themselves Libertarians. That should clarify the current squabble a little.

Alchemystudiosink said...

I don't think Avenatti is working for trump. There is a certain amount of arrogance on their part, where they believe that anyone who isn't a liberal is uneducated unwashed masses, and only they are the true educated ones.

With Kavanaugh, yeah, he might have gotten emotional. He and his family were, and likely will continue to receive death threats. Unlike Dr Ford, he didn't get 700k to make up for that. Unlike Ford as well, He didn't have a massive team of crack lawyers either. It was just him vs the onslaught brought before him as he tries to prove a 30 year old negative.

Bill S said...

Leslie,
Would you mind if this was reposted
I publish Quote of the Day on Hardnoxandfriends, and think that our readers would appreciate your post.

Paradoctor said...

Alchemystudiosink: Avenatti is the kind of lawyer that you want on your side. Kavanaugh has the protection of the Secret Service. Protest is not death threats, which Dr. Ford is still getting. K had as many lawyers behind him as she did. Ford was emotional too, for she was confronting the man who as a boy made a plaything of her; but unlike K, she kept her emotions under control; and unlike him, she did not evade, weep, rant, snark, insult or lie. The worst testimony against him was by him. He's a provable perjurer right now; so this isn't over.

Paradoctor said...

... and given that he is a "Conservative", and therefore a hypocrite; and indeed a Trumpian, and therefore a compulsive hypocrite, I predict that the Perjuring Jurist will rule that innocent-until-proven-guilty is for Good Men like himself, and not for low-down peasants like you and me.

PapayaSF said...

@Paradoctor: Avenetti is a sleaze who rips off people for millions, squatted in a mansion he rented, and owes millions to the IRS. Kavanaugh and his family are getting death threats. Ford's behavior has not been that of a woman seeking justice, capped by the fact that she's not pursuing legal remedies. Kavanaugh is not a "proven perjurer."

Paradoctor said...

https://www.gq.com/story/all-of-brett-kavanaughs-lies

PapayaSF said...

Sorry, no time to fact check all of that. Most seems very weak, based on trivia or differences of interpretation.

Paradoctor said...

More about his lies:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/10/02/all-of-brett-kavanaughs-lies-distortions-and-absurdities/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.412cb152e397

And more:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brett-kavanaugh-lies_us_5bb26190e4b027da00d61fcd

And more:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-lies-senate-testimony-supreme-court.html

You might perhaps consider his redefinitions of boofing and ralphing to be matters of interpretation; ditto his gang's skeevy brags about Renate Dolphin behind her back; and maybe age 17 is greater than age 18, and blacking out is not blacking out, if up is down. But I don't want a drunkard for a judge.

You might even claim that he gave up debauchery and sexual assault when he graduated from law school; but he's still a liar. Memogate, Pryor, Judge Kozinski, Judge Pickering, warrantless wiretapping. All lies under oath, all on record, none trivial, all easily provable. Any one of these is impeachable for a judge. They could switch off Kavanaugh's career like a light.

Like any other crime-family capo, Trump needs a dirty judge in his pocket. He got one.

Paradoctor said...

And check out this, if you are pressed for time:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/28/17914308/kavanaugh-ford-question-dodge-hearing-chart

One look tells all. The chart shows blue for responsive answers, red for evasive. Ford's testimony is as blue as a cloudless sky; K's is streaked with volcanic red.


And who can forget his furious self-pity? I hear that many R's wept upon seeing it. If that were the face of my party, then I would too.

Leslie Fish said...

Hi, Bill. Yes, go ahead and repost it; maybe we'll get some more information out of it.

Hi, Nat. I suspect that Kavanaugh will be keeping as low a profile as possible, which will likely include recusing himself from any case that even touches on Roe v. Wade, or women's inequality. Since the SCOTUS has a backlog of cases to try, there should be plenty of "safe" topics for him to deal with.

The question then will be whether the Dems continue to rant and raven for his impeachment, or whether they'll try to find a juicier Trump-camp scandal to howl about. I'll guess that the November election will decide their choice.

Bill S said...

Leslie, fo you have a profile to go with it or just the short one on the blog? We ALWAYS give full credit.
Thanks

PapayaSF said...

Why should Kavanaugh recuse himself from those cases? Wasn't RBG the head lawyer for the ACLU? Does she recuse herself from related cases?

Paradoctor said...

Leslie: you're an optimist. He's an operative, he'll operate. You said he's good at financial stuff. OK, that's how he's screw women, minorities and the poor. And if Trump pulls his strings, then K will do some unexpected judicial activism. That's the point of putting a dirty judge on the court. But maybe you're right, and the Court will wall him off into safe topics. That would require the Chief Justice's consent.

PapayaSF: Because RBG is, like most Justices, and like Caesar's wife, above all hint of scandal. This rule was eventually relaxed in the case of actual Roman emperor's wives, and now, twice, in the Court.



Paradoctor said...

Speaking of Justice Roberts; he has authorized investigation into complaints re K's judicial conduct.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2018/10/11/chief-justice-roberts-requests-tenth-circuit-to-investigate-kavanaugh-ethics-questions/#4ecaeef81877

He's been sitting on those complaints for weeks, but has sent them on to the 10th circuit to review. He could have just continued to sit on them. Is Roberts acting to defend the court's independence? A dirty judge can be influenced.

PapayaSF said...

So a bunch of leftist lawyers decided to make complaints once the Kavanaugh protests started. *YAWN*