I encourage you to read former senator and Secretary of Education William Bennett’s observations at Fox News:
In the days of President Bill Clinton’s impeachment hearings, I would frequently go toe-to-toe with Democrats on TV news shows, arguing for the president’s removal while they rehashed well-worn talking points that toed their party line in support of him.
Yet once we returned to the green room, my counterparts on the left would sometimes tell a different tale. Their words were not seriously meant, they said; their retorts and barbs were simply attempts to deflect blame and quell public outrage through to the next election cycle.
In effect, they told me I was right and that President Clinton should go.
At the time, I was appalled. It reminded me, literally, of the biblical story of Esau selling his birthright for a mess of pottage: a grave miscalculation of petty ends justifying even shallower means.
Over the past two days, however, I have been struck with an even greater sense of outrage as I have witnessed Democrats’ response to the impassioned remarks of Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Ben Sasse of Nebraska – and even the remarks of Judge Kavanaugh himself.
I had expected I might see in today’s Democrats the same chastened response that I once observed from my TV sparring partners years ago. But I saw no such indication of shame or remorse from senators on the left.
On the contrary, I saw the shared principles that had once provided an undercurrent of inter-party unity overtaken by Democrats’ entirely cynical, shortsighted willingness – if not enthusiasm – to abide by whatever practices necessary in order to ensure an ideological victory. They have called out the dogs, and the dogs are doing their nasty work.
Read the whole thing. My view of proceedings against Bill Clinton was that any Democrat of good will should have been outraged at his actions. Rahm Emanuel’s full-throated defense of Clinton in those days was the first strike against him for me. Any politician for whom the election cycle overrules any other consideration cannot be trusted with power which means practically all of them.
“Any politician for whom the election cycle overrules any other consideration cannot be trusted with power which means practically all of them.â€
They are mercenaries. I would not aspire to be a pol or pundit on the chat shows, and I would summarily be fired after one interview for speaking my mind. But unfortunately this is the system, and for the umpteenth time informs my view for why such cretins should not be allowed to manipulate an ever expanding and more influential government. We are playing with fire, and the current matter is exhibit A.
When the 2020 election is between Trump and Avanetti; how many of us shall put on sackclothes?
The little solace in that outcome would be seeing the other Democratic candidates (including a quarter of the senate) dumbfounded like their Republican counterparts in 2016.
We get the pundits and politicians we deserve.
“Mercenaries,” what a wonderfully descriptive word to use, Drew!
Reading Wm Bennett’s comments, about Dems being chastened by the raw emotion expressed during Thursday’s hearing, is something I was expecting as well. But, as we all know now, nothing changed, no one softened their stances. Rather, everyone held their ground, except with even more political vitriol on the table.
We’re all suffering visible anguish and lasting trauma!
Don’t mind a pol thinking of the home folks when he works which is popular democracy in action. However, when proposed legislation, campaign funds, sinecures for friends and family etc are made dependent on repeating talking points instead of reasoned disagreement there is a problem.
Waiting for Taiwanese style parliamentary fisticuffs or Kossovar style tear gas attacks.
“Reading Wm Bennett’s comments, about Dems being chastened by the raw emotion expressed during Thursday’s hearing, is something I was expecting as well.”
“She was lying” That is what the nicer Republicans are saying. Doesn’t really sound all that chastened to me. The ones calling her a slut, whore or skank don’t really seem chastened at all either, though maybe they were saying worse things before she testified.
But to respond directly to Bennett’s observation, I think the chances of that happened melted to zero with Kavanough doing his Rush Limbbaugh imitation in his opening statement. He said…
“This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about president trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record. Revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. This is a circus. The consequences will extend long past my nomination. The consequences will be with us for decades.”
Have we ever had a more political, partisan statement from a SCOTUS nominee than this? There might have been a chance that some on the left would be chastened if he just stayed with he allegations. Staying with what he believes and his adult life after 1996. But, he had to make this about revenge on Trump. (Maybe he shouldn’t be confirmed just because he is an idiot? How could he not notice Democrats opposing the nominees of other Presidents? Or Republicans opposing the nominees of Democrats?)
Steve
“She was lying†That is what the nicer Republicans are saying.â€
That’s funny, we must have been watching different universes. The Republicans, nice or not, have put themselves in tortured positions to accommodate and say supportive things about her. What they DID say, correctly, is that she provided no corroborating evidence. Maybe your imaginary outrageous conservative friends on your email said that.
You never fail to amuse.
Reading pre-written talking points that say “we found her credible” hardly counts as sounding chastened. That is just good politics, and for show. Go listen to talk radio. Go read the right wing blogs. Listen to Fox person calling her a skank.
Steve
Steve,
Even Trump said nice things about her. Trump doesn’t even say nice things about the people who work for him. I know quite a few die-hard Trump supporters and right-wingers and none of them have said anything bad about her.
I’m sure there are crazies out there saying bad stuff about her, but at least from my perspective, they appear to be far outside the mainstream – even Trump’s mainstream.
That said, I agree to a degree about the partisan nature of Kavanaugh’s opening statement. I think he could have dialed that back a lot and still made the point. But that is somewhat offset by the fact that this confirmation battle is completely partisan, with Democrats firmly against him from the minute he was nominated and a non-trivial number of them saying over-the-top things about him (he’s evil) and promising to do anything to stop him (Schumer and many others). Nothing he can possibly say would get Democrats to vote for him, so it’s not like he’s going to lose votes.
Still, that is the thing that bothered me most about his opening statement and if he does get confirmed, Democrats won’t forget it. I think it will affect his long-term credibility on the court and therefore the court’s credibility as a whole.
Steve, What was the FOX person’s name who called Ford a “skank?”
More inconsistencies arising in Ford’s ever evolving (or devolving) testimony:
Margot Cleveland
@ProfMJCleveland
42m
Refresher: Ford told therapist the attack happened when she was a late teen, which would coincide with mid-80s. AND her polygraph handwritten note changed early-80s to 80s. WHY? She had already written Feinstein saying 1982?
Ford has also told confusing stories about her “2 front door” event, dating it as 2012, which triggered her telling her husband about this long ago attack. That date of her remodel, though, was earlier as noted by building permits and time-stamped photos of her house.
It’s all trivial stuff. But, when you add it all up, the woman is simply all over the place in the “what, when where, who was there” details. The only “seared into her brain” memory seems to be a consistent accusation that the conservative nominee, currently seeking a position on the high court, was the bad guy in her 36-year-ago saga.
IMO, Ford is just becoming more unbelievable and factually unreliable as time and more evidence of incongruities emerge. The FBI is now said to be interviewing Ford’s boyfriend, Brian Merrick, a Lisa Everett, and Danny Urgo. Maybe they will add some needed clarity.
I do agree with you on one point, Steve. I think if Kavanaugh manages to be approved, he will never forget the painful gauntlet he went through, and the people who cruelly designed it. And, yes, this might create an even greater conservative, constitutional bent in his thinking and rulings. After all people tend to be shaped and sharpened by their experiences in life, and Kavanaugh will probably be more aware of the existence of DC’s political hubris and cunning after facing the disingenuous viciousness of the Congressional democrats, who are supposed to be unbiased in their own advise and consent roles…but, weren’t.
Kevin Jackson was the name of the Fox contributor.
“this might create an even greater conservative, constitutional bent in his thinking”
People forget that he had ben downgraded by the ABA cease of concerns about his extreme partisanship. This is not a new concern. In has rant he simply revealed that there was never any possibility of his being an objective, non-biased judge.
Steve
That’s certainly the meme of the day. It’s a risky strategy. You may just be encouraging the Senate Republicans to vote for him.
I’m questioning how good of a lawyer he is. Presenting that calendar was a major shot in his own foot. Had he been in real court of law, his entire claim that he had never been to a party as described by Ford would have been eliminated with the 7/1 brewskis. The GOP yanked the prosecutor, but that doesn’t happen in actual law. Not yet, at leas.t And Ford’s story would have only been strengthened by that.
I have to wonder–did his lawyers even ask him about every entry on that calendar? If this point was to prove it was impossible, they screwed up royally.
Overall, I think the Supreme Court needs to stop pullings it judges from a circle of people who excel at DC legal bullshit, but would get shredded defending a meth dealer in Wyoming.
I have no particular devotion to Kavanaugh and, as I have said before, no ability to evaluate his fitness or credentials. I think the present trope of complaining about his defending himself is Catch-22. I think the process has been lousy and invites reprisals. I also think that the real opposition is not to Kavanaugh but to any Trump appointee whom Democrats perceive as changing the balance of the court.
If I were Trump I would withdraw Kavanaugh’s appointment, appoint Eva Guzman (she’s on the Texas Supreme Court), and get the Senate to vote on her before the midterm elections.
I don’t think this nomination will be withdrawn before the midterms if it’s to be withdrawn.
Unnoticed is it has (a) united every fraction of the Republican Party for the first time since Donald Trump announced his candidatecy. (b) replaced Pres Trump from being THE issue of the election (c) diminished the standing of Trumps most vehement critics like Sen Flake within the Republican Party.
Pres Trump’s incentives all point in 1 direction right now.