It’s crazy how much ‘troll the libs’ has become the governing philosophy of the right. Seems like if your overriding goal was to overturn Roe, the safest nominee to begin with was Amy Coney Barrett. An intellectually brilliant conservative jurist and personally unassailable mother of six. Feinstein et al would have had a really hard time going after her.
It would seem even smarter at this juncture to pull Kavanaugh and replace him with Barrett. It would put Red State Democrats on the defensive by making them vote against a mother of six rather than giving them and wavering Republicans a plausible non-political reason to vote against an accused rapist like Kavanaugh. This would be straight out of the Reagan playbook, who pulled Doug Ginsberg over a far more mild offense (smoking pot with law students in the 70s) and replaced him with Kennedy (worth noting neither of them would have been nominated had a bipartisan coalition of Republicans and Democrats not rejected the Bork nomination in the first place).
Yet McConnell seems to counterintuitvely feel that fighting for Trump’s man will gin up midterm turnout on the right. This goes to show how far the conservative movement has morphed into a Trump personality cult. As Susan Collins likes to say, this is very troubling indeed. One hopes beyond hope, that it is “troubling” enough for her and one other colleague to vote no on Kavanaugh.
Kavanaugh is a Bush guy
You can’t be both.
If THE reason for nominating Barrett is overturning Roe then why shouldn’t or wouldn’t Dems redouble their efforts to stop her? This is the whole reason advice and consent exists in the first place. Once seated Justices are there for life and cannot (or at least should not) be impeached and removed for decisions made. Judicial philosophy absolutely should be taken into account while there is a chance to do so and it IS definitely OK to vote against an otherwise personally squeaky clean nominee on that basis alone. Just be honest about it and I think voters will respect that.
I think you misread my post Christopher. My point of view is thinking from the other sides objectives. Wouldn’t it be easier to put a highly reputable law professor and jurist, devout Catholic. and telegenic mother of six as the face of the anti-Roe vanguard rather than a bland boorish white guy now credibly accused of assault?
It’s what Reagan did when he switched Ginsberg out for Kennedy. It’s why Reagan picked O’Connor for his first vacancy (she later saved Roe but was expected to be against it when first nominated).
Now the Red State Democrats have good cover to vote against Kavanaugh. It’s already helped Claire McCaskill, who is enjoying a Todd Aiken style bump in her polling right now as her opponent made defending Kavanaugh a center piece of his campaign. Now Collins and Murkowski, and maybe Flake and Corker could vote no and claim they favor an untainted conservative alternative.
Obviously, as a pro-choice progressive I would also favor a vote against Barrett and a vigorous confirmation fight to keep her off the court, but the optics of doing so would be far more difficult for our side than they are now with Kavanaugh. Hence why I think “trolling the libs” seems to be even more important to the Trump base than winning actual conservative policy objectives. If the latter was their goal, pulling Kavanaugh and bringing in Barrett is the no brainer move.
Lindsay Graham will stick with Kavanaugh and provide cover for Collins etc because K is an establishment Republican pick, not a Trump pick. I see Kavanaugh as pro-business and pro-war. Social issues are way down his list.
Graham will use all his never-Trump good will accrued with the media in the service of the globalist business donors who care about deregulation and selling weapons first and last.
I think I understood, but disagree that it puts red state Dems in a bad position. If they feel strongly about Roe it is still a pretty easy vote.
I agree and made a post awhile back defending that, but this does give them another reason to vote against the nominee not related to abortion. Especially helpful to incumbents in anti-choice states.
Do you think Kavanaugh is about Trump? I think he was guided to the choice. He’s a Federalist Society Freak, groomed for the job. Trump is certainly good for a F*ck You, but the rest of it is McConnell.
Odds are slightly better than even money that the Kavanaugh withdraws his nomination. The GOP has to balance the Supreme Court with the mid-term elections.
Odds are still in favor of the GOP retaining the Senate, but they are declining. This is a narrative they may not want going into November. Pissing off women is something they are seriously considering. If we take the Senate without them appointing a justice, they’ll be screwed. At that point, they might trot in another candidate.
At the risk of (re) stating the obvious, Kavanaugh’s low character is a feature, not a bug.
Putting a smirking frat boy on the court advances the culture war, pushes back at #metoo, tarnishes government, and lowers the political debate to a place where the bad guys can hope to prevail.
Your hypothetical spotless judicial intellectual cannot do that.
I do not disagree Ted, but it does seem
we have reached the point where trolling the libs has become even more important than winning the culture war through persuasion and policy victories. This is what a cornered foe does, and it’s quite dangerous to our democracy.
Dunno about Ted, but I will jump in and try to say more clearly that it is not a gratuitous nastyness but rather a deliberate political act.
As well, this very same hypothetical spotless judicial intellectual can and will — by definition of the very word ‘intellectual’ — think for themselves… which is a situation frantically to be avoided by the Right.
If Robert Ludlum were writing a novel of skullduggery describing these events he might well call it ‘The Souter Contingency.’
“today’s conservatism is the opposite of what liberals want today: updated daily.”
There’s a “Liar’s paradox” in there somewhere.
Epimenide’s paradox:
Liar’s paradox:
Puke liars knew about second Kavanaugh accuser (Deborah Ramirez) last week but instead of telling the truth the cons tried to speed up the confirmation. All this and more Republican corruption exposed in the New Yorker by Ronin Farrow and Jane Mayer.
Doesn’t seem to be what the New Yorker is reporting, at least according to the headlines I saw.
The article is here and it seems quite damning, if you choose to believe the second accuser, as I do.
I just saw the headlines, that reported that Democrats knew about the accusation. So where does Fred the “puke liars” thing?
@bob-gardner: I encourage you to actually read this and every piece that influences you.
I remind you that a headline is almost never written by the author of the piece, and is written to fit rigorous space requirements. In my view, the most reliable way to determine what somebody said is to actually listen to them. Next is to read reliable reporting. Reading a headline is, well, not on on my list.
“Puke liars” is Fred’s generally accurate term for GOP officials.
My point is that it seems that both sides knew about this for quite a while before it went public in the New Yorker.. Presumably everybody had reasons.
I always assume that accusations are credible, whether or not it is convenient to believe the accuser.
I hope that Kavanaugh doesn’t get to the Supreme Court, but I think that tying his alleged misbehavior to the fact that he’s a Republican ideologue is pretty silly.
@bob-gardner: Nobody disputes that both sides knew, including Fred. His complaint was that the GOP members of the committee used that knowledge to attempt to accelerate the process (apparently hoping to finish before they were made public). They then protested loudly about the “last minute” revelations.
I don’t think Fred is attempting to tie Mr. Kavanaugh’s alleged misbehavior to his ideology. I think, instead, that Fred is condemning the way the Republican ideologues are treating both accusers, while simultaneously lying about their knowledge of the accusations and about pretty much every aspect of the accusations.
The first accusation was first published in the Washington Post last July. Both sides knew about the second well before the New Yorker article was published.
Responsible publications take time to investigate serious allegations like this. Responsible legislators are similarly cautious.
The rush to confirm Mr. Kavanaugh is driven by the GOP primarily because they fear the outcome of the November mid-terms. The desire to suppress these accusations is driven by their fear of how the electorate will react to their misogyny.
These are all reflections of the utter moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the GOP. There is no counterpart in the Democratic Party.
“Puke liars” summarizes all this pretty well.
“There is no counterpart in the Democratic Party.”
Except for that line, I’m willing to go along with what you say.
@bob-gardner: What do you have in mind? I can’t think of any Democrat who behaves like these Republicans.
By counterpart I don’t mean Democrats who have misbehaved sexually and tried not to be held accountable. I think we agree that there are lots of men from both parties who fit that description.
I was thinking of an organized effort to (as Mitch Mcconnell said) to plow ahead despite allegations of misconduct. Move On is an example of that. It;s where they get their name.
@ bob-gardner: Total rubbish and irrelevant
Sorry, no sale.
What do you mean by “counterpart” then? What do you mean when you say “There is no counterpart in the Democratic party?”
I mean just what I wrote — “There is no counterpart in the Democratic party”.
And so the thread ends with a proclamation.
The thread ends with a refusal to entertain a false equivalence.
This is slightly misleading. People on both sides knew about it, but that does not mean that the entirety of ‘both sides’ knew about it.
Dianne Feinstein is drawing particular ire from fellow Democrats precisely because she did not disclose her knowledge of the accusations, which knowledge she apparently acquired in July of this year.
Why the pukes rush to judgment? Why won’t pukes allow FBI to investigate BOTH victims accusations and accused denials, AND take witnesses testimony under oath upon criminal penalty of perjury?
Ronan Farrow.
“Ronin’ is a descriptive Japanese word applied to a Samurai who has been released from service by either the death or disgrace of his feudal lord.
“Ronan” is a name of Irish Gaelic derivation.
Perhaps either one could apply here, but the actual reporter goes by ‘Ronan.”
Ronan Farrow is a fearless warrior in pursuit of the truth. Thanks for the correction, petr.
Perhaps it is true that “Feinstein et al’ would, indeed, find it difficult to ‘go after her.’ You are to consider, however, the affect upon support on the right that the substitution of a women — no matter how brilliant — for the admitted rat-f**ker Kavanaugh would have: there is a reason conservatives defend and protect admitted and/or proven sexual predators and dismiss accusers and victims: Women just aren’t that important to them. Your machinations are no victory for them and would likely be decried as ‘political correctness.’ They want another rat-f**ker on the court, not another intellectual like Souter…
As for ‘trolling the libs,” I heard it put better in this manner: a conservative will eat s**t every day of the week in the hopes a liberal will be forced to smell his breath on Sunday.
Uptick for the funniest puke joke I’ve heard in 68 years!
Or as my friend put it : Pukes are no longer just metaphorically waving their d…s in everyone’s faces 🙂 lol
Collins checks the puke rush to judgment. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) just said that the Senate should hear testimony from second Kavanaugh accuser, Deborah Ramirez. The puke wall is cracking!
Or as my friend put it : Pukes are no longer just metaphorically waving their d…s in everyone’s faces. 🙂 lol
Heh … to paraphrase the late George Carlin — “I’ve heard of bad breath before, but your’s could knock a buzzard off a s**t-wagon.”
Buddy Love (Eddie Murphy in :’the Nutty Professor”):: “Reggie, your breath is so stinky people look forward to your farts.”