Kavanaugh's SC Confirmation Hearings

[bystander]

Mr D
Will the GOP finally decide to find a back bone and stop this?
Aren't they paying attention to Trump and how he fights back, even when it makes me wince?

My view is this; the mid-term elections are critical. Many Dems (overly optimistic as it may be) are thinking they will take over the house. If the Republicans force the vote then it's on the record prior to the election. It's a gamble in my view to allow women voters to go into the booth with the vote for Kavanaugh ringing in their ears.

Of course, that's just me being Captain Obvious. This is the strategy of the Left. It's clear as to their intent and it's worked in the sense that it's on the table now.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Mr D
Will the GOP finally decide to find a back bone and stop this?

It's a tough balance. Obviously a truly credible allegation of sexual assault should be taken seriously, but a blatantly partisan and fraudulent charge should be dealt with harshly so we don't have to go through this with every significant nomination. In addition, they need a messaging strategy to handle this sort of thing, which is going to become common. Somebody needs to be out there countering this "believe women" narrative. They aren't doing anywhere near enough, and if we truly believe all women like the hashtag campaign suggests (and like the media is pushing), then this trick will ruin any nominee, because nobody is going to support a true sexual assaulter. I think it'll help when Kavanaugh speaks, because nobody is going to expect him to tiptoe around the issue (like they'll expect GOP senators to). He can (and should) take on a respectful defiance. It's a flagrant character assassination attempt on him, and he should treat it as such. I'd point the finger at Senator Feinstein and and Hirono and unload on them. I wouldn't name-call or be flagrantly disrespectful, but I'd get righteously hostile and shame them. Usually nominees kiss senators' asses. I wouldn't in this situation. They aren't voting for him anyway.

Also they needs to pick their battles and fight smart. Nobody can fight everything like it's WWIII. Don't blow your wad on government shutdowns and the like. That's stupid. It hurts you (and usually for little or no benefit), and you can't do it every budget cycle. Instead, blow it on things like Supreme Court nominations that'll impact the country in profound ways for 20 - 40 years.

Aren't they paying attention to Trump and how he fights back, even when it makes me wince?

They can't all fight like Trump. Somebody with his personality and media savvy can do that, but your average schmuck can't. He has to care about getting things right, and some of us just aren't good at talking like jerks. What they need to learn to do is talk diplomatically, get things generally right, but act like they have a spine when things are on the line.

 

[Horn6721]

MrD
Thank you
In rereading your post( Mr Ds post often require a second reading) I noticed this
"What they need to learn to do is talk diplomatically, get things generally right, but act like they have a spine when things are on the line."
kinda reminded me of Senator Cruz

On side note I read some of the over 12k comments on Yahoo's story on latest accuser. Whoever in this thread that said it would back fire on Dems in Spot On
yahoo is quite liberal but the responses I read blasted the latest story along with the Ford story and said Dems would try anything but this failed. I hope this represents most of us.

 

[UTChE96]

If he's going to withdraw it needs to happen now, and I'd like to see Trump nominate Amy Coney Barrett. She's younger and more conservative than Kavanaugh. She'd be a bigger nightmare for the Left, and it would be harder to make up stories about her pulling her penis out at parties, unless she's got a pretty dark secret. I'll take that chance. They couldn't confirm her before the election, but they could confirm her in a lame duck session if necessary.

This would no question be the correct move politically. Would pull out the rug under the Dems in every respect and block the Dems from resurrecting the "War on Women" BS narrative. But it will be a tough pill to swallow for many Right wing voters that already think the Republican party is run by *******.

 

[bystander]

This would no question be the correct move politically. Would pull out the rug under the Dems in every respect and block the Dems from resurrecting the "War on Women" BS narrative. But it will be a tough pill to swallow for many Right wing voters that already think the Republican party is run by *******.

There have been many candidates on both sides who didn't make the cut. It would be perfect to nominate a woman and watch the Dems as they forget their manners and their ideology of political protection for those with favored status.

 

[mchammer]

Here is my opinion, which as everyone on this board knows, is infallible:
- because the Dems raised these sexual misconduct issues regarding Kavanaugh, Senate Republicans feel like they have to play along
- as long as Kavanaugh doesn’t withdraw, there will be a vote before mid-terms
- GOP is employing a rope-a-dope strategy, and giving the left rope to hang themselves.
- at end of day, GOP will say we heard the allegations, they are not credible, and vote him in.
- my theory presumes any future allegations are less and less credible (as if the first two were credible to begin with)

 

[ProdigalHorn]

So if they do pull Kavenaugh, they'd better have a strategy for getting another judge confirmed before midterms. There are two schools of thought as to how GOP voters would react if they "crammed through a nominee against Dem objections:
One, the blowback would be fierce and doom the GOP to lose the house and possibly senate.
Two, the act of standing up to the Dems would convince apathetic Trump voters and others that this time the GOP might actually stand up to pressure and do what they say, emboldening GOP voters to turn out.
I'm of two minds, but I'm leaning toward the idea that if the GOP caves and can't get a nominee confirmed with all the advantages they have now, why in the world would people put in the work to get them re-elected? What's the point? Not saying that's the right attitude, but it wouldn't shock me that if this thing stretches through midterms, the GOP will get hammered, big time.

 

[bystander]

So if they do pull Kavenaugh, they'd better have a strategy for getting another judge confirmed before midterms. There are two schools of thought as to how GOP voters would react if they "crammed through a nominee against Dem objections:
One, the blowback would be fierce and doom the GOP to lose the house and possibly senate.
Two, the act of standing up to the Dems would convince apathetic Trump voters and others that this time the GOP might actually stand up to pressure and do what they say, emboldening GOP voters to turn out.
I'm of two minds, but I'm leaning toward the idea that if the GOP caves and can't get a nominee confirmed with all the advantages they have now, why in the world would people put in the work to get them re-elected? What's the point? Not saying that's the right attitude, but it wouldn't shock me that if this thing stretches through midterms, the GOP will get hammered, big time.

The question in my mind is this: Is Kavanaugh the best we can do? As a Conservative Democrat (A Republican without the religion) advise and consent means something. Surely we have other candidates. It is a travesty that we are here due to clear political gamesmanship but what is the point we are trying to prove? If Ms. Barrett is a true Conservative (strict constructionist in the Scalia mold) then the Constitutional process is there to regroup and get her on the court.

Maybe the voters will appreciate a rational GOP that understands principle can be politically damaging and what is the principle here? That Ford is a liar or that due process should be afforded to everyone? And if it's due process then why the rush to get Ford to testify? A speedy trial per se? Is that another principle we are trying to uphold?

 

[ProdigalHorn]

I think the principle is to not reward political gamesmanship. Even if Kavenaugh is replaced with someone better, the playbook will have been set in stone: go make a last-minute, unverifiable allegation and destroy whatever nomination process is unfolding. We've already seen the strategy playing out: stall and keep stalling until we can find someone who will make an allegation that we can leak to the press.
The reason to rush is that this process has been given plenty of time. It hasn't been rushed. It feels rushed now because a whole bunch of stuff has been crammed into the final few days. Every step of the way Dems have cried that "We need more time!!" But they've adamantly refused to use the time they've had for anything other than looking for dirt and politicking. And it's all done under the banner of "we were never going to vote for anyone you brought forth" - we know that because we were told that from the beginning in so many words.
Without looking for the link, the time frame we've had for this nomination hasn't been unreasonable or out of line with what we've done in past processes. Continuing to cater to all this just feeds the narrative that all these objections have been reasonable.
We can't ignore what Dems have been literally screaming from bullhorns for the past three months: "Use ever card in the deck, every tool in the box. Do whatever it takes. Break whatever rule you have to break. But we cannot let (insert name) onto the Supreme Court, or thousands will die and our country will be plunged into a hellscape of unimaginable proportions." (OK I paraphrased that last part.)

 

[theiioftx]

They will find somebody who saw Barrett flash her boobs at Mardi Gras in 1985. The democrats will fight anyone with the most despicable tactics.

I think Grassley should subpoena Feinstein's emails to determine whether or not she is colluding with other democrats illegally regarding the process.

 

[mchammer]

So if they do pull Kavenaugh, they'd better have a strategy for getting another judge confirmed before midterms. There are two schools of thought as to how GOP voters would react if they "crammed through a nominee against Dem objections:
One, the blowback would be fierce and doom the GOP to lose the house and possibly senate.
Two, the act of standing up to the Dems would convince apathetic Trump voters and others that this time the GOP might actually stand up to pressure and do what they say, emboldening GOP voters to turn out.
I'm of two minds, but I'm leaning toward the idea that if the GOP caves and can't get a nominee confirmed with all the advantages they have now, why in the world would people put in the work to get them re-elected? What's the point? Not saying that's the right attitude, but it wouldn't shock me that if this thing stretches through midterms, the GOP will get hammered, big time.

You win elections to ram through nominees, not the other way around. Thus, GOP will vote on Kavanaugh before the midterms. Not voting to win elections make no sense.

 

[bystander]

You win elections to ram through nominees, not the other way around. Thus, GOP will vote on Kavanaugh before the midterms. Not voting to win elections make no sense.

I think they can get the position filled without the controversy or alienating people who don't think as you (they don't see the gamesmanship). But that's just an assumption on my part.

 

[Monahorns]

The GOP might just want to give deadlines. Set a date by which all accusations will be reviewed by, even if new ones come up. Try to incentivize getting all the information out on the table now as opposed to letting the Democrats draw this out indefinitely. I think that is really their goal. Indefinitely until they run Senate or White House.

GOP should say that the vote will take place at the end of October no matter what and state plainly that if he doesn't pass the next nomination is Barrett and her vote will occur a couple of weeks later. Something like that.

 

[Mr. Deez]

There have been many candidates on both sides who didn't make the cut. It would be perfect to nominate a woman and watch the Dems as they forget their manners and their ideology of political protection for those with favored status.

They'll still be tough on her. Remember that when Clarence Thomas got appointed, it didn't take the Democrats long to shift from "we love civil rights" to "lynch his black ***."

They will try to ruin her. However, it won't resonate anywhere near as well, because women will identify with her a lot more than they'll identify with some smug, privileged dude like Kavanaugh.

 

[Horn6721]

So now the porn lawyer Avenatti is saying HIS accuser will go public in 2 days. Why wait scumbag ,do it now. OR do you need more time to coach the accuser.
Wonder if it is Stormy. /s
"Avenatti told The Hill that he anticipates his client will go public with her accusation against the Supreme Court nominee in a television interview within the next two days.

“We anticipate that that is what is going to occur,” Avenatti said, confirming an earlier report from Politico."

 

[mchammer]

How would you like being a virgin through college and then get accused of assault? And feminists wonder why many men hate women.

 

[Garmel]

 

[bystander]

They'll still be tough on her. Remember that when Clarence Thomas got appointed, it didn't take the Democrats long to shift from "we love civil rights" to "lynch his black ***."

They will try to ruin her. However, it won't resonate anywhere near as well, because women will identify with her a lot more than they'll identify with some smug, privileged dude like Kavanaugh.

Yeah, they'll just say she's another brain-washed woman who votes like her husband tells her too.

 

[Joe Fan]

Who had "Ford aint really gonna testify" in the office pool?

 

[4th_floor]

They will find somebody who saw Barrett flash her boobs at Mardi Gras in 1985. The democrats will fight anyone with the most despicable tactics.....

They run the risk of having several dems vote for her if she did that.

 

[mchammer]

My guess she doesn’t testify and the vote will be Thursday.

 

[Mr. Deez]

So now the porn lawyer Avenatti is saying HIS accuser will go public in 2 days. Why wait scumbag ,do it now. OR do you need more time to coach the accuser.
Wonder if it is Stormy. /s
"Avenatti told The Hill that he anticipates his client will go public with her accusation against the Supreme Court nominee in a television interview within the next two days.

“We anticipate that that is what is going to occur,” Avenatti said, confirming an earlier report from Politico."

It must bug him that Ford and Diane Feinstein have been getting all the attention lately.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

It must bug him that Ford and Diane Feinstein have been getting all the attention lately.

Yes... this will be the REAL #MeToo moment.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The question in my mind is this: Is Kavanaugh the best we can do?

No, he's not the best we can do. His record suggests that he's good on separation of powers issues and would therefore be tough on the administrative state. That's a significant plus, but he's squishier on other things. Nobody knows for sure how a justice will turn out, but I suspect that overall he'll be an improvement over Kennedy but not in a class with Scalia. He'll likely be a clone of John Roberts.

If Ms. Barrett is a true Conservative (strict constructionist in the Scalia mold) then the Constitutional process is there to regroup and get her on the court.

There is a constitutional process, but the politics required to use it will be complicated and risky. Right now, there is an enthusiasm gap between liberals and conservatives. Liberals are fired up. Conservatives aren't. That's why Democrats are likely to make gains in the coming election. If Kavanaugh goes down, it'll widen that gap.

So why not just put up Barrett and regain the enthusiasm and momentum? Because they don't have time now. There is a false narrative that the GOP is rushing the Kavanaugh confirmation. They aren't. The timetable has been pretty typical. However, if they dumped Kavanaugh and confirmed Barrett before the election, that truly would be rushed. As I mentioned in a previous post, they could confirm her in a lame duck session, but that won't help them get the conservative base motivated.

Maybe the voters will appreciate a rational GOP that understands principle can be politically damaging and what is the principle here? That Ford is a liar or that due process should be afforded to everyone? And if it's due process then why the rush to get Ford to testify? A speedy trial per se? Is that another principle we are trying to uphold?

We're more polarized than at any point in history (including the Civil War). Being rational and reasonable isn't going to get rewarded.

 

[UTChE96]

So why not just put up Barrett and regain the enthusiasm and momentum?

It was a mistake not to go with Barrett from the beginning. It would have been much easier to confirm a woman even if she was more conservative.

 

[Vol Horn 4 Life]

It was a mistake not to go with Barrett from the beginning. It would have been much easier to confirm a woman even if she was more conservative.

But now he can flip the script on the dems. How could they possibly attack a woman after putting so much effort into making women victims. It would be the highest level of hypocrisy which could easily be played. Even George Snuffaluffagus would have a hard time working that angle on ABC.

 

[iatrogenic]

“In our view, the hiring of an unnamed ‘experienced sex crimes prosecutor’ as Mr. Davis described in his email, is contrary to the Majority’s repeated emphasis on the need for the Senate and this Committee’s members to fulfill their constitutional obligations,” attorney Michael Bromwich wrote. “It is also inconsistent with your stated wish to avoid a ‘circus,’ as well as Dr. Blasey Ford’s repeated requests through counsel that senators conduct the questioning. This is not a criminal trial for which the involvement of an experienced sex crimes prosecutor would be appropriate.”
But they demand the Senate avoid their constitutional duties and have unnamed FBI agents investigate this alleged act. Makes sense...if you are a Lib.

 

[Clean]

If she doesn't show, hold the vote and end this freak show and let the full Senate histrionics begin.

 

[Horn6721]

So now the porn scum Avennati who yesterday said he had a credible accuser with evidence that would be presented within 36 hours is NOW saying the accuser would come forward when she was ready and then locked his twitter account
And the attorney for the Ford accuser is not hinting that she may not feel like testifying.
is there any breathing American who can not see this for what it is?

apparently the correct title for Avennati is Creepy Porn Lawyer
or CPL

 

[Monahorns]

I agree with others saying that if the GOP doesn't force a vote and continues to play nice, conservatives are going to either vote 3rd party or not vote at all in November. They are trying to play nice and fair, but the message to most voters is weakness at best and at worst the view that Republicans are just Democrat-lite or complicit in the mess.