Kavanaugh: Dems Attack Temperament And Honesty
link
I think I'm going to turn my attention away from the question "should Kavanaugh be confirmed?" I'm really interested in the sexual assault questions, largely because of my interest in the PC left, and the role such accusations play over there. E.g.: how they mesh with the general indifference to / contempt for truth and provability, and how they are used to achieve tactical ends.
At a gut level, I'm with Pete Mack and the Mystic: there are many safer nominees out there. So pick one. (But I have reservations about that position...). Anyway, that's where I think I am. But I'm going to cut that issue loose from my mind in order to try to be more objective about the other question.
I'm also, weirdly, less interested in the Ramirez accusation, which strikes me as plausible.
I'm more interested in what seems to me to be the (a) bizarre and (b) characteristically progressive treatment of Ford's accusations. The Mitchell memo seems right on the money to me. Ford's accusations not only can't meet a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard, and they not only can't meet a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard...but a rational lawyer wouldn't even pursue such a case. And yet Ford's accusation is being treated as not only true but unquestionable by the usual suspects.
The Swetnick accusation is overtly insane, so I'm not interested in that one. Well...actually...maybe I should be, since it's (a) obviously insane and (b) being taken seriously by said usual suspects...
Anyway...we do now have actual evidence that Kavanaugh was an at-least-occasionally aggressive and violent drunk as an undergrad. IMO that does change things significantly. Before it was all hearsay. Now we've got something real. I don't think that all aggressive, violent drunks are sexual assailants...but I have no doubt that the two things are strongly correlated. That's to say: there are very likely more sexual assailants among aggressive, violent drunks than there are among the general male population...so that's something.
posted by Winston Smith at
6:50 AM
2 Comments:
The Swetnick accusation is overtly insane, so I'm not interested in that one. Well...actually...maybe I should be, since it's (a) obviously insane and (b) being taken seriously by said usual suspects...
I actually think this one is even more interesting, because one thing I'm really wondering about is if there is a bottom to progressive truthphobia. That they considered this plausible, or even useful means the bottom is even deeper than I thought. For context, the moment Avenatti made that claim, the first thing that came to my mind was that he just lost the midterms for the Ds (the primary motivation for the marginal R voting Trump was supreme court nominees, and now they UVA one of them? I mean, how dumb are they?). Further he certainly gave the Republicans immense cover in pushing Kavanaugh through, since now they can very rightly say the Left is acting in supreme bad faith. I don't see how a minimally competent actor could miss that. But the progressive response was basically #BelieveWomen. It's some weird superposition of outright idiocy and moral insanity and we still can't find the breaking point.
Actually we will find the breaking point if this actually does lose the midterms for the Dems.
Lie on the small things, lie on the big things.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/10/02/records_raise_questions_about_fords_double-door_story__138225.html
What's good for the goose and all that.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home