“Key Republicans happy with report”
Well, if they’re happy, I’m happy.
Happiness is relative, of course. I won’t be happy till Kavanaugh is voted in, which is not even remotely certain to occur. There have been so many ups and downs (mostly downs) in this case so far that I cannot trust any of the “key” players (the vulnerable Democrats and the GOP wafflers, that is) to do the right thing.
It’s interesting that Heitkamp, vulnerable Democrat of North Dakota, has apparently announced that she’s a “no.” It had been speculated that she might be a “yes” because polls had shown she might lose her seat because of a “no” vote. Her “no” decision (if it holds, which I’m assuming it will) indicates to me that she either doesn’t think it will cause her to lose in November, thinks she will lose no matter what in November, and that in any case she considers blocking Kavanaugh worth the loss for her. If the latter, she may know that she will have a nice cushy life afterwards; the Democrats will certainly take care of her. Taking one for the team isn’t really that arduous; maybe she’s tired of the Senate anyway (I could hardly blame her) and wants a change.
I noticed today that Steven Hayward at Powerline has written a post entitled “Let us now praise Democratic Party incompetence.” In it, he writes:
Amidst the justified outrage at the Democratic Party’s actions in the Kavanaugh nomination fight, let us step back for a moment and revel for a bit in the sheer political incompetence of Democrats.
He then goes on to list as demonstrations of that incompetence several reasons, chief among them the fact that the Democrats have lost voter support in the midterms as a result. I hope that Hayward is correct about all of this and maybe he is. But it strikes me that this is not an example of incompetence on their part—it’s an example of a choice.
Democrats are fighting a political war in the short term and would dearly like to win. But I think this Kavanaugh ploy was a gamble of theirs, and they are betting on the following: (1) they may be winning the cultural war, which is the long war compared to the short-term political war in the election of 2018, and (2) a very key part of that long war for the Democrats involves the courts. They rightly see the bulk of their power as residing there, and that power isn’t quite as subject to the vagaries of election years, particularly in the Supreme Court, where justices are appointed for life.
The Democrats are terrified of a conservative Court. The last time SCOTUS was conservative was before FDR, and that’s a long time ago. Not only have Democrats made a lot of strides because of Court decisions, but it may just be the main vehicle for the strides they have made. The Court is the branch of government least subject to the voters’ will. The voters cannot turn the justices out by voting against them. Impeachment is very very difficult because it requires such a huge majority in the Senate.
Simply put, the Court is the Democrats’ most powerful governmental weapon over time. They may feel that they simply cannot afford to let it go, and be willing to sacrifice short term goals to accomplish that. Hopefully, it will not work this time, but I think the idea that it will work is why they have pulled out all the stops on this one.
The fat lady has not sung.
In the piece by Steven Hayward, he quotes today’s article by Bret Stephens in the NY Times. You may recall that Stephens is a rabid NeverTrumper who has written he would rather Hillary Clinton had won. But this is what Stephens wrote today:
For the first time since Donald Trump entered the political fray, I find myself grateful that he’s in it. I’m reluctant to admit it and astonished to say it . . .
I’m grateful because Trump has not backed down in the face of the slipperiness, hypocrisy and dangerous standard-setting deployed by opponents of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. I’m grateful because ferocious and even crass obstinacy has its uses in life, and never more so than in the face of sly moral bullying. I’m grateful because he’s a big fat hammer fending off a razor-sharp dagger.
That is quite extraordinary. The transparent hypocrisy, viciousness, and injustice of the Kavanaugh attack (and recall that Kavanaugh is a moderate conservative formerly allied with the Bush family) seems to have brought the likes of Brett Stephens into the pro-Trump camp, at least temporarily. I don’t know whether he’ll be turning back, but eyes once opened can be difficult to close. The Kavanaugh attack has offended a lot of moderate Republicans on a very deep level, and they see the Democrats as a ruthless enemy whereas before they may have seen them as part of a genteel game.
This is no game.
h/t PowerLine — and in re the bump in support for Trump among people who were smarter than Bret Stephens in 2016.
I suspect a great many people are reacting the way Ann Althouse and her commenters did, and don’t care a fig what “1000 law professors” believe, other than to inquire how we can keep them from teaching any more of the lawyers and judges that will be filling our courts.
https://althouse.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-intemperance-of-law-professors.html
“October 4, 2018
The intemperance of the law professors’ “judicial temperament” letter.
I see over 1,000 names on this anti-Kavanaugh letter, many of them names of people I know. I’ve been with a lot of law professors over the past 4 decades, and the best law professors I have known have routinely expressed disbelief that the judicial opinions they read state the real reasons why the judges decide the cases the way they do. And I don’t believe the law professors when they say they oppose Brett Kavanaugh because they have concerns about his “judicial temperament.”
…
So we need to read this letter in light of the professors’ intent. Imagine an innocent Kavanaugh, under an outrageous attack and subjected to a horrendous ordeal. He expresses indignation and challenges his accusers. But he was supposed to remain calm and be deferential to the Senators, and because he didn’t — and for no other reason — he doesn’t belong on the Court. Who believes that?!
MadisonMan said…
You read 1000 Law Professors as authors. I read 1000 Anti-Trump Democrats.
rhhardin said…
I noticed that too.
Their strategy is to change the rules. They didn’t sign it for the reason they say they signed it.
rehajm said…
The cost benefit analysis was strongly in favor of signing. Other than some critical remarks can you imagine any sort of negative consequences for these respected scholars?
Sally327 said…
I’m guessing the law professors who signed the letter haven’t spent a lot of time in the courtroom or not for a long time. Judges aren’t really known for being deferential or even all that pleasant. Some are downright cantankerous when the mood strikes. And not afraid to show it. Which really has nothing to do with the ability to be a competent judge.
[confirmed by some lawyers I know]
Professional lady said…
This letter is such BS. It seems to me that once these serious accusations were leveled at Kavanaugh, he was no longer in the role of judge. He was in the role of the accused. In other words, he was the Defendant. He cannot adjudicate his own guilt and should not be expected to do so. These signatories are obtusely and willfully ignoring that fact. In other words, they believe that in certain cases (political expediency), a defendant is not entitled to vigorously defend himself/herself.
[but, but, but he wasn’t a defedant because he wasn’t on trial, “it was just a job interview” — in which case, he wasn’t a judge either, he was a job applicant being harassed by his potential employers]
Browndog said…
“and why would 1,000 law professors say that he should have?!” – Ann A.
Because if they don’t, their students will protest them, harass them, intimidate them, demand they themselves be put under a Title IX investigation, and demand they be fired.
[to wit – or to wit not]
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/public-maine-university-offered-pop-up-credit-students-who-protested-susan-collins/
Six String Aficionado said…
Kavanaugh’s judicial temperament is apparent in his performance as a judge for decades NOT in his temperament in trying to protect himself from false accusations meant to literally destroy his life! This letter is a last ditch political hit job and absolute bull shit!
Those lawyers should be ashamed that they participated in such a lie.
[don’t hold your breath, but I hope Justice Kavanaugh is more merciful than they are if any cases involving them come up before him]
SDaly said…
The letter opens with a lie “We regret…”
* * *
Ann has some of her own trolls.
Doug said…
“Why did so many law professors sign this text?”
Why did 88 Duke professors sign an letter condemning the Duke lacrosse players?
Surely, you are smart enough to figure that out, “Professor”!
Ann Althouse said…
“Surely, you are smart enough…”
I hate that kind of talk.
First of all, I never said I couldn’t figure it out. I chose to write in the way I did for a reason, using questions to draw the reader along. The idea that I don’t know the answers to my questions is just plain wrong. It’s a matter of refraining from saying things in an uglier way.
Second, I don’t like that approach to addressing a person. You’re stupid unless you see what I see. For 15 years, as I’ve written this blog, people have talked to me that way. It’s trite and it’s rude and it doesn’t leverage your statement as much as you may think. Maybe some people are tricked into going along with something because they’re afraid if they don’t they’re not smart, but it’s offensive rhetoric, and I literally hate !
Roy Jacobsen said…
“Why did so many law professors sign this text?”
Rhetorical question, right?
* * *
Well, you get the idea.
Ann Althouse said…
There’s so little honesty in law and politics. I sometimes feel like retreating from all of it and reading poetry, listening to music, and painting flowers. But something holds me into this strange practice of observing and talking about it. If I’m just an observer and a writer, why don’t I go find something beautiful to observe and write about?
* * *
Neo could have made this comment by Ann, but please, please keep writing on the “ugly” things, or we won’t be able to enjoy the beautiful ones from our new homes in the re-education camps.
Seems that there’s law and then there’s “Liberal” law. (As opposed to “liberal” law.)
There’s justice and then there’s “Liberal” justice. (As opposed to “liberal” justice.)
It’s as though it’s become:
“Liberal justice, Liberal justice, thou shalt pursue!” (And only “Liberal” justice. I.e., Trash any other variety.)
Not sure it was supposed to have turned out this way….
Justice was/is supposed to have been blind. Now, “Liberalism”—a Liberalism turned hateful—seems to be blinding those who are supposed to—who have pledged to—administer justice.
Flake is apparently already making noises about being “troubled” after that statement this morning. I think Flake has been a no vote all along. Someone has bought his vote, he is just stringing everyone on the Republican side along.
This is indeed not a game, Neo.
It has become a battle between Good and Evil for the heart and soul of America.
The ‘Spartacus’ Bookers, Harrises, Schumers, Heitkamps, Blumenthals and all the other Democrats in power show the possible (?probable) coming triumph of moral relativism, the great and oppressive Evil that faces us all.
We creep slowly but ever closer to a true civil war. The Dems should fear that because they will lose, at the civilian level at least, and probably at the military level as well.
From Feinstein’s remarks, the report was not helpful for the Democrats. Out of curiosity, I’m hoping what Christopher Garrett had to say about his association with Blasey and what it entailed will be made public. He’s been unhelpful to her but not altogether clear in the statements his attorney has issued thus far. If CG cannot attest that he introduced her to his circle, we have as much assurance as we can have 36 years after the fact that she was not acquainted with BK or MJ.
Someone has bought his vote, he is just stringing everyone on the Republican side along.
Well, he’s snookered George Will.
If I’m not mistaken, Flake’s congressional pension will be somewhat truncated (he’s had 18 years of service rather than 20) and will not come online until 2028. He has four kids and has to earn a living. He’s got no law degree nor any history in business (he ran a small NGO before being elected to Congress at age 38). Lobbying might be an option. If he want’s a gig at CNN….
Did you catch this
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/kavanaugh-hearings-devils-triangle-drinking-game/
Ross Douthat has discussed this as well. The 2d half of James Roche’s recollections appears to be rather unreliable.
Bill Kristol, Oct 2:
“The history of the Trump family business is bringing out my inner socialist. Some defenses of Kavanaugh are bringing out my inner feminist. The Trump-era degradation of American conservatism is bringing out my inner liberal.
IT’S HAPPENING AGAIN.”
The sheer insanity, the cognitive dissonance, of Never-Trumpism encapsulated in one tweet. Trump is, according to her, degrading out politics (I said her because as writer Kurt Schlicter points out, not among the inner whatevers that Kristol writes about is an inner man). Meanwhile there’s no amount of lying, slander, doxxing, mob intimidation, or even attempted murder that will disenchant the frauds, liars, and prostitutes in the never Trump crowd with the left.
Bill Krystol, Jen Rubin, the pet MSNBC conservatives et al, are perfectly fine with conservatism as long as it is a losing proposition. At the first hint it might be enacted they expose themselves. This is not my original observation, but I forget who came up with it, but it’s the story of an assassin with bad breath. His social circle was perfectly OK with murder, but bad breath was the crime of the century.
That is Never-Trump.
Here are two sites to check
– election map https://www.270towin.com/2018-senate-election/
– RCP poll results – https://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/#!
My senators are not up for reelection this year, so I am starting to donate directly to the campaigns. I’ll first check out their positions but just as long as they check most of the boxes/values that I am interested in, they will be better than the (D) option.
The states that I am “investing” in are – MI (James), ND (Cramer), AZ (McSally), MO (Hawley), WV (Morrisey), FL (Scott), TN (Blackburn), IN (Braun), MT (Rosendale) .
Comments about the candidates will be appreciated. Or any other good (R) candidates for Senate or House.
It’s worth pointing out Jeff Flake was born in Snowflake, Arizona.
As if is last name wasn’t deliciously appropriate enough…
This is no game.
no, never was.. and we already lost…
which is the only reason you see them acting out the way they do
they do not fear that anyone could do a thing about what they are doing
and they are probably right…
People change when they realize the side they are on that had all the cool sayings, promises, fake social meaning in serving them, and hopeful messages of a way of happyness – really doesn’t represent them in action…
the problem is that we keep allowing them to erase or de-emphasize their longer history that would clearly show their behavior has always been power over anything else and that their image and its maintenance is about knowing themselves and knowing they have to hide themselves
after i wrote about this here, things started to happen..
Full text of “The Hayes-Tilden disputed presidential election of 1876”
people must have read or checked out something as there was nothing at the time i wrote about eliza here. oh, there were books and there were things like that, but you couldnt find them… now when you search, this very inconvenient bit of democrat history, is available
The N**ro, the Republican Party, and the Election of 1876 in Louisiana
T. B. Tunnell, Jr.
Louisiana History: The Journal of the Louisiana Historical Association
Vol. 7, No. 2 (Spring, 1966), pp. 101-116
The page they display talk about blacks voting in 1876, and how there were more blacks voting than whites, and asks why the blacks suddenly defected to vote for the party of the slavers.
the reason i bring this up again, is that this is also about the supreme court!
you can read about this in
The Shifting Wind: The Supreme Court and Civil Rights from Reconstruction to
John R Howard
IIRC, Flake was elected to the U.S. House with a promise to term limit. So, …he ran for Senate. …a fine example of the seductive power of D.C. And of Flake’s level of deceit in pursuit of his own interests.
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/news/flake-waffles-on-term-promise/article_2685dab9-a304-5bf0-8eff-a011e8ebf9a7.html
Also, I like this piece by Mukasey at RCP:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/10/04/on_the_question_of_judicial_temperament_138257.html
arrrghhhhh closing blockquotes didnt close…
arrgghhhhh… fie fie… mea culpa sorry..
i suggest..
Fake News Comes to Academia
How three scholars gulled academic journals to publish hoax papers on ‘grievance studies.’
https://www.wsj.com/articles/fake-news-comes-to-academia-1538520950
“. . . I think the idea that it will work is why they have pulled out all the stops on this one.” [Neo]
We ain’t seen nuthin’ yet. If Trump gets to nominate a replacement for either Ginsberg or Breyer I am absolutely convinced that that nominee’s confirmation will make Kavanaugh’s look like a walk in the park, a larger Senate majority notwithstanding.
Think about it. Kavanaugh’s appointment tilts the court to the originalist right. There is still the possibility of a Roberts or even Kavanaugh himself acting as a Kennedy-esque balance between right and left. The next appointment, replacing a liberal with an originalist will carve that tilt in stone for, perhaps, the next twenty-five years. I hope and pray that Amy Coney-Barret is up to the task.
Perhaps the Kavanaugh nomination, whether successful or not, has been a necessary battle to help steel the senate Republicans.
Steve57:
I have been puzzled by Bill Kristol. Jennifer Rubin I never read much or thought about much, although I have actually met her very very briefly well over 10 years ago and have virtually no recollection of my impression of her except she was intense. Bill Kristol I have met several times, although the encounters were brief, and I did some writing for the Weekly Standard and therefore had some correspondence with him (before the Trump years), and always felt he was a very genial, smart guy with his head on pretty straight. So he has really really surprised me.
But I have two theories about why he believes what he believes. The first is that he got so deeply into NeverTrump even before Trump was elected that there really is no turning back for Kristol. He can only go deeper or feel mortified. It really IS hard to change your mind, and for him to do it at this point seems almost impossible and would be deeply deeply embarrassing and even cognitively difficult. Second, I think that, like many other Never-Trumpers, he lives (and is very prominent) in a world in which classy style and finesse and gentlemanliness are really really really important. He doesn’t think they are just surface window-dressing, he thinks if you don’t have them it means you are rotten underneath, too.
Now, that’s not based on anything he ever said to me (none of this is; my exchanges with him have been brief and perfunctory). It’s just the feeling I have about the whole thing.
For Rubin, I recall that she’s a fairly recent changer. Her opinion pieces, even back in her Commentary days, never seemed all that interesting to me. She didn’t seem to be a deep thinker. She seemed to just be good at giving forth a lot of information and saying her piece. My guess (and it’s only a guess) is that her change experience wasn’t very deep or ideological. It may have been somewhat of a surface thing, and then she got the WaPo gig and being in that environment had to have affected her. At this point, Trump offends her in much the same way he offends Kristol, and that’s her motivation and justification.
Of course they did this to retain power. The courts, especially the Supreme Court, have been the leftists’ power base for decades.
Sen. Flake is descended from one of the founders of the town of Snowflake, AZ. The other guy was named Snow. I once knew a descendant of his.
“The Democrats are terrified of a conservative Court.”
I love this whole paragraph. A number of FDR’s early and onerous laws intended to ameliorate the great depression were nullified by the Supreme Court. That was before he threatened to “pack” the court, after which, some of the justices went weak kneed and spineless.
“The Court is the branch of government least subject to the voters’ will.”
Exactly. What the Democrat party wants most of all, is a lack of democracy. They want Tammany Hall from sea to shining sea. Then they won’t need elections, or at least honest elections.
Years before the Obergefell decision, the Iowa state Supreme Court forced gay marriage on the state by fiat. Those justices were initially appointed by the gov. I believe, but later must stand for election. In the election after their marriage decision, both of the justices who had voted with the majority and were on the ballot, lost their election. Maybe we need a constitutional amendment along these lines.
“please, please keep writing on the “ugly” things, or we won’t be able to enjoy the beautiful ones from our new homes in the re-education camps.”
A couple of years ago, I would have been kidding about the camps.
After the outrageous behaviour of the Democrat leadership and the Leftist goons since 2016, I don’t think it’s a joke anymore.
One goal being accomplished by the hard-Left Progressives is purging anyone else out of the Democrats, meanwhile infesting the party with know-nothing pretty faces (usually female, haha, to a man) while simultaneously purging universities of anyone, student or faculty, who is not with them 100%.
One can easily see why they’re all singing in unison “Tomorrow belongs to me.”
Also consider this article on “The Gillibrand Standard”:
https://amgreatness.com/2018/09/28/the-gillibrand-standard/
A teaser quote (emphasis mine):
ICYMI – this is almost as good as the Bret Stephens’ turn-around, just not as artistically written.
https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2018/10/04/disgrace-to-survivors-sara-gonzales-thread-detailing-how-she-went-from-believing-to-disbelieving-ford-is-crushing/?utm_campaign=twitchywidget
(And have I said lately that I hate Twitchy and Twitter both?)
The Gillibrand Standard
By Michael Anton| September 28th, 2018
Have I mentioned lately that I really like Michael Anton’s writing?
At least, as long as he is not on Twitter.
Sarah Hoyt with a survivor’s view — as in, how to be a winner, not a victim.
https://accordingtohoyt.com/2018/10/02/being-broken/
More fake news outed, by Mark Steyn.
I think the sooner Sullivan is over-ruled the better, for people who are defamed with absolutely false statements and no due diligence done by the media mafia up and down the line.
https://www.steynonline.com/8881/the-turning-point
“I mentioned with Tucker the other night the condescension of Gentleman Jim Acosta, who airily presumes that, if you’re a woman, any woman, you believe the accuser and assume this Kavanaugh guy is a serial gang-rapist. That’s how it goes: Identity politics makes moron cultures of formerly sophisticated societies. So it was inevitable that when a picture from yesterday’s hearing popped up, of the judge with three females sitting behind him, the wankerati of Twitter immediately assumed that they were just three regular all-American women staring in disgust at the rape beast of Bethesda.
In fact, they were Kavanaugh’s wife, mother, and one of their dearest friends. And the reason they look like that is because they’re crushed and broken by what Dianne Feinstein, Blumenthal, Whitehouse and the other whatever-it-takes Democrats chose to do to them. It is a testament to the thoroughness with which these malign carbuncles on the body politic set about their task that, in a certain sense, one could forgive the Twitter mob its carelessness: Mrs Kavanaugh was all but unrecognizable from the woman who’d sat behind her husband just a fortnight ago. She was, indeed, a different person, and she will be for the rest of her life.
Dianne Feinstein did that to her, consciously.”
“. . . these malign carbuncles on the body politic . . . .” [Mark Steyn as quoted by AesopFan @10:47 pm]
One cannot be any more accurately descriptive than that; that is a keeper!
A person would speak the obvious by saying that the Kavenaugh confirmation is a bright line in the sand. As others have said, the Democrats understand that the Supreme Court is their last line of defense (or is it offense?) Clearly, they will go to any extreme to insure that it does not attain a make up that will place constitutional principles ahead of a “progressive” agenda (I have come to hate that word, “progressive”).
I can only hope that this disgusting attempt to destroy the life of an exemplary man, and his family, will finally wake the sleeping beast known as the American electorate.
Believe all women!
#BelieveRachelMitchell
https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2018/10/01/i-believe-rachel-in-rush-to-discredit-rachel-mitchell-buzzfeed-legal-editor-trips-over-metoo-and-rofl/
#BelieveConvenientSurvivors.
Robert J. O’Neill
?
@mchooyah
We believe the survivors. Unless they fought in Benghazi.
12:33 PM – Sep 29, 2018
https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2018/10/01/damn-robert-oneill-navy-seal-who-got-bin-laden-just-nuked-the-left-for-claiming-they-believe-survivors/
“Remember when Hilldawg basically lost it while being questioned on Benghazi and the Left told us how brave and powerful she was? Notice Kavanaugh didn’t even really lose it, he just spoke passionately and defended himself and now we get to listen to them yammer on about how he’s got a bad temper?”
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2018/10/01/dismantled-democratic-senators-theory-based-on-kavanaughs-1982-calendar-falls-apart-n2524123
Guy Benson |Posted: Oct 01, 2018 10:25 AM
“Yes, there certainly would be. And there’s also this: “Kavanaugh testified that his calendar indicates that prior to the gathering at Tim Gaudette’s he had been doing a football workout, which was ‘usually 6:00 to 8:00 or so, kind of—until near dark. And then it looks like we went over to Timmy’s.’ We don’t know for sure if Kavanaugh worked out until 8:00 p.m. that evening, but if he did, that fact would be inconsistent with Ford’s description of an assailant who was ‘extremely inebriated’ from drinking beer by the time the alleged assault occurred “early in the evening” at a ‘pre-gathering.'” Some people have posited that perhaps the alleged assault took place at a later party that night, but as McCormack notes, Ford testified that the fateful gathering she recalls was a ‘pregame’-style event, not a later party, which would have taken place after her curfew.
…
Democrats’ latest talking point (aside from predictably moving the goalposts on the FBI’s limited inquiry into this, which I still believe is a good idea). It’s really a neat trick to execute a hit job Kavanaugh via deeply unethical handling of an unsubstantiated allegation, lend credibility to a nutty gang rape theory by demanding that he withdraw his nomination on the eve of a high-stakes hearing, then cite his righteous, boiling anger at the aforementioned tactics as evidence that he’s temperamentally unfit for the job:”
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2018/10/04/plot-twist-gop-sen-steve-daines-attending-daughters-wedding-saturday-confirmation-vote-or-not/
But don’t panic — he’ll come back Sunday morning, McConnell will hold the vote open (standard procedure), and Trump is good with it.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2018/10/04/so-new-yorker-magazine-after-all-that-you-still-cant-corroborate-second-accu-n2525471
“This is literally a people-have-said-story—and so far, it’s total crap. This Ramirez account, like all three of the allegations against Kavanaugh, has zero evidence and no one can corroborate their accusations. With this case specifically, a prominent publication published a quintessential he said/she said story. Or better yet, ‘I heard this story from someone, and it’s true, but I wasn’t there, so I can’t say it happened, but this person might be able to corroborate’ only to have yet another reported witness say they have no memory of such an incident. “
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/10/04/on_the_question_of_judicial_temperament_138257.html
By Michael Mukasey
“Last Thursday, we watched Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh vigorously defend himself against very serious charges of misconduct that he has consistently and unequivocally denied, and for which no corroboration seems to exist.
In the wake of that hearing, we began to hear murmurs, which then escalated into much louder criticisms, that Judge Kavanaugh lacks the necessary judicial temperament to serve as a justice on the Supreme Court.
From 1988 to 2006, I served as a district judge in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, becoming chief judge in 2000. Additionally, I have worked with many judges throughout my career, in private practice and in government service. So the concept of judicial temperament is not an abstraction for me, but one that I have had to give considerable thought to.
…
[long and detailed description of Judge Kavanaugh at work, and Volokh’s response to the Law Professors Feelz Letter]
…
In resolving this question of temperament, ultimately we must look to the most probative evidence of what Judge Kavanaugh will be like as a justice, and that evidence is his 12 years of service on the D.C. Circuit.
We must examine the endorsement of the lawyers who have appeared before him in court. On August 27, 2018, a bipartisan group of 40 Supreme Court advocates — the nation’s leading appellate lawyers — wrote a letter in support of Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination.
…
Simply put, the evidence for Judge Kavanaugh’s temperament is found in the hundreds of personal interviews conducted on the subject by those who know him personally, the accounts of those who have practiced law before him, and the thousands of people who have signed letters in support of his nomination. His supporters cover the ideological spectrum and have personally interacted with him in his decades of public service.
And then we should ask the question, if you were charged similarly serious crimes of which you believed you were completely innocent, how would you respond?”
Michael Mukasey is a former federal judge and served as attorney general of the United States from 2007-2009.
…
https://reason.com/blog/2018/10/02/aclu-brett-kavanaugh-attack-ad-cosby
“The ACLU Sponsors an Ad Comparing Brett Kavanaugh to Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein
Such nakedly political propaganda is beneath the civil liberties organization.
Robby Soave|Oct. 2, 2018 2:00 pm”
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/10/04/dershowitz_kavanaugh_dispute_reminds_me_of_when_people_had_to_prove_theyre_not_communists.html
“Alan Dershowitz said the discussion of whether Judge Brett Kavanaugh is “innocent or guilty” of sexual assault reminds him of what it was like when people were accused of being communists, they had to prove that they weren’t one. Dershowitz named the ACLU as one of the organizations presuming guilt.
Dershowitz said he opposes the confirmation of Kavanaugh based on his judicial temperament but said the opposition of others, including the 700 law professors who signed a letter, is political.
“Well, can you imagine if this were a liberal who had been appointed by a liberal President who had been accused and would act similarly, I don’t think a single one of those professors would have signed that letter,” Dershowitz said on Tucker Carlson Tonight.
“They all fail the shoe on the other foot test,” he said.”
* * *
The ABA (at least its president, but probably the whole thing; AesopSpouse dropped his membership a couple of decades ago) and the ACLU have joined the SPLC as associations that have outlived their “best by dates.”
More from Dershowitz:
CARLSON: … You wrote or you were quoted in a recent piece saying that Julie Swetnick’s lawyer may have a legal obligation to withdraw her previous statement. What did you mean?
DERSHOWITZ: Yes, I’ve done some research now on it and there are ethical and bar rules that say that, when you submit an affidavit, even to Congress, and you later learn that there are things in the affidavit that are false, you have a continuing obligation to withdraw the affidavit.
You cannot allow an affidavit to remain on the record.
CARLSON: Right.
DERSHOWITZ: If you have information suggesting it’s false, and any reasonable lawyer hearing her on television says you can’t any longer accept what’s in that affidavit, she has to be investigated independently of the background check, criminally investigated to see if she deliberately and willfully, with or without the aid of anybody else, made a decision just to frame somebody for something that he had nothing to do with.
The evidence seems to suggest they never knew each other, they were years apart, they were operating in different circles. It wouldn’t surprise me if an FBI investigation proved they never met each other. And if that turns out to be the fact, she belongs in a court of law, being prosecuted with a presumption of innocence–
CARLSON: Yes.
DERSHOWITZ: –defender (ph). But if the evidence shows that she committed perjury, prison.
CARLSON: Wow.
DERSHOWITZ: You know why, because–
CARLSON: I do know why.
DERSHOWITZ: —it’s important to protect people against being raped, but it’s so important to protect people against being deliberately and willfully, falsely accused of rape. That is a very, very serious crime and we tend not to pay as much attention to false — deliberately false. I’m not talking about people make–
CARLSON: Oh I understand.
DERSHOWITZ: (inaudible). But deliberately false frame-ups of rape have to be taken seriously.
CARLSON: And they’re not, I happen to know.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/10/02/graham_the_republican_of_the_year_will_be_a_democrat_because_they_were_able_to_unite_this_party.html
“Sen. Graham says red state Democrats are “toast” if they vote no. The Senator also credited the Democrats for uniting Republicans.
“The Republican of the year will be a Democrat, not a Republican. You’ve been able to do something, my friends on the other side, I could never do: unite this party,” he said.”
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2018/10/04/grassley-since-the-summer-ive-been-dealing-with-chuck-schumers-demolition-der-n2525515
“Grassley also took a parting shot at the media, noting that more than a few reporters turned down interviewing pro-Kavanaugh protesters outside his office. He said he doesn’t normally use the term fake news, having the utmost respect for the media as policemen for our democratic institutions, but noted the bias has been explicit.”
Branco – moving the goalposts
https://townhall.com/political-cartoons/2018/10/04/160413
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2018/10/04/a-force-awakens-gop-voter-intensity-comes-roaring-back-amid-kavanaugh-firestorm-n2525196
Republican women enthusiasm jumped 12 points since July. Trump said women are “very angry” about the Kavanaugh smear. He’s right https://www.npr.org/2018/10/03/654015874/poll-amid-kavanaugh-confirmation-battle-democratic-enthusiasm-edge-evaporates?platform=hootsuite …
https://hotair.com/archives/2018/10/04/wsj-nyt-kavanaugh-smear-shows-deplorables-now/
“Don’t think for a moment that this is limited to Kavanaugh, or Trump. If Democrats can gin up a massive character assassination on someone as mainstream as Kavanaugh, they can do so with anyone. They will do so by destroying norms and committing vast hypocrisies in the name of saving the norms and exposing hypocrisies, and as we have seen in this sorry episode of McCarthyism, much of the media will provide them with the cover to do so. The only way to prevent this is to punish its purveyors at the ballot box. And fortunately, that opportunity is only a few weeks away.”
https://www.redstate.com/prevaila/2018/10/04/judiciary-committee-twitter-account-lays-smack-dianne-feinstein-kavanaugh-hearing/
“Republicans have clearly taken off the kid gloves.”
It’s Twitter stuff, but the GOP totally KO’s the Dems.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2018/10/04/cartoonist-critics-target-kavanaughs-daughterschelsea-clinton-speaks-out-n2525321
“Please leave Judge Kavanaugh’s daughters alone. They do not belong in your cartoons, “jokes”, or skits. If you can’t make your point about Judge Kavanaugh, whatever it may be, without bullying his kids, it’s not worth making.”
Good for her!
If you needed more proof:
https://hotair.com/archives/2018/10/04/letters-devils-triangle-just-drinking-game-not-sex-act/
JOHN SEXTONPosted at 4:41 pm on October 4, 2018
“A quick search of Google Books turned up this reference to “boof” in the “Art of the Fart” by Steve Bryant (2004). Not sure where this book stacks up on shelf of flatulence history texts, tho. Another funny synonym in passage. ”
One of the history texts being —
https://humorinamerica.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/fart-proudly/
In the Archives: Fart Proudly by Benjamin Franklin (1781)
By : on February 21, 2012
“Editor’s Note: Written around 1781, this piece is one of the classics of flatulence humor. Also called “A Letter to the Royal Academy” and “To the Royal Academy of Farting,” the piece was written in response to a call for scientific papers by the Royal Academy of Brussels. Never submitted, Franklin printed the piece and distributed it to friends. It was long suppressed on collections of Franklin’s writings, although it is discussed in a popular biography and included in the Library of America collection of Franklin’s writings.
And if you like humor on farting from eminent Americans, check out Mark Twain’s “1601,” which is the dirtiest piece of Mark Twain’s writing to see the light of day.”
* * *
Even the Sokal Hoax and the newest sting have an ancient pedigree.
https://quillette.com/2018/10/01/the-grievance-studies-scandal-five-academics-respond/
Neo –
Actually I’ve met both Kristol and Rubin as well (briefly, like you). I met Kristol at a conference at the New School on Leo Strauss’s work back during the height of the Iraq War panic in 2005. He was brought in to be the “celebrity” speaker who opened the event and introduced everyone before speaking.
Rubin I met, along with John Podhoretz, at a small event Commentary Magazine held at some dinky college in Pasadena in 2009-ish.
Incidentally, I also met Victor Davis Hanson after a speech he gave in Visalia around the same time (awesome guy – very kind and giving with his time; my brother and I just walked up to him after he’d spoken for 90 minutes and started pestering him with questions, and he sat there for at least 25 minutes chopping it up with us).
Anyway, my impression of Kristol was that he was meek and rather passive aggressive. This is just my sense, but I always felt he deliberately cultivated a kind of nebbish demeanor after picking up certain lessons he thought he understood from Harvey Mansfield and the first generation Straussian crew. He still spends a lot of time talking (in his Conversations series) with many of them – and the second and third generation people who taught me, the “Claremonsters” – and that presentational style is fully evident there.
I think you’re basically right in your suggestions about what’s going on with him. The human factor of not being able to pull back after going all-in is certainly at play. And the gentlemanly stuff is not only true, but was part of a teaching in political philosophy he imbibed deeply (too deeply, in my view) from his mentors. The figure of the Gentleman can take on the dimensions of a Platonic Form in the minds of less supple Straussian-trained thinkers. I myself am a Straussian of a sort, so this isn’t meant to indict Strauss or his brightest students like Mansfield, Bloom, Rosen, Benardete, et al. – but, that being said, as with anything human involving ideas, some people aren’t equipped to handle them responsibly and end up either reducing them to fashion statements or oversimplifying and reducing them to ideology.
In part, at least, Kristol’s nearly religious fixation on the Form of the Gentleman is motivated by such shoddy distillation processes.
In Rubin’s case, I’ve said before that I rather liked her when she was with Commentary. As you said: not deep but incredibly intense, I thought of her as a warrior. In fairness, it would be dishonest not to admit that maybe she appealed to me during the early Obama years for the same reason she appeals to NeverTrumpers today – her rabid intensity was cathartic, while at the same time fanning the flames of my hostility.
When I spoke to her we just talked about people I knew at Claremont; nothing substantive. I do remember her getting heated about Honduras, which was pleasing to me (maybe I brought it up).
At any rate, my wish is that one of them winds up becoming introspective and tells the tale of their inner life and thoughts, warts and all, to give us some True Political Confessions. Such a work would be infinitely more valuable than anything they’re presently doing.
Until you realize that at best the left wants you hungery and starving in a labor camp, or at worse in a death camp breathing zylon fumes; you don’t understand the left. This has gone beyond politics. It is life or death, for you, your children, and grandchildren. Yeah, sounds paranoid and hysterical. Best get paranoid and hysterical, because that is what the left desires. They want what Pol Pot acheived, killing fields. Doubt that to your own peril. When you underestimate you enemies you most likely die and so do your children and grandchildren.
Learn to reload.
As long as we’re talking about Democrat hypocrisy – this isn’t news to anyone here, but it’s got some nice lines at the end.
Here’s the underlying WaPo article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/25/beto-orourkes-false-claim-he-did-not-try-leave-scene-dwi/?utm_term=.0b3bc0a05028
https://www.redstate.com/prevaila/2018/10/04/washington-post-fact-checker-beto-orourke-pants-fire/
“One of the incredible lines to come out of Rep. Robert “Beto” O’Rourke’s first debate with Sen. Ted Cruz late last month was when he denied that he tried to leave the scene of the accident he caused while intoxicated.
“I did not try to leave the scene of the accident,” O’Rourke said. “Though driving drunk, which I did, is a terrible mistake for which there is no excuse or justification or defense, and I will not try to provide one.”
Except on the night of the crash, — which happened on O’Rourke’s 26th birthday — an eyewitness of the crash reported to the police that O’Rourke tried to leave the scene and the act was reported in multiple documents about that night.
The detailed official documents of what happened that night are truly astounding.
…
During the last few weeks in which we’ve seen the teenage drinking habits of Judge Brett Kavanaugh come under scrutiny and criticism. Not to mention being called a liar over his characterization of his history with beer, it’s incredible that those same people aren’t crying foul over O’Rourke’s behavior as a 26-year-old and now deciding to lie.
It’s also worth noting that O’Rourke is saying the cops got it wrong when they weren’t the ones fall-down-drunk that night.
As the WaPo points out, contemporaneous accounts of events should be weighted heavily against new recollections decades later. Sorry, Beto, your pants are more than just a little scorched.”
Or, contemporaneous non-accounts of events.
It’s not “incredible” at all, it’s very believable behavior.
SOP in fact.
https://www.redstate.com/jenvanlaar/2018/10/04/chuck-grassley-tells-media-get-off-lawn/
“Now, I would never use the word ‘Fake News.’ I consider you folks policemen for our democratic system of government but I want to show you where some of you have bias. I’ve had demonstrators in my office for two weeks now, both for Kavanaugh and against Kavanaugh. And one time the people that were for Kavanaugh wanted to be interviewed, and they said we’re only interested in interviewing people against Kavanaugh. Now that’s a bias that none of you should be proud of.”
…
“It’s amazing. These “reporters” accuse the GOP of trying to interfere with FBI investigations regarding Donald Trump and Russian collusion, but demand that they tell the FBI what to do when it comes to investigating Dr. Ford’s absolutely unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, 100-percent-political allegations. The only thing that’s consistent about their outrage is its intellectual inconsistency.”
AesopFan,
Well out in the deplorable hinterlands of Iowa we don’t have leftard agitators. Perhaps that is because we feed them to the hogs. 😉
So far, this is the best run-down of the smack-downs of Ronan Farrow that I have read, but I want to put it in the context of the times (specifically, the New York Times), as an example of what happens once you unmoor your reporting from journalistic standards and plain old-fashioned ethics.
https://www.redstate.com/bradslager/2018/10/04/remember-ronan-farrow-journalist-pulitzer-winner-reduced-kavanaugh-smear-merchant/
Posted at 1:00 pm on October 4, 2018 by Brad Slager
“While in the past he did impressive work the difference is now Farrow does not have the luxury of cultivating his contacts and fleshing out his story in full. …The result however is that in playing the warrior for the left he delivers an embarrassing piece that under normal circumstances should have an editor handing it back to the writer and saying, “You don’t have it yet.” But there is a need to scuttle this nomination on the quick, so editorial standards are jettisoned in the name of expediency.
…
From this already questionable source Farrow’s article descends from being a stretch, to reaching down into the the realm of wish-casting. He cites one of Brett’s former Yale suite-mates, Kenneth Appold, as among those who should have been contacted by the FBI.
…[you know the story here]
This is not a witness testimony. This is a rumor. Nothing more. Except Farrow elevates this to be held up as some sort of evidence. Appold had heard about something happening, by others, about someone he was unfamiliar with, thirty five years ago. You can picture the FBI agent listening to this account and then quietly closing their notebook and replacing their pen in their suit pocket.”
Except that, when Steele came calling with his rumors, the FBI asked for more.
And it gets worse. Appold goes on to say that he attempted to reach out to the person who had told him the account. The result is less than…well, let’s just say it fails to deliver: [it was flat-out denied]
…
Here would be where you have been essentially been granted permission to stop reading Farrow’s article — from Farrow himself. We are now at the fourth-person level of an account, and at that level the individual has nothing to corroborate. Who would expect any type of activity from authorities with this nonsense? Farrow tries stating that multi-layered hearsay, regarding an allegation from an individual refusing to give testimony, is a valid claim.
This may be enough for the standards of today’s media complex, but it hardly qualifies as worth the time of any law enforcement.”
Except that, of course, the same type of fourth-level hearsay was exactly worth the time of the FBI when they thought they could nail President Trump or his colleagues with, um, throwing borscht at a party, maybe, sometime. But we know the Russians are Coming…because Steele’s dossier was so credible!
News at eleven.
“Deeper in the piece Farrow provides a number of other individuals he declares qualify as “potential witnesses”, and the basis for being investigated are even more removed. One classmate from Yale was upset no one living in a particular dorm had been interviewed. There was no charge, and no particular incident mentioned — the FBI is just expected to arrive and start rooting around for…something.
Because that’s what they did before, in service to the Democrat Agenda.
Sorry, Ronan.
They’re just not that into you.
“That is all. No incident is reported. Nothing wrong, objectionable, problematic, nor controversial is mentioned. Brett Kavanaugh is not named by Walker.”
Mueller’s investigation in a nutshell.
“Yet Farrow, and many on the left, are upset that the FBI is not investigating a not-crime, and a not-story, that did not involve Kavanaugh. We do not even know if Kavanaugh was in attendance.Yet the FBI is accused of investigative sloth, for not pursuing these merit-free reports.”
Because that’s the whole purpose of the FBI, isn’t it?
— or was, until January 2017.
cartoons – but they aren’t really very funny anymore, are they?
https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/electric_chair20181003123913.jpg
https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/Punching_Back20181004122524.jpg
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/10/the-us-now-praise-democratic-party-incompetence.php
“For most of the first two years of Trump’s presidency, the people who disliked him really disliked him. His Disapproval and Strong Disapproval numbers were about the same. No surprise there. But there were quite a few people–like me–who would have told a pollster that they approved of Trump’s performance, but not strongly.
That is no longer true. If a pollster asked me today whether I strongly approve of Trump, I would say, Damn straight! The increased GOP intensity we are seeing in Senate races is also showing up as increased intensity in support for the president.”
I find the case of Jennifer Rubin sad. She was a must-read for me during the Bush and Obama years. I considered her columns plain-spoken and well-reasoned — not unlike neo. Somewhere in 2016 I stopped reading Rubin, though I was hardly enamored of Trump either.
Her wiki article is more interesting than I expected. She graduated at the top of her class at UC Berkeley Law. She worked as a labor/employment lawyer in Hollywood. An animator and trade union leader said he never thought of her as anything other than a Democrat.
She moved to Virginia with her husband and was offered work at Weekly Standard, then Commentary and eventually at WaPo. There she was savaged by commenters and one ombudsman declared her writing “political pornography.”
I read the Rubin commenters back then and they were brutal. It seemed there was an organized effort from the left to dislodge her from WaPo by sheer venom. Then the Trump supporters piled on from the other direction and were no less venomous.
My read is Rubin was pulled in too many directions — she seems at heart liberal yet a great believer in Israel and American exceptionalism, then faced with concern for her high-profile job and her innate dislike of Trumpism. It’s a balancing act which hasn’t worked and there she is.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-10-04/kavanaugh-bad-temperament-isn-t-why-senators-should-vote-no?srnd=premium
Dishing on the “scorpions” of the bench.
huxley –
I have to agree with you on Rubin. I guess she wasn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but I loved her. I used to send my friend a link in the morning to her daily posts at Commentary, with the title “Daily Rubin.” When I went to the Commentary event in Pasadena, she was the only reason (I’ve never been that impressed with Podhoretz, Jr.).
Pundits come and go, and we’ve still got plenty of lions on the right, so I’m not shedding tears over Rubin’s defection. What’s really sad is just how much of a mockery she’s made of herself. All she is is a punchline now, and she probably doesn’t even realize it.
Why all so serious? (’cause we’re the serious poli-junkies?)
Here’s some L. Cohen lyrics:
“You loved me as a loser but now your worried that I just might win
You know the way to stop me but you don’t have the discipline
How many nights I prayed for this: to let my work begin”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTTC_fD598A
(First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin)
2016 was a Flight 93 election — stop the Dem PC-bullies or see America destroyed / transformed. Most “normal” folk didn’t see it that way.
Many GOPe “gentlemen” were OK with being “loyal opposition”, even if this often means being a good loser. Reps in the culture wars have been increasingly tired of losing, and have been looking for a fighter.
Trump fights, and especially Trump fights back. That’s actually the American Way: Trust, but verify — and stop benefits if they cheat. Be nice at first, but if others attack you, fight back.
I pretty strongly suspect that before Trump insulted his primary opponents, they had all said bad things about him — I didn’t follow him so closely then. And the thing is, if somebody insults you, that’s kind of an open invitation to insult them back, and certainly that’s one way to deal with bullies.
It does seem to be that the Dem elite understand that their March Thru the Institutions is most important in controlling the Supreme Court. This all-out attack on Kavanaugh was in recognition that their strong attack against Gorsuch was not enough. There’s some talk about how the Dems were fair to Gorsuch, not true, but weren’t as unfair.
Hysterical screaming and false accusations have been working so long for Dem bullies that they’re totally unprepared for tantrums to fail. Trump is a new kind of babysitter who doesn’t do the kids bidding even when they stamp their feet, scream out loud, fall on the floor screaming, crying, whining…
The way to stop Trump is focus on his real problems — but the Dems “don’t have the discipline.”
Can America be saved, can the USA once again be “Land of the Free, Home of the Brave?” Kavanaugh is the one being brave now, and Reps willing to be honest about being Reps on colleges are the brave ones.
Harry Potter was hugely popular partly because he was often unjustly treated, yet remained basically good. The injustice against him made readers (viewers?) support him more.
The Deranged Dem attacks against Kavanaugh, so unjust and unseemly, are making most normal people angry and against the Dems. I dearly hope this means no blue wave. I do believe this is a GREAT excuse for “NeverTrump” Reps to change, and join Trump’s Republican Majority, while continuing to complain a bit about Trump.
Uniting the Republican Party, something Trump couldn’t do on his own, while being Trump, no matter how good the results of his policies are. A united Rep Party might even fulfill even more of Trump’s promises, building the Wall; changing the Supreme Court to be judges, not law-makers in robes; gov’t reform.
(already back to seriously boring — see Trump on why he’s not boringly Presidential).
When I think about the charges leveled at Kavanaugh, which are flimsy at best, and then the follow-up charges from Ramirez and Swetnick, which are even less reliable, it makes sense that the Democrat’s goal was to drive Kavanaugh to withdraw. They took the risk that he would do this to protect his name and his family, didn’t count on him, and Trump & the GOP leadership, staying to fight.
“Simply put, the Court is the Democrats’ most powerful governmental weapon over time. They may feel that they simply cannot afford to let it go” neo
Simply put, they are willing to use whatever means are necessary to attain their goal. Fanatics can always justify assassination when no other means remains. Count on it, if Kavenaugh is approved and later Ginsburg is replaced with a Constitutionalist like Kavenaugh, the Left will start killing people. And, the media will report it as the actions of a “deranged, lone wolf” gunman. And on the social media platforms, thousands of leftists and ‘liberals’ will celebrate.
Yancey Ward,
Flake “is just stringing everyone on the Republican side along.”
Bingo.
Cicero,
“We creep slowly but ever closer to a true civil war. The Dems should fear that because they will lose, at the civilian level at least, and probably at the military level as well.”
They don’t want a civil war to erupt until they have a Democrat President, Congressional majority and liberal S. Court allowing them to continue the evisceration of the Constitution. When rebellion erupts they’ll impose Martial Law. ‘Legally’ imposed, the military will legally have to back the “lawfully elected federal government”…
T,
“The Democrats are confident that the Republicans will never resort to the same tactic against one of theirs. They are right to be confident. Whether out of principle or pusillanimity, the Republicans do not have it in them to turn the tables in this way. Perhaps that is for the best.” Michael Anton
That’s true of establishment Republicans. But not of those conservatives who support Trump, i.e. those who take the view that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. If push comes to shove with the trip wire of gun confiscation passing the Senate… conservatives will if necessary, burn it all down and start over. Since if the dems turn us into the Police State that the UK is quickly becoming, the Constitution is a dead letter anyway.
AesopFan,
Grassley said “he doesn’t normally use the term fake news, having the utmost respect for the media as policemen for our democratic institutions“ my emphasis
That gives new meaning to the expression, “clueless and living in the past”
parker,
“Until you realize that at best the left wants you hungery and starving in a labor camp, or at worse in a death camp breathing zylon fumes; you don’t understand the left.”
I can’t fully agree, “at best” the left wants us compliant useful idiots who mindlessly parrot that 2+2=5 or 3 or 7 or whatever the current narrative. They want enthusiastic “Sig Heils!” Those who actively oppose ‘the program’ will most certainly be sent to the gulags and killing fields.
“I do believe this is a GREAT excuse for “NeverTrump” Reps to change, and join Trump’s Republican Majority, while continuing to complain a bit about Trump. [Tom G @ 5:01 am]
See Erick Erikson:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/10/05/trump_2020_138259.html
NeverTrump will wither away. Its a Capitol Hill / pressroom tendency which has never had much popular resonance. Compare Trump’s approval ratings among Republicans with those of an ordinary Republican president and you can see that the ‘NeverTrump’ constituency might be about 4% of the Republican electorate, if that. IOW, it’s the size of the paulbot constituency, just less obtrusive at the popular level and much more prevalent at the elite level. (I suspect it does actually exist at the popular level, which the ‘Obamacon’ strand never did). As for prominent NeverTrumpers, some are decamping to the Democratic Party (Max Boot, Jennifer Rubin), some are leaving public life (Bob Corker, presumably Jeff Flake); some will join the ranks of the pets and shills the media employs to supply talking points for Democrats (e.g. Joe Scarborough, David Brooks, Steve Schmidt, Nicolle Wallace, Kathleen Parker, Meghan McCain, Bruce Bartlett, Conor Friedersdorf, Matt K. Lewis, &c), some will settle into the role of chronic complainer, and some will adjust to circumstances in various ways. Ben Sasse, Wm. Kristol, David French, Ross Douthat, Jonah Goldberg, Erick Erikson, Patrick Frey, &c. are going to eventually have to piss or get off the pot. There’s room for unaligned honest brokers in public discussion (Ann Althouse, Megan McArdle), but most of these people wouldn’t be able to pull it off. (Kind of a chick thing in our time, for one thing).