↓
 
Home » The Kavanaugh hearing has united the GOP for now. But why?

The Kavanaugh hearing has united the GOP for now. But why?

The New Neo Posted on by

You hear it everywhere right now: the Republican Party is united as never before.

Mitch McConnell was pretty witty about it: “I want to thank the mob because they’ve done the one thing we were having trouble doing, which was energizing the base.”

It’s not just the base, of course. The moderate right and the more conservative right and the more extreme right are all on the same page for the moment, thanks to the behavior of the Democrats.

But Democrats have behaved badly before, and it certainly didn’t unify the GOP. The Kavanaugh attacks and the GOP defense against those attacks had some very unusual characteristics that gave them that unifying potential and ensured that the potential was fulfilled:

(1) Kavanaugh is not especially conservative. He’s long been allied with the Bushes, and his judicial positions and decisions have not been extreme. In fact—although so much has happened since his initial nomination that it’s hard to remember the buzz at the beginning—quite a few people from the right wing of the party were unhappy about the nomination because they felt he’d be a squish as a justice and not conservative at all. And maybe he will be a lot squishier than we think. So initially it was actually the more conservative side of the GOP that wasn’t ecstatic about his nomination.

(2) Kavanaugh was seen by all as a sort of Boy Scout. He was nominated in part because there was no hint of scandal around him.

(3) And yet the most vicious attack ever seen against a SCOTUS nominee was launched against this particular candidate. The Roy Moore attacks worked in large part because the moderate wing of the GOP hated him, and he was seen even on the right as a bit loopy. Brett Kavanaugh had none of those characteristics. So although the GOP was expecting Kavanaugh to be attacked during his hearings, they were not expecting a combination of Borking (in the first stage for Kavanaugh) and the Clarence Thomas hearings (in the second, post-Ford stage), with the offensiveness of the accusations in that latter stage exponentially more serious than those leveled against Clarence Thomas by Anita Hill.

(4) The outrage and anger from both wings of the Republican Party was tremendous. But the far right of the party is often outraged and angry at what Democrats do. It’s the moderate wing that usually shrugs its shoulders or gives in. This time, that was not an option. Kavanaugh was their man, and he was being trashed.

(5) He was also being trashed in an exceptionally underhanded and extreme manner: sexual charges from when he was a teenager, minus any detail that would enable him to defend himself properly or disprove them, and with no corroboration. Then came the piling-on of even more scurrilous and less believable charges, and it was clear that the Democrats were championing trial by ordeal and mob rule.

(6) That was frightening to both sides of the GOP. But not one Democrat—with the single uncertain, wavering, and self-serving exception of Joe Manchin—was frightened by it. The rest jumped on board the USS Defamation.

(7) At that point, it was the moderate wing of the GOP that was galvanized. They suddenly discovered that the rules they thought they’d been playing by all this time, the ones they thought at least some of their Democratic colleagues shared, meant nothing to the opposition. They either had never held them at all, or were more than willing to abandon them—and all sense of decency—in their lust for power.

(8) And that’s why it was the moderate side of the right that stepped up to the plate and delivered the goods in the Kavanaugh fight. Lindsay Graham, Susan Collins, Chuck Grassley, Mitch McConnell, all of them harshly vilified in the past by the more conservative wing of the party, found themselves uttering words that those who had previously reviled them were now cheering.

(9) Those words from the RINOs had more power to rally the base than if the same messages had been delivered by senators further to the right. The factor of surprise made for a much more attention-getting story. Lindsay Graham’s tirade was much more newsworthy because it came from Graham rather than, for example, Ted Cruz. But in addition, because one of the biggest beefs the far right had previously had with the RINOs was the latters’ lack of courage and fight, the experience of actually seeing and hearing those RINOs fight, and fight hard, did much to evaporate the base’s former reasons for despising them.

And that, folks, is why the GOP is united for now.

Comments

The Kavanaugh hearing has united the GOP for now. But <i>why</i>? — 80 Comments

  1. Good analysis. I was one who thought Kavanaugh was a squish at first. He now knows he has no friends on the left. I don’t think it will affect his decisions but any temptation to seek favor on the left is probably done for years.

    My other concern, which is not addressed, is the Harvard/Yale axis of the Court. Amy Barrett brings the first crack in that wall of elitist self regard.

    Drucker wrote in 1969:


    One thing it (modern society) cannot afford in education is the “elite institution” which has a monopoly on social standing, on prestige, and on the command positions in society and economy. Oxford and Cambridge are important reasons for the English brain drain. A main reason for the technology gap is the Grande Ecole such as the Ecole Polytechnique or the Ecole Normale. These elite institutions may do a magnificent job of education, but only their graduates normally get into the command positions. Only their faculties “matter.” This restricts and impoverishes the whole society…The Harvard Law School might like to be a Grande Ecole and to claim for its graduates a preferential position. But American society has never been willing to accept this claim…    (in 1969)

    We as a country are a lot closer to accepting Grande Ecole status for Harvard Law School and similar institutions than we were when Drucker wrote the above.

    He continues:

    It is almost impossible to explain to a European that the strength of American higher education lies in this absence of schools for leaders and schools for followers. It is almost impossible to explain to a European that the engineer with a degree from North Idaho A. and M. is an engineer and not a draftsman.

    We need to start filling the Court with other legal minds, not from those two “elite” schools.

  2. I think the Establishment finally realized that their opposite numbers on the Left, whom they have worked alongside for decades, whose children attend private schools and universities with theirs, are more interested in power than anything else. They never thought the Establishment Left would do this to them.

    It was different when they did it to Roy Moore and Al Franken because they were outsiders.

    Let me add that by mentioning these men together I am not implying any equivalence in the seriousness of what they were accused of or the strength of the evidence. In terms of strength of evidence, on a scale of 1 to 10,

    Al Franken: 9 (photographic evidence of him apparently doing what he was accused of, ample documentation, some photographic, that he was there at the same time and place as his accusers at the event of the assault, his own acknowledgment that he’d done something which was at least inappropriate)

    Roy Moore: 2 (uncorroborated word of two accusers, with contemporaneous evidence that he was at least in the same time and place as they were on one occasion, which was NOT the event of the assault for either)

    Brett Kavanaugh: 1 (uncorroborated word of three accusers, only one of which can be independently established that he’d ever even met)

    In terms of seriousness of accusation, I’d rank them:

    Roy Moore: 9 (the accusers were underage, and one of the accusations was of a violent assault)

    Brett Kavanaugh: 6 (Ford, both underage at the time at a party, alcohol a factor), 3 (Ramirez, both college students at a party, alcohol a factor, lots of other people supposedly present). Not sure how to rate Swetnick, the gang rape part was definitely an 8 at least but that accusation didn’t stay the same very long and I don’t think was treated by the public as being very plausible

    Al Franken: 3 (accusers all adults, no violence, typically in public (!))

  3. Lindsay Graham has been the biggest surprise for me, because he kept fighting after his initial tongue lashing.

    I mean he’s pushing for an investigation on Feinstein leak and then he pushed back every time a protester would get on his face. His “Why don’t we dunk him in water and see if he floats?” remark still brings a smile to my face.

  4. MikeK, very interesting.

    Having spent periods of my life in the middle, east, and west coasts, I can say that being from an ivy league school means a great deal out east, but doesn’t mean a thing out west.

    While I don’t have any particular knowledge of Harvard, my impression is that it is an excellent school that is also extremely overrated. That is, it is elevated beyond all human reason.

    And I agree with your main point, we need some non-Harvard/Yale justices. What is the count? Are there any?

  6. And I agree with your main point, we need some non-Harvard/Yale justices. What is the count? Are there any?

    TommyJay: Of current living SC Justices, including retired, only Sandra Day O’Connor (Stanford) and John Paul Stevens (Northwestern) are non-Harvard, non-Yale law school graduates.

    My impression is the Harvard/Yale preponderance has grown worse over time.

    Wiki has a convenient round-up here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_schools_attended_by_United_States_Supreme_Court_Justices

  7. (3) “the GOP … they were not expecting a combination of Borking …”

    To the extent you are correct Neo; sigh, groan, sigh. Is it really true that the GOP doesn’t have anyone who can effectively do the Machiavellian strategist thing?

    I saw Marie Harf’s “post game” analysis on Chris Wallace’s show. Made me want to vomit. Lie, lie lie, lie lie. And all without effective counterpoint.

    Poor Chuck Grassley. Having followed him from his early days in politics, I think he is one of the modest number of pols that really believes in honesty and integrity in his bones, but he’s no rocket scientist. Either put someone on his team that can think deviously, or replace him.

    (7) To the GOPe: Time to put down the G&T and get in the game.

  8. Some other reasons:

    a. A sane person could see the false accusations happening to themselves and relatives. It is the kangaroo courts of Title IX at the universities. It needs to be stopped.

    b. The protests, insane screaming and ranting, the “in your face” attacks on people, both physically and on social media, were also important factors to unite people. The conservative side has been polite, for the most part.

    c. Concerning your point #1, Garland and Kavanaugh agreed on >90% of the DC Court opinions and that point was ignored by the protesters. So, they were really against Trump and not the judge. I wonder if Kavanaugh will now be more conservative in his opinions when he really could have been the swing vote replacement for Kennedy.

    I’m not sure how many people saw this photo of DiFi cornering another senator.
    https://twitter.com/BoKnowsNews/status/1045014671118553090/photo/1

    I also wonder how McCain’s absence from the Senate impacted people since they didn’t have to worry about him making some insane comment and the press repeating it for days.

  9. (7) At that point, it was the moderate wing of the GOP that was galvanized. They suddenly discovered that the rules they thought they’d been playing by all this time, the ones they thought at least some of their Democratic colleagues shared, meant nothing to the opposition. They either had never held them at all, or were more than willing to abandon them—and all sense of decency—in their lust for power. –neo

    This time it’s existential!

  10. Yes, it is existential.

    Leftism as currently-constituted is a religion. It is, like jihadist Islam, a persecuting and conquering religion.

    Much like jihadist Islam, Leftism willingly accords “protected” status to any members of dissenting groups provided that they…

    1. periodically pay public homage to Leftism;
    2. are visibly in a state of decline in power, prestige, wealth, and numbers; and,
    3. publicly and promptly deny, when commanded, any group tenets which conflict with Leftism, even if those tenets are typically held to be definitive ones for their group;

    …because this system of dhimmitude serves to assure both the Leftist conquerors and the conquered peoples of the irreversibility of that conquest.

    But any members of dissenting groups who don’t play along — who call the permanence of the conquest into question — are violently crushed.

    This is why an Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the Oklahoma University College of Law was just hounded out of his job by the Leftist mob for being (gasp) a Catholic who actually believes Catholicism.

    He’d have been fine if he were a Catholic who publicly denied Catholic teaching on sexual ethics and publicly called for the ordaining of actively homosexual clergy and women.

    But apparently he believes Catholicism, and says so.

    For Leftists, that will not stand.

  11. May we all pray that the GOP can stay united – and turn out to vote in huge numbers – for the next 30 days.

  12. MikeK on October 8, 2018 at 10:06 am at 10:06 am said:

    We need to start filling the Court with other legal minds, not from those two “elite” schools.
    * * *
    I liked Harriet Miers.

    Seriously, there are hundreds of judges on the lower courts; they can’t all be from Hale & Yarvard, can they?

  13. MikeK–Recently I heard a priest make a similar point about the office of the Pope. Apparently, historically a bishop was never chosen as Pope because a bishop never left the area to which he was assigned–it was a life-long appointment. This priest was pointing out that the ascendency aspect that developed in clericalism can be poisonous in the sense that it can by nature appeal to a lust for power. He suggested that going back to choosing a Pope out of the greater body of ordained priests might be better.

    Our founders certainly didn’t portend that those elected to office or appointed to positions would by-and-large emanate from one field or that it would be a life-long job. So, of course, we are far afield from the blueprint.

  14. I think Justice Kavanaugh (gosh, that was fun to write!) has been through a similar “attitude-changing” event to that which President Trump went through. Until they rose up out of their slimy home and bit them, neither knew how vicious those Democrats were. I don’t think either man was particularly partisan before he entered the swamp. President Trump, by his background and demeanor has shown that he can readily punch back twice as hard at his (and our) enemies from the office he has attained. Justice Kavanaugh will not be so readily able or likely to do that from his position — but his magnificent opening statement before the Committee showed that he has the cojones to do so.

    Some commenters expect Justice Kavanaugh to take revenge on his enemies from the bench. I believe he is far too principled to do so. However, he will be on the bench for a long, long time (even though Ruth Bader Ginsberg will still be sitting when Kavanaugh retires). I believe him to be a strict Constitutional constructionist. We can see that Congress and the Federal Courts have expanded their jurisdiction into moral and personal matters that should best be left to the states. One’s feelings about abortion, marriage and religion are so deeply personal that they cannot easily be changed. None of these are matters in which “one size fits all.” Rather than tear the country apart by trying to impose a single solution from Washington DC, such matters should be returned to the state legislatures . . . as was the scheme envisioned in the original text of the Constitution. Restoring that meaning might inconvenience some people in some states, but especially in the 21st century, they can move to a place with a more “enlightened” attitude.

  15. Some good analysis by all above commentators and NEO. My only comment is to the last statement my NEO. There should be a comma after “why the GOP is united” and before the “for now”.

  16. The moderate GOPers got a 5-Alarm wake-up call telling them that “fat, dumb, and happy” is no way to go thru life.

  17. maybe democrat anger causing it. republican campaign workers threatened when knocking on democrat doors. a mormon kid putting up g.o.p. campaign sign nearly run over by car trying to hit sign. nobody killed yet.

  18. Here’s a shocking statistic, tweeted by J. Christian Adams:

    Just learned: in the last few months the #FBI received over 1400 calls and emails saying Brett #?avanaugh raped them. #HystericalLiars. Ritual defamation.

    Ka-BOOM! on the “Why would they lie?” canard.

  19. Something to consider, American conservatives, in following the principles embedded in The Constitution and Declaration of Independence, represent the middle of the political spectrum. It was the left of center and right of center Republicans that found common cause with the moderates as everyone is at risk with a “living” or evolving, and, in particular, Pro-Choice or selective, Constitution.

  21. huxley:
    Here’s a shocking statistic, tweeted by J. Christian Adams:
    Just learned: in the last few months the #FBI received over 1400 calls and emails saying Brett #?avanaugh raped them. #HystericalLiars. Ritual defamation.

    Have the FBI interview them. Check out their claims and jail them for perjury.

  22. democrats maybe do crazy as their corporate establishment leadership is now discredited. even democrats have contempt for rapist bill clinton and saying nice things about jaunita broderick!

  23. Drucker quote from Mike K:

    One thing it (modern society) cannot afford in education is the “elite institution” which has a monopoly on social standing, on prestige, and on the command positions in society and economy. Oxford and Cambridge are important reasons for the English brain drain. A main reason for the technology gap is the Grande Ecole such as the Ecole Polytechnique or the Ecole Normale.

    The geneticist CD Darlington, in The Evolution of Man and Society, makes an important point about scientific and engineering progress in Great Britain. One consequence of the 1660 restoration of the monarchy was an agreement that only professed Anglicans could be associated with Oxford or Cambridge.

    Those Dissenters who were associated with Oxbridge, like Isaac Newton, dissimulated their religious views. Darlington goes on to point out that nearly all of the scientific and engineering advancements in Great Britain from 1600-1900 came from religious Dissenters. (So much for putting down those horrible Puritans !)

    Oxbridge became the alma maters of clerics and government officials, not of prominent scientists or engineers.

  24. “But why?”

    That’s a real head-scratcher.

    Maybe because of the atavistic, aggressive hysteria that has been motivating those who oppose half the country?
    https://www.dailywire.com/news/36717/womens-march-kavanaugh-doesnt-have-be-guilty-just-emily-zanotti?

    Or maybe because of the farcical (or venomous, rather) excesses of the MSM and their claims to be reporting the Truth?
    https://www.spiked-online.com/2018/10/08/hating-white-women/

    Or maybe because of the absolutely grotesque mental and spiritual illness that has beset greater and greater numbers of the country’s so-called “elites”?
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/10/08/the-dark-side-of-american-conservatism-has-taken-over/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.fb67af8bfa30

    Hey, maybe because the right-of-center—and decency in general—is under concerted attack by the uber-moralists of the country?

    And maybe it’s because the authoritarian insanity of the Left can no longer be ignored.

    Yep, a real head-scratcher….

  25. Anger dissipates and intensity wanes. May we all stay united long enough to prevent the mob from gaining control of our country.

  26. Susan Collins at least tries to take her job seriously, and doesn’t grandstand, unlike many other Senators we all know. And someone like Ted Cruz could never get elected state-wide in Maine, whereas by now Susan Collins will probably have her job as long as she wants to keep doing it.

    Maine’s other Senator, Angus King, is nominally an Independent, but in practice always votes the liberal or Democratic side. He’s also a bit dopey, and just does not have the intellect to make a speech like Sen. Collins just did.

  27. For quite awhile the GOP has been called “The Stupid Party”.
    Republicans just won a major victory by getting Kavanaugh as
    a SC justice, but will throw it all away if they prove this “stupidness” by not showing to vote on November 6th.

  28. As McConnell said, the mob has done something I could never do. I think the people in the middle will prevent the blue wave, and then the left will go for insurrection. Harden your heart, show no mercy, it is going to be a dangerous time ahead.

  29. He’s also a bit dopey, and just does not have the intellect to make a speech like Sen. Collins just did.

    The dopey Mr. King had a considerable career in law and business in Maine, sat in the Governor’s chair, and is a graduate of Dartmouth and the University of Virginia. Susan Collins is a congressional aide turned member of Congress. She has spent 40 of the last 43 years as an elected official, aide, or patronage recipient.

  30. And someone like Ted Cruz could never get elected state-wide in Maine,

    Arguably. Cannot help but note that Rick Santorum and Pat Toomey cracked in the code in Pennsylvania. From 1952 to 1994, you’d be hard put to find an example of a Republican victorious in a statewide contest in Pennsylvania who wasn’t a liberal Republican, opportunist, or political temporizer. Santorum has his differences with Cruz, to be sure, but he’s a sharp critic of the Democratic agenda, not a collaborator with it.

  31. Neo, thanks for the very interesting analysis. I think it’s quite persuasive.

    I very much agree with your statement in Point 1. It’s not so much that I would say he’s “squishy” (and note that I haven’t any idea about what cases he heard and opinions he gave while on the DC Circuit); he may very well be quite principled. Of course, “conservative” means different things to different people.

    But elsewhere here I did say I think he may turn out to be a “swing” vote, like his mentor former J. Kennedy. I think he might even be more of a John-Roberts type than I might wish. (I do not think that Chief Justices should actually rewrite laws to give them an appearance of Constitutionality which they lack as written — not even in the interest of preserving the reputation and “collegiality” of the Supreme Court.) As long as his opinion is based first and foremost on the best and most informed sense he can make of the Const., I can have no complaint, regardless of whether an opinion is “clearly conservative” or not.

    However, I have just heard his opening speech as a member of SCOTUS. I am not encouraged. I am particularly not encouraged by a falsehood that he states early in the speech. There’s no excuse for it; and he must know it’s not true, because the true facts have been much publicized ever since RBG’s trip whereever-it-was some years ago.

    [Either that, or he needs someone to check every statement of fact that he makes. (I suppose the unfortunate statement could be a lapse of memory occurring during the white heat of composing a properly conciliatory speech….)]

    I also wasn’t 100% thrilled by the speech overall.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXtnTYa5PJE

    But I’m still glad he got the job!

    Now, Pres. Trump, please pick somebody who will go by Const. as best he or she can, even if it goes against her or his normal human urge to preserve the Court, or to Help Women (we poor, oppressed little darlings), or whatever.

  32. I think one of the most telling things was when Lindsey Graham said
    “These have been my friends”.

    I think it means he has seen that all of the work at compromise and reaching across the aisle he has prided himself on, has not and will never be returned
    in kind. If he remembers this betrayal of principles by those he counted as friends,
    and I think he will, he may become a tireless worker against the whole leftest project.

  34. One aspect we cannot see now but I think will be felt down the road, is a possible softening of positions of existing liberal justices like RBG. I don’t think she liked at all what was done to Kavanaugh and I can see her agreeing with him more often as a result than she might have otherwise.

  35. IMHO, Roy Moore is in a category all by himself. Not because of his apparent fondness for younger women, including, allegedly, some who were girls but because he is a lawless man. While a sitting judge, Moore refused to comply with the order of a court superior to his. That way leads to chaos. Of all people, a judge should know that.
    I think folks like Grassley, Graham, and Collins et al. were horrified at what they saw. People whom they respected on a personal level behaving like thugs, or condoning such behavior by failing to speak out against it.

  37. I doubt the sting of the Kavanaugh confirmation is soon fading away for the right.

    The left is always ready for the next outrage du jour. A month ago it was Russian Collusion! Last week it was Kavanaugh, boy sexual predator. Now it’s the Electoral College, Michael Avenatti and Susan Collins.

    But for us, Kavanaugh was a naked glimpse into the blast furnace of revolution.

    I thought I was hardened. I was frightened. I’m still pinching myself it worked out. But that’s because I wasn’t the only one who saw the danger.

  38. Point (4) is key, and a cautionary note for the future. The moderates were galvanized because, unlike Moore or some other past congressional candidates, Kavanaugh was one of them, one of their tribe, and so it was their ox being gored. And that in turn generated a sense of deep betrayal and outrage that the “rules” by which they had coexisted with their Democrat colleagues had been abruptly torn and apart and crush underfoot for these same “colleagues”.

    I suspect their anger will continue through November, because they now realize that a Democratic win in the upcoming election means their destruction, not merely a swing of the pendulum.

    But beyond November, the question of whether the “establishment” can abide being in coalition with those déclassé conservatives who are not part of their elite tribe versus trying to revert to previous illusions remains to be seen – as well as whether conservatives are willing to listen to the concerns of and negotiate with their new allies from the middle on touchy issues, like immigration, or whether the extremists on the right will burn too many bridges, like those on the left have been doing.

  39. C’mon Julie

    You can’t just throw out that the judge lied and then not give us an idea what you are talking about!!!!

  40. When you keep saying “This is not the hill to die on,” you ensure that one day you will find the hill to die on.

  41. @Civil Truth Yes I agree, how long the right can remain united is very much the point. If I zoom back and look at the last two years I have to say this is by far the most united the Trump wing and the GOPe have been. Nominating a 5 times vetted GOPe candidate was pretty clearly an attempt by Trump to build bridges with the GOPe and might have worked in a low energy way. But the Democrats!! I Saw Lindsay Graham vowing to go out and campaign in Purple states to do everything he can to retain both houses of Congress. And Mitch McConnell openly acknowledge that the Democrats have energised conservatives. Wow. And the Democrats are divided and going in the wrong direction to lure back Democrat leaning middle of the road voters. The outrageous leftwing media will keep some of them deluded, but I think their manipulation of the narrative has become so open that many others will wake up to it. Because I am interested in the history of media I think we may see this election as the singularity were the media lose their grip on public opinion. I agree it is a hard slog for the factions on the right to negotiate a new modus vivendi, but I think the task for the Democrats is much harder given that they have been taken over by a bunch of neo Marxist fools. They control the media, all right thinking opinion in the academy, the bureaucracy, and Hollywood, but we got Rockin’ Robin and a GOPe that is ‘mad as hell’ – I’m beginning to enjoy this.

  42. “In terms of strength of evidence, on a scale of 1 to 10,
    …

    Brett Kavanaugh: 1”

    On a scale of 1 to 10 I’d rate the strength of the evidence against Kavanaugh at about minus 12.

  43. FOAF, I agree with your rankings.

    .

    mockmook, did you listen to the speech? (linked in my comment.) If not, and you’re really curious, do so and I’ll bet the answer will leap out at you. ;>)

    If you’re still wondering tomorrow (or if anyone else is), I’ll tell you where I see the lie — or, just perhaps, an honest forgetting in the heat of writing a speech that seems intended, among other things, to build comity.

    But although if it was one it was a little white one … it was unnecessary, as he needn’t have made the remark at all. Which is why I think if it is, at the least it showed poor judgment.

    I, of course, have never ever said anything which caused me, later, to wish I had bitten my tongue off instead. And it’s the kind of thing that will only be made worse if you try to retract it. (So now I’m thinking, “Poor guy.” Sigh.)

  44. People forget that so-called moderate Republicans are as much a part of the Republican ‘base’ as the self-styled conservatives. Oh, and Trump is the relative newcomer and the Maximum RINO, besides. Real Republicans never, ever donate to any Clinton campaign. But Trump did.

    To TommyJay, time to put down the tablet and start walking your town’s swing precincts. The nice people you disparage as “the GOPe” can help you with identifying those precincts and supplying you with the appropriate walking lists.

  45. It is a good article, but it overlooks one thing – John McCain is dead. McCain would have called for Judge Kavanaugh to withdraw.

  46. 30 years ago a real conservative, Bork, was rejected to be replaced by a squishy Kennedy. At least the Dems got half a liberal.
    This time they knew they got another Kennedy, so he only has to be bruised. So for another thirty we have another squish. Half loaf again. And to make sure he signals that he understands symbols — 4 female clerks. Wow! And he is proud of it. A contribution to the obstacles women face in the workplace.

  47. >>And yet the most vicious attack ever seen against a SCOTUS nominee was launched against this particular candidate

    That actually is one consistent aspect of leftist attacks: Do not focus attacks on the weaknesses of your opponent. Determine what his strengths are, and launch an all-out attack against them.

  48. The moderates fought for Kavanaugh. Does that mean they will fight for the next “real” Republican? I am not so sure. And I don’t know why any of you are, either.

  49. c. Concerning your point #1, Garland and Kavanaugh agreed on >90% of the DC Court opinions and that point was ignored by the protesters. So, they were really against Trump and not the judge. I wonder if Kavanaugh will now be more conservative in his opinions when he really could have been the swing vote replacement for Kennedy.

    1. A great many appellate panels issue unanimous decisions. Most, in fact, if I’m not mistaken. Ralph Nader complained in 1987 that in Robert Bork’s opinions in disputed cases he sided with business the bulk of the time. A critic of Nader pointed out that split panels were found in only an odd minority of the cases which came before the Court.

    2. It’s the DC circuit, which hears appeals from administrative tribunals. I’ll wager you the matters in dispute are exceedingly obscure.

  50. It is a good article, but it overlooks one thing – John McCain is dead. McCain would have called for Judge Kavanaugh to withdraw.

    Maybe. John McCain’s scores from the American Conservative Union were adequate (he voted with them about 77% of the time after 1994) and Jeff Flake’s more than adequate. However, McCain had a tendency to throw a spanner into the works at inopportune times, something Flake’s been aping in recent years. (See their scheming in re to immigration legislation).

  51. The most important question to answer from the Kavanaugh debacle is, why did his opponents let it get so completely out of control? Why did they let the gang rape nonsense go unchallenged? Why didn’t they object to the media treating Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook like a Rosetta Stone of drunken rape stories?

    Stephen L. Taylor recently posted a sum up of his views on the Kavanaugh episode over at Outside The Beltway. He’s no right winger but always presents himself as some moderate voice above the political fray. He certainly tries to pretend he’s no partisan Democrat. Yet in his supposed final thoughts on Kavanaugh, he didn’t have one single criticism of how the Democrats or the media behaved. NOT. ONE.

    If Kavanaugh critics had tried to keep it under control, if they’d showed the slightest concern for Kavanaugh and his family, if they’d said ANYTHING about the crazed witch hunt against him, they probably could have gotten enough Republicans to go along with killing his nomination. But they didn’t. Why?

    Mike

  52. The left’s tactics of hysterical mudslinging and eliminationist rhetoric have worked for decades because the right has always fundamentally taken them to be just that — tactics, posturing as a way of showing how very much they care about whatever the current issue is. They could always count on some fraction of the right to go squishy, if the issue is one they they don’t care about all that much.

    The past couple of years, and the Kavanaugh hearings in particular for the reasons you list, has revealed that for a frighteningly large part of the left it isn’t tactics — they really hate us, and would like us to die.

  53. Mccain would definitely call for Kavanaugh to drop out, not only that, he would add insult to injury by giving a comment such as

    “Brett, just man up and admit you did it, our democrat friends are all good people, unless they have concrete evidence you definitely committed why Doctor Ford accused you of they would not go this far to block your nomination, they do everything in good faith, you bought it to yourself, they tried to end it nicely, they offered many face saving ways for you to withdraw, but you chose to lie and fight like Trump, they wouldn’t go the distance to bring you down if you were willing to save everyone’s time and confess to your sins. We are on the same party but even I won’t cover for you this time, if you insist to stay in the process, I hope my fellow republicans colleagues would vote you down”

  54. You should also add Trump’s unwavering support for Kavanaugh to the mix.

    Like it or not, Trump’s the head of the party, and over the last 18 months the GOPe have seen him not only succeed in engaging the treasonous left, but beat them at their own game, and change the game for the US worldwide.

    He’s a strong horse, and unless they’ve been blinkered by the orange hair, they see that he’s smart.

    The worse thing that could happen now is that he’d drop dead suddenly. If he hangs on, more Trump-like pols will follow him into the system, replacing the treasonous left officials in government, and THAT’s the game-changer.

  55. The beginning of wisdom about US politics is knowing that there are two political parties but one political philosophy: both parties are all in for big government. Politicians love big government. Distributing money and favors is what politicians do. The bigger the government, the more money and favors to distribute.

    This is not a problem for Democrats. Their supporters are also all in for big government. Democrats can just be themselves, for the most part, and count on their marketing department, the news media, to sell them to the undecideds.

    But it is a problem for Republicans, who drew the short straw: their supporters are the ones who fear and despise big government. This is a serious problem, but problems have solutions. Their solution, for longer than I can remember, has been to lie to their supporters.

    President Donald Trump was what happened when Republican supporters got tired of being lied to.

    I fully expect Kavanaugh to be a squish.

    Republicans are fully expecting the Trump presidency to end, eventually, and then come back out of their burrows, once more performing the important job of lying to their base, and treating them treacherously behind closed doors.

    I fully believe that President Trump, like President Reagan, loves this country and wants to do right by his supporters. But Reagan made the mistake of anointing GHW Bush as his successor. Reagan’s effect was like a brush fire, and it was business as usual starting Jan 1989. Trump is probably going to make a mistake too. Republicans have experience at this.

    Republicans are united today only because the conservatives believe finally that the Old Guard has changed their spots. They haven’t. They would rather neuter themselves with a grapefruit spoon than exude a single drop of sweat fighting for a conservative principle.

  57. Jeffrey T. Spaulding:

    Trump’s support for Kavanaugh was a very necessary but not sufficient element. If Trump had withdrawn the nomination, none of the rest would have happened. So Trump was absolutely instrumental.

    But Graham’s anger was his own, and had nothing to do with Trump. That was true for the rest of them, as well, in their own ways.

  58. Reformed Tromobonist:

    The beginning of wisdom for you would be to stop singing that “the parties are the same” song. It’s reductionistic, for one thing. Yes indeed, just about everyone in the federal government likes to spend taxpayer money. But that does not mean they like to spend it to the same degree.

    And it ignores the other many many many ways in which the Democrats and Republicans are very different from each other, and in some ways opposed to each other.

  59. Reggaeman:

    I haven’t noticed anyone here saying they’re sure of any such thing, either.

  60. > The beginning of wisdom for you would be to stop singing that “the parties are the same” song.

    Do-re-mi-fa-so!!! Maybe you just haven’t been around long enough to have been lied to enough.

    > It’s reductionistic, for one thing.

    So?

    > Yes indeed, just about everyone in the federal government likes to spend taxpayer money.

    So let me paraphrase: “You there…? Yeah, the one who’s right. Shut up.”

    > But that does not mean they like to spend it to the same degree.

    Apparently, both parties want to spend us into the poor house. But I congratulate the Republicans for their astuteness in wanting us to get there more slowly.

    > And it ignores the other many many many ways in which the Democrats and Republicans are very different from each other, and in some ways opposed to each other.

    Uh huh. For example, the Democrats wanted to keep Obamacare, whereas the Republicans wanted to repeal it and promised over and over again for six years to do so. That’s just the sort of difference that has me so p.o.’ed.

    The voters too. During the election, the voters saw it my way. That’s how Trump won. Classic strategy of divergence.

    But things are different now, and what’s different is Donald Trump. I want Trump to succeed, as he has been doing. If he turns the GOP around, I’ll be the first to stand and applaud. If we are to pull our country out of our current mess, we will need the Republican Party. And we will need them to change.

    Maybe they are changing. We’ll see. I’m always willing to be pleasantly surprised.

  62. Reformed Trombonist:

    Not only have I been around a very long time, but I’ve even been blogging for a very long time.

    I don’t expect to convince you of anything. But I’ve heard the song you’re singing, too (not from you—from many others) for a long long time as well, and I’ve been fighting it for a long time because it is indeed simplistic, reductionist, perfectionistic, and IMHO often leads to Democratic victories. As I said, I’ve been part of this argument for a long time, and have discussed it on this blog many times.

  63. C’mon, Neo. You are a *lot* smarter than that. There is *nothing* perfectionistic about me. I don’t hold the Republican Party up to a perfectionist standard. I only hold them up to their own.

    “Give us power and we will repeal Obamacare!”

    Right.

    Look: we are headed for disaster. Forget China, forget Russia, forget NATO, forget ISIS, forget the EU.

    All we need to do is reach a point when the United States of America can no longer pay its debts.

    It doesn’t take a perfectionist to note that this cannot continue.

    If I know this, the Democrats know it. The Republicans know it.

    You know it.

    The next time you see anyone — Donald Trump included — make a decision that seems cognizant of this hard, stubborn, hateful fact, in an attempt to do something about it, let me know.

    I’ll be happy to hear about it.

    Until then, we have maybe twenty years. I’m old enough, I might be comfortably dead by then. But I worry about my wife, brother, and any other loved ones who might have to live in that world.

    P.S. You are nowhere near as old as I am, if that matters.

  65. You can take heart in one thing, RT … January will bring us a Senate without McCain, Corker, or Flake. McCain, in particular, was the obstruction that kept the Obamacare repeal from happening. Let’s keep pushing them to do the right thing, and avoid disdaining allies/potential allies in that effort as long as they are pushing in the same direction as you and I.

    Neo, I guess no one expected this level of the Progressive Inquisition.

    But we do now … and the squishes are learning that civility in response to intellectual dishonesty is counterproductive in the defense of liberty.

  66. Reformed Trombonist:

    Your comments indicate your perfectionism in the sense I meant it and continue to mean it: “the perfect is the enemy of the good.”

    Anyone who wrote the comment you wrote at 12:23 PM, and who says the two parties have “one political philosophy: both parties are all in for big government” is perfectionistic in that sense, as well as reductionist.

    I’ve been polite to you. So I wonder where your tone of supercilious snark comes from.

    One single Republican—John McCain—voted against the Obamacare repeal, and he apparently blindsided the other Republicans in order to do it. You can blame all the Republicans for the act of one man, and you can probably rationalize doing so in some way. Perhaps you’d say they all knew he would do it and approved. Or perhaps you have some other rationalization for blaming all Republicans for what John McCain did. But I don’t think it represents reality. I think that this does, as well as this.

  67. If not Kavanaugh, then who would be acceptable to the Democrats? Nobody. Not until they win the Senate back in the mid-terms, and it will still be nobody on Trump’s list. But they have little hope of winning the Senate. Winning the House gives them no leverage on Senate business, such as confirming SCOTUS appointees. So all we get is incoherent rage from the left, which helps their cause not a jot.

  69. Neo, you’re sot of dancing around the simple answer to “why now?”
    It’s because of:
    Democrat Derangement Syndrome.

    Previously, it could be called Trump DS, or Palin DS, and was coined in ’93 as Bush Derangement Syndrome. None have been calling it “Kavanaugh Derangement Syndrome”.

    Why is that? As you mention, because Kav is the cleanest, most Boy Scout nominee ever. (I was a Life Scout; not quite Eagle.)
    He’s not deranged, unlike some Rep critics might feel about the other Reps.

    Please take this opportunity to coin YOUR best phrase to describe the phenomenon. You’re great, I’ve been reading you since you started (but at times with much fewer comments) (actually before you started, while you were a great commenter on other blogs…).

    If you have a better phrase to describe it, suggest it and why. Or you’re free to copy, promote this one.

    Most Republican recognize the Dems as unhinged in some ways, even deranged. The activists, and their media & Hollywood enablers & supporters, can be accurately described as suffering from:
    Democrat Derangement Syndrome.

    It’s making Dems act in Deranged ways.

    RT, being against your local “more conservative” Republican, or your state Republican, because of the failure of “Republicans” to reduce gov’t expenditures is silly. It’s even self-defeating, as Neo says.

    You are ABSOLUTELY right, in theory, that the USA budget deficit is going to grow to be out of control, and then there will be some kind of disaster. (In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, they’re different.) I’m a small-gov’t former Libertarian (ran against Anna Eschoo & Tom Campbell for Congress from Silicon Valley in 1988, supporting Lib for president Ron Paul. Campbell won then, later Eschoo won. Still have some League of Women Voter debate cassette tapes…)

    Excess gov’t spending can lead the USA to ruin, just as socialism has led Venezuela to ruin. Can. But looking at Japan, whose gov’t debt is over 200% of their annual GNP, it hasn’t happened there — altho the 90s was called their “lost decade”, which continued thru 00s, and now in 2010s… little econ growth in a high spend, high borrow, high tax, aging population.

    Now I’m a Republican (absentee in Slovakia), thanks to 9/11. It’s good to criticize Reps, like Roy Moore, in the primaries so as to get a better conservative. But when it’s a choice between a Republican and anybody else, the Republican will help the USA more.

    Conservatives have already put in a lot of (very polite and clean) Tea Party energy towards making the Reps who get elected more conservative. This needs to continue.

    Finally, I no longer care as much about the “budget deficit” — because the Dems don’t really care. Instead, what I’ve seen is Reps who get elected to do lots of stuff, try to reduce gov’t hand-outs (good! I support that!) get pilloried in the Dem-dominated news as selfish, greedy, hating the poor, etc. And then they lose; Reps lose for trying to be responsible. Thus, no longer winning on the other issues, more Free Speech, lower taxes, less regulation, less illegal immigration, less abortion, all of which are also important.

    “Entitlement reform” is NOT the hill that Reps should lose elections over now — and was virtually no part of the Kav Deranged behavior that the Dems showed off.

    So please work on getting more small-gov’t conservatives winning in the primaries, even over elected Rep incumbents who are less conservative — but support the Reps in the general elections.

    With 54 or 55 Reps in the Senate, Trump can possibly move a lot faster, on building the Wall and, maybe even, another attempt to replace Obamacare with something else. Note that there is no alternative Rep Health plan which a majority of Reps, either — this remains a huge reason that Healthcare is a very bad Hill to Die On.

  70. Pingback:Understand that « gregormendelblog.com

  71. Tommy Jay:
    Both Obamas. Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg. Loretta Lynch. Rod Rosenstein. Elena Kagan. Tom Perez. Chuckie Schumer. Janet Reno. Samantha Power. Tim Kaine. Adam Schiff. Eliot Spitzer. Need to know anything else about Harvard?

    I don’t know what they teach ’em at Harvard “Law School,” but “law” doesn’t seem to have much to do with it, and I don’t think reading the Constitution is any part of the curriculum. I think the nation would be much better served by stripping the building out, and converting it to a rare “in-town” Walmart, which would actually provide some benefit. Failing that, a Constitutional amendment: “No more Ivy League – with especial emphasis on Harvard – lawyers allowed anywhere near the government, or the functions thereof” would be pretty good language.

  72. stilicho:

    Elizabeth Dole, Mike Pompeo, Alberto Gonzales, William Bennett, John Chafee, Tom Cotton, Ted Stevens, Henry Cabot Lodge, Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch, Mitt Romney.

    Also Harvard Law grads. There are many others of the conservative and/or Republican persuasion.

  73. “…I don’t know what they teach ’em at Harvard “Law School,” but “law” doesn’t seem to have much to do with it, and I don’t think reading the Constitution is any part of the curriculum..”
    Too true.
    As far as Kavanaugh as a pick, a couple of things.
    As Steve Deace tweeted “I hope he is all the left believes him to be.”
    Conservatives thought him to be a “squish”.

    I heard a theory that he was picked because of the ease with which he would be approved inside the GOP.

    President Trump may have understood that the democrats would make any nominee their Red Line moment. You cannot win agains the Dems’ Red Line without having a united front. He needed someone who could unite all the factions of Republican voters. Kavanaugh was the only guy that would have the backing of President Bush,Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and others.
    We needed every single Republican vote behind the nominee.
    Perhaps leaving the Amy Conan Barrett to replace Ginsberg.

  74. Also Harvard Law grads. There are many others of the conservative and/or Republican persuasion.

    a quibble

    AFAIK, Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. was a newspaper publisher, not a lawyer. If he did attend law school, it would have been ca. 1925, before higher education had taken sides in the country’s political disputes. Lodge was a programmatic and ideological temporizer. John Chafee might be described thus in re his last years in Congress, but as a liberal Republican prior to that; he would have attended Harvard Law School ca. 1950, when it was a liberal institution but not relentlessly so. Eliz Dole is best described as a political careerist (a Democrat before she married Robert Le Salaud Dole) and would have attended ca. 1960, again, before the political coloration of elite academe was so intense.

  76. I think the Republicans have just reached the “up to here” point. This nasty vengeful reaction from the Dems has been going on nearly two years now. We have tolerated the marches, slurs, and hatefulness led by Hillary and Obama in hopes they would finally admit that they lost the election. When they started this vile campaign against a man who was not involved in the election, demeaning him with unvalidated accusations , harming his reputation and family and supporting Ford with her totally unproven stories as though they were gospel I think the turning point was at hand. Enough is enough

  77. This publications is the biggest bunch of hog wash I’ve ever seen. I am a
    conservative in case you wonder but the article is nothing but nonsense.

  78. Kara Wright:

    I guess if you say it, it must be so—whoever or whatever you are, “conservative” or leftist concern troll or just plain troll.

    No need to explain to explain yourself or offer some sort of reasoned critique. No need to say anything but “hog wash” and “nonsense.”

    That’s soooo convincing.

  79. Kara:

    Any gratuitous assertion may be equally gratuitously denied.

    Which is funny now that I mention it, because that’s what happened to Kavanaugh when all was said and done.

  80. Pingback:RINOs Found Their Balls – Rebel Yid

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑