Rhetoric Is A Weapon Used By Both Political Parties

The midterm elections are all about Donald Trump. The president is crisscrossing the country each day using his clout to bolster the candidacies of fellow Republicans. Local elections will be greatly affected by national issues and a sitting president more so than any other time in history.

In the past, midterm elections were disastrous for the parties in power. Since all representatives must run every two years, they are the most vulnerable. Senators rotate, and only one-third of them are up for reelection every two years.

Earlier projections by pollsters had Democrats gaining enough seats in the Senate to assume power. Not any longer. Republicans, in fact, may add to their slim majority next week. The inordinate number of incumbent Democrat senators running in states carried by Trump in 2016 will take a toll. Exacerbating Democrat efforts are key national issues such as the Kavanaugh confirmation, the caravan of illegal immigrants approaching our southern border and the favorable performance of most economic indicators.

The House could be a different story, although polls are showing that Republicans have make a strong rally in the past few weeks in spite of huge advertisement expenditures by Democrat supporters (of note Michael Bloomberg). The Trump barrage directed at fake news, illegal immigration, Democratic responsibility for social problems and a dearth of new ideas by Democrats to improve the country has bolstered prospects for conservatives.

Alternatively Democrats are grasping at the only viable issue available to them, the tweets, speeches and personality of President Trump. The media, cable news and a plethora of commentary by actors, athletes and left-wing instigators are supporting this effort wholeheartedly. But will it have the desired effective?

The problem with the Democratic strategy is that character assassination will not offset the pathetic track record of the previous president, and all of his minions who are trying to convince voters that the years before Trump were memorable. Trump has been effectively cleaning up the mess made by his predecessor, including burdensome regulations, out of control illegal immigration, poor economic conditions, unemployment, high taxes and low consumer confidence.

Character assassination also is not a strategy that can distract voter attention from real accomplishments under extremely stressful conditions. These include the confirmation of two conservative Supreme Court justices, promising negotiations with North Korea, standing up to Russian and Chinese aggression, elimination of inane and unfair trade practices, reengagement with Israel, formation of a productive partnership with Saudi Arabia in the battle against Iranian terror, the abrogation of the Iran nuclear arrangement (along with imposition of new sanctions), etc.

Trump offers all this and a warning that his efforts will be for naught if Democrats retake the House.

But, the most risky Democratic ploy is their politicization of the latest terrorist incidents. The bombing plot directed at liberal leaning individuals and the slaughter of Jewish worshipers in Pittsburgh has had a dramatic effect on America. As usual authorities are searching for the reasons for these maniacal assaults and threats to our security.

Stooping to the lowest level, Democrats are trying to convince America that the president’s rhetoric encourages violent behavior. It should be noted that rhetoric is protected by free speech unless specific acts of violence follow it.

In the past our country has come together to fight against such actions against our homeland without partisanship. No more. Democrats are trying to sell a direct link from Trump’s fiery approach to governing, to terrorism, bridging the all-important chasm between words and physical harm to others.

The most outrageous gap in Democrat reasoning is that both political parties are equally guilty of unbridled rhetoric. Trump’s are well documented. Democrats think they can incite violence without any repercussions. There have been a number of these situations in the news in recent months that involve Hillary Clinton, Rep. Pelosi, Rep. Waters and former Attorney General Eric Holder. Liar, traitor, misogynist, Nazi, fascist and so many other explosive characterizations are in play in liberal commentary. Do they incite violence?

A crazy person with a long record of aberrant behavior built bombs. He’s not a member of good standing in the Republican Party, even if his “bomb-mobile” was plastered with stickers supporting Trump. He’s a demented homicidal maniac.

The shooter in the Jewish synagogue is a rabid anti-Semite. How can anyone say Trump is not supportive of Jews in America and around the world? He’s done business with the Jewish community for years. His daughter converted to Judaism and his grandchildren are Jewish.

Will all this subterfuge enable Democrats to be victorious in the midterm elections? I hope not, they don’t deserve to be in control of our country.


Trump Rhetoric Is Not The Inspiration Of The Bomber

In virtually every attack against our homeland, Americans, led by the president, Congress and local officials, have united to focus on the threat to our society and way of life.

After 9/11 the nationalistic spirit in our country could not have been greater. All our politicians were concerned with nothing other than the security of America. This enabled the country to deal with a horrible tragedy and the subsequent clean up. If there were any recriminations or assignment of blame, they were set aside until the threat was eliminated.

In stunningly inappropriate comments to the tried and true tradition of putting American security first, two leading Democrats politicized the bombing attacks that took place yesterday even before all the bombs were discovered.

Attempting to make a political statement before the impending elections, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) directly attributed the series of bombing attacks to President Trump. They said the actions of the bomber(s) to harm left-leaning individuals were a result of presidential rhetoric. The comments were made after Trump had dramatically and sincerely implored Americans to come together to fight this new threat, and before first responders had commented on the attacks.

Donald Trump is aggressive and sometimes plays the hard-ass role to an extreme to stir his base. This is most prevalent while speaking to large crowds. Americans, for the most part, want their leaders to be tough on national security and in response to those who would do us harm.

Sometimes the rhetoric of our leaders goes too far, especially when it’s critical of political opponents. But it’s entirely inappropriate for anyone to say that the president’s rhetoric was the inspiration of a crazy individual to mail bombs to others he disagrees with.

The hypocrisy of the statements made by Schumer and Pelosi is obvious because liberal politicians sometimes use the same rhetoric to inspire their followers. Joe Biden has indicated that he would like to meet Trump mano y mano. Maxine Waters (D-CA) has encouraged liberals to accost conservatives in public places. Even Eric Holder, former Attorney General, said Trump opponents need to kick back physically against misguided conservatives.

In politics, as the pressure increases, so does the passion. The country is divided and Americans are taking sides. People want to “fight” for what they believe in. This is a good thing and protected by the Constitution until it leads to violence.

The moral of this essay is that Democrat leaders have gone too far by politicizing a national threat, ignoring long-term tradition. This has happened because the elections are a few days away. The political battles are in full force and candidates are flooding voters with political spin and exaggerations. They should not use a national crisis, where criminals are building bombs to terrorize us, to make political gains. Isn’t anything more important than the relative power of Republicans and Democrats?

Trump has his fair share of faults. One thing he is not is an advocate of physical violence between political opponents and between Americans. The bravado and aggression he sports is something he does with his mouth, not with his fists.

Khashoggi’s Death Threatens Saudi Crown Prince

It’s been difficult to get one’s arms around Khashoggi’s abduction and murder. The accusations by the Turkish government have been detrimental to the Saudis, and the Turks have not yet disclosed all of the relevant facts.

What we do know is that Jamal Khashoggi entered the Saudi consulate in Istanbul and never came out. He was supposedly there to obtain documents that would enable him to remarry.

The Turks and the Saudis have stipulated that Khashoggi was killed while in the consulate. It’s also been confirmed that several Saudi security people were at the consulate the day that Khashoggi died. And these men have been connected to the Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman. Beyond this, the situation becomes much cloudier.

The uproar over Khashoggi’s death, although tragic, involves only one man. Elsewhere in the Middle East thousands are being persecuted, tortured, killed or forced to move from their homes every day. Khashoggi is only a small cog, so one might ask who has the power to raise the importance of the death of one man, somebody very few have ever even heard of?

Khashoggi was a journalist employed by the Washington Post, which carries a lot of weight. Journalists are always traumatized by crimes against members of their community. His fellow news colleagues are appalled and always disturbed, whenever one of them is detained or imprisoned, much less murdered in cold blood.

Khashoggi, once an ally of MBS, wrote some opposition pieces directed at Saudi Arabia. One theory being bandied about is that the Saudi “rogues” at the consulate were supposed to force Khashoggi to agree to return to Saudi Arabia to face criminal charges for his reporting. Why would he? It turned violent, and the journalist was slaughtered.

Many countries around the world and in the region are speaking up about this crime including the U.S. President Trump wants to know what happened and whether the King or the Crown Prince is responsible. He promised to punish the Saudis if the royals were involved in the affair. To what extent is up in the air.

Saudi Arabia is investigating the event and has changed its story several times. The sentiment throughout the world, and among most U.S. politicians, is that MBS is culpable to some extent. It may be that the Saudis and the Turks are trying to craft a story that will make this problem go away. More on this later.

What is unusual is that Turkey, a Sunni country is working at odds with Saudi Arabia, another Sunni country. Recently the two have been on opposing sides of a number of situations in the region.

Often a Sunni/Shia conflict is the underlying cause for violence between nations in the region. Not this time. Nor does it have anything to do with Israel or the U.S. Even refugee issues in Turkey and the constant threat of Kurds to Turkish government are not in play.

The principle problem between the Kingdom and Turkey is growing Islamic demands for free elections in the region. The Saudis are against this Arab Spring because it threatens the authority and stability of the their monarchy. The Turks, in conjunction with the Muslim Brotherhood support free elections on the Arabian Peninsula and elsewhere.

Another interesting suggestion is that Turkey may be holding back evidence giving Saudi Arabia an opportunity to make a monetary and/or political proposal to Turkey for its cooperation. As in many situations, the Saudis are not shy about using their financial strength to buy their way out of problems.

The last issue is relevant to the U.S. We have a $100 billion arms deal pending with the Saudis and a convenient alliance to fight Iranian aggression and its support of terrorism in the area. The president will be reluctant to take significant action that might threaten the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia.

Many pundits are talking up MBS’ involvement. Few believe that the Saudi interlopers would take such a bold step, like murder and dismemberment, without the Crown Prince’s authorization. Moreover MBS has his share of enemies in his country, including many of his blood relatives that he fined for their misdeeds.

Is it possible that the death of Khashoggi could lead to MBS’s downfall? We’re about to find out.


Trump As A Misogynist

Every time I begin to appreciate the efforts of President Trump, he communicates something idiotic and/or non-PC on Twitter. See NY Times article.

Trump “referred to the pornographic film actress Stephanie Clifford as ‘Horseface’ in a tweet on Tuesday.” The irony of this stupid comment was that a federal judge had just dismissed a defamation suit by the actress against Trump. He won the battle, but he’s a really bad winner. Clifford, professionally known as Storm Daniels, replied on Twitter “by using the nickname ‘Tiny’ for the president.” And so the name calling between a president and a low-end movie actress continues.

I’m sure that Trump’s advisors are pleading with him to end his Twitter onslaught against women that he dislikes, or those who have accused him of some sort of sexual misbehavior. The man is incapable of letting this stuff roll off his back and stick to more lofty issues like leading the most powerful nation in the world.

When Trump lashes out at another woman calling her a pig, unattractive or overweight, the liberal press goes bonkers and dredges up all of the unkind comments he’s made about Carly Fiorina, Megyn Kelly, Omarosa Newman, Rosie O’Donnell and others. When they read these horrid stories, women who might want to vote for Trump are reminded that he does not look kindly on the fairer sex.

In effect, Trump’s unfiltered Twitter outbursts offset the positive work he is doing relating to employment, the economy, trade, taxes, immigration, health care, terrorism etc.

Frankly, the president’s immature and un-statesman-like use of social media may even impact his uncanny ability to use social media to influence public opinion and get re-elected in two years. The growth of his base has been stymied by uncontrollable outbursts directed at women. Women on the fence, will more likely than not vote for Trump’s adversaries in a few weeks and in 2020.

Trump has to believe that his success in managing our country will overwhelm all of his shortcomings including his uncensored tweets. It’s a dangerous assumption, especially since women represent about half of the electorate.

After reading two books that portray the president’s inability to stay focused on important issues and his disregard for constructive criticism, it shouldn’t surprise me that he continues to tweet and say things that are so offensive even considering the damage these actions may have on his base. But I am.

I think Republicans have a good chance of rallying in the midterm elections and again in 2020. But can they overcome the self-aggrandizing, misogynistic personality of their president? Can our country reelect a man who clearly believes that women are the inferior sex? I think not.

U.S. And Saudis Deal With Disappearance Of Jamal Khashoggi

The disappearance and possible murder of Jamal Khashoggi has created an international backlash against King Salman of Saudi Arabia and Mohammad Bin Salman, the Crown Prince.

Khashoggi, a journalist at the Washington Post and frequent critic of the Saudi government, entered the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul earlier in October and never reappeared. The Saudis first said he left the consulate, and now say that Khashoggi might have been killed “accidentally.” The circumstances are very suspicious to say the least.

Many in Congress are encouraging President Trump to respond to the alleged murder of Khashoggi, although a crime has not been substantiated. Trump has been hesitant to take any actions against Saudi Arabia until all the facts are examined, and to protect a $100 billion plus military transaction pending with the Saudis. Trump believes his relationship with Crown Prince is a huge asset and very important to U.S. national and economic security.

Most Americans believe that America should stand up and respond to all human rights violations wherever they occur. Frequently, the U.S. has wielded its influence to protest against crimes against humanity. Saudi Arabia should not be immune to U.S. sanctions in the face of these types of acts.

But the magnitude of an American response to the fate of one man, not a U.S. citizen, in a foreign country must be measured. This is not to say that we should not be empathetic and curious about Khashoggi’s current status.

An aggressive response to the incident seems hypocritical as compared to other situations in recent history. Thousands of people are killed every year throughout the world, and the U.S. response is anything but incredulous. In the case of Khashoggi, many important initiatives and good relations with Saudi Arabia could be at stake if the U.S. responds too assertively.

The president has committed to unite with Saudi Arabia to fight against Iran. The Saudis are particularly good allies in this regard because they resent Iran and its bellicose ayatollahs for both political and religious reasons. In fact, unlike the U.S., the Saudis are more concern with the latter than the former. Iran is Shiite and Saudi Arabia is Sunni.

In any regard, Saudi Arabia has pledged to work in consort with the U.S. in pushing back against Iranian support of terrorism and nefarious actions throughout the Middle East, in particular Iraq and Syria.

The aforementioned military transaction will equip the Saudi’s to accomplish its objectives against Iran. Moreover, the U.S. works closely with the Saudi military in defense of others in the Middle East. The fate of millions could be dependent upon good relations between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia.

The financial relationship between the two countries and U.S. companies is also extremely important. The Saudis have worked diligently to stabilize, to some extent, the volatility of oil prices. This has been a factor in the performance of the U.S. economy during the past several years. A conflict between Saudi Arabia and the U.S. would probably have dire consequences to the global economy.

Trump has said he wants to protect the beneficiaries of the military equipment deal. Significant employment gains will occur because of it, and revenues will flow into U.S. manufacturers. The U.S. should not be willing to trade murder for commerce, but cooler heads should prevail in the Khashoggi situation to prevent actions that are in nobody’s best interests.


Kavanaugh’s Impact On The Mid Term Elections

The confirmation process of Brett Kavanaugh was an opportunity for the Democratic Party to make significant gains in both houses of Congress. Bonehead gambits by exuberant political hacks backfired, resulting in a great win for Trump, Kavanaugh and Republicans on the ballot this year.

The most obvious blunder was to depict Kavanaugh as Donald Trump reincarnated. The confirmation battles were really about the president, not the nominee. Democrats were intent on dealing Trump a loss, and it didn’t work out.

Fact is, Kavanaugh is a “boy scout” and is in no way a Trump sycophant. In fact the justice was not Trump’s first choice in the vetting process because he worked in the Bush administration.

Moreover, Kavanaugh’s personality and demeanor, prior to the onslaught by Democratic hit men and hit women, was far removed from Trump. Even as Kavanaugh fought back his tormentors, and his tears, he, in no way carried himself like Trump would under the same circumstances.

In a nutshell, Democrats were more interested in dealing a blow to the Trump administration than being mortified by Kavanaugh’s alleged sexual exploits 36 years ago as a 17 year-old knucklehead.

The interrogation of Kavanaugh before and after the Ford revelations was far too aggressive. The contention that Kavanaugh’s confirmation would immediately threaten Roe v. Wade was totally blown out of proportion. The nominee spent a great deal of time expressing his support of legal precedent, which Sen. Collins (R-MA) eloquently detailed in her endorsement speech.

The Democrats said that Kavanaugh would singlehandedly bring down the provision of Obamacare dealing with pre-existing conditions. This is ludicrous. Nobody, in either party, wants to roll back this aspect of health law.

And to suggest that Kavanaugh would blindly protect Trump in a constitutional crisis relating to an impeachment was unfounded. The justice, during his vaulted career frequently sided against conservative politicians.

Democrats had Kavanaugh on the ropes after Dr. Ford testified. The opposition made a number of mistakes handling Ford prior to the hearing and after it. Most important is that the accuser demanded anonymity. Her letter to Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) was leaked. Many speculate that someone on the senator’s staff was responsible for doing so.

But it didn’t matter. Kavanaugh’s accuser had him in her crosshairs, and she performed credibly. Note: I had serious concerns about Ford’s motives, loss of memory regarding times and places. Yet, I was sure Kavanaugh’s nomination would fail after the end of the accuser’s testimony.

Instead of allowing the alleged crimes to slowly sink in, and give Republicans a chance to stew over the allegations, Democrats doubled down and ravaged the accused with inane questioning. Moreover, their criticisms of a teenage boy were out of line.

Democrat’s scorched earth inquisition enabled Kavanaugh to switch gears and to become a sympathetic character being brutalized by liberals who really wanted to bring down the president. He morphed from a sexual harasser to political victim.

Someone must have encouraged Kavanaugh to play this part. Evoking tears, outrage and indignation were Kavanaugh’s only chance to save his nomination. “You [Democrats] ruined my life,” he said to his tormentors. It was a family affair, when Kavanaugh spoke of the pain of his wife and young daughters.

How did Democrats respond? They began to ask him even more irrelevant questions about passing out while drinking and the number of beers he drank at parties 36 years ago. Kavanaugh thought the questions were inappropriate and told Democrats so.

Effectively, Kavanaugh felt he had a pass to treat his oppressors disrespectfully and with venom. He mocked the senators, interrupted them and turned the tables on them. In short, after believing Kavanaugh was dead meat, I thought he was back in the game.

Regarding the upcoming elections and the presidential election in 2020, Democrats suffered a tremendous defeat. A young conservative was confirmed to join the Supreme Court. Republicans, specifically Sens. Charles Grassely (R-IA) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY) pulled a rabbit out of the hat on the wings of unfair and inappropriate actions by their opposition.

The most memorable Democrats for me were the presidential aspirants on the Judiciary Committee, Sens. Kamala Harris (D-CA) and Corey Booker (D-NJ). Their vicious rhetoric was embarrassing. Sen. Richard Blumenthal also deserves mention for his aggressive questioning of Kavanaugh’s integrity, after lying about his own military service.

And finally Democratic leadership should be singled out for conducting the worst campaign against a Supreme Court nominee ever. How could their caucus say no to a candidate before hearings begin?

Americans want more leadership, comity and fairness from their elected officials.

Democrats failed in their assessment and questioning of Brett Kavanaugh. For this, they will suffer at the polls on Election Day.




Kavanaugh Is Confirmed

The confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh is a confluence of many issues, underhanded tactics and history. Unfortunately, the process was circus-like and a low point for the Senate.

Some senators were brave and respectful, and some were conspiratorial and willing to destroy a well-qualified nominee for political gain.

Democrats, in particular, showed what they stand for during the deliberations. The party is at sea and fraught with partisanship and skullduggery. In the end, Republicans got their man. But his life has been turned upside down by a political party that doesn’t know how to win, or lose, gracefully.

Susan Collins (R-MA) summed up the state of affairs in the Senate eloquently in her speech prior to endorsing Kavanaugh. It was a seminal moment, and one that will be lauded by some and lambasted by others.

Collins is a moderate Republican a dying breed in this day and age (as are moderate Democrats). She risked her political career and legacy in a 45-minute speech, in which she justified her vote for the beleaguered candidate for the Supreme Court in a lawyerly and well-researched fashion.

Collins is known as a staunch advocate for all things important to women, including abortion rights, the proliferation of sexual harassment and health care benefits, to name a few. She transcended these important issues in favor of the rule of law.

Liberals will deride Collins mercilessly as a traitor to the basic rights of women. But really her actions benefited Americans of all sexes, races and religions.

During her speech Collins took the time to congratulate Dr. Christine Blasy Ford for coming forth and telling her story of sexual harassment. She also complimented and appreciated Kavanaugh for being a great judge over several decades and for being a scholar, father and husband.

Collins announced that she could not condone or be a part of any more attacks on Kavanaugh’s reputation based upon uncorroborated, thirty year old accusations of misbehavior. She clearly pointed out that although the confirmation process is not bound by finding irrefutable proof of wrongdoing, it should nevertheless strive to attain that ideal. Evidence has not been presented to support a no vote. Even a supplemental FBI investigation did not surface any damaging information.

The senators are victims of the Constitution they swear to protect. Supreme Court justices are confirmed for life, so the process rightly must drill deep into the lives of nominees. But Collins believes the opposition to Kavanaugh went too far and unfairly tarnished the nominee, thereby ignoring the most basic elements of the rule of law.

Democrats were enthusiastic about destroying a highly qualified man for political revenge. Kavanaugh personified Donald Trump in their minds. A loss by Kavanaugh would be a loss for the president.

The fallout from this sordid process is multifaceted. Many women are outraged even though the confirmation is more symbolic than they believe. Collins indicated that the new justice would not challenge Roe v. Wade. The pre-existing conditions in health care laws will persevere. And Kavanaugh has not been, nor will he ever be, shy about challenging sitting presidents including ones in his own party.

The unhappiness related to this confirmation could have significant ramifications moving forward. For one thing there will be a lot of noise, protest and sour faces. But it just might backfire and energize the Republican base in the midterm and subsequent elections. Pundits are debating this right now.

Moving forward, it would be shocking if Kavanaugh did not bear a grudge against those who slandered him. But, the other eight members of the court will dilute this.

Most importantly Collins implored politicians on both sides to temper their rhetoric for the good of the nation. This is doubtful in the near future.

Supreme Court Justices Should Have Term Limits

Perhaps the power bestowed on Supreme Court justices is too great. If so, does it make sense for justices to be subjected to term limits?

Congress is having one hell of time confirming new justices these days. Opposing senators say over and over that nominees to the Court must stand up to the harshest scrutiny because the seats are lifetime appointments. Most agree with this perspective, so why shouldn’t we amend the Constitution and force some healthy turnover on the Court?

Consider the plight of Brett Kavanaugh. He’s been bludgeoned mercilessly by Senate Democrats relating to an incident that may or may not have occurred thirty-six years ago when he was 17.

Opponents of Kavanaugh are spending an inordinate amount of time counting the cans of beer the nominee drank when he was in high school and college. No consideration is being given to the fact that since college Kavanaugh has never been cited for excessive alcohol consumption, assaulted anyone in a drunken stupor, received a DWI summons or was criticized for being inebriated while performing his role as a judge. This is more than most typical legislators can claim about their lives.

Kavanaugh has led an exemplary life and has been touted as a potential Supreme Court justice for years. Moments before he attained this exalted position, a woman materialized out of the blue and accused him of sexual assault in the 1980s. Dr. Ford indicated that because a Supreme Court appointment was for life, she was obligated to come forth.

The circumstances surrounding Ford are just a little dicey. For one thing she didn’t want to go public. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) received a letter written by Ford and guided her “coming out” moment, in spite of Ford’s desire to remain anonymous. It’s been alleged that the senator leaked the story to the press to gain a political edge against Kavanaugh who was well on his way towards confirmation, thereby ignoring the plea of the accuser.

Lifetime appointments are significant because, by the luck of the draw, one president could be in a position to pack the Court with like-minded individuals for an extended period of time. A 45 year-old justice could be on the bench for 40 years. If two or three justices retire and/or pass away during a single presidential term, that president could replace them with radical justices (liberal or conservative).

Changing the Constitution and limiting justices to say ten years of service would mitigate many of the problems affiliated with the current system. A “bad” appointment would only last for a finite period of time. The average age of the Court would decrease and the debates and insights from the justices would surely be enhanced. As an aside, Justice Ginsberg has been having problems staying awake while the Court is in session. Younger justices would have more energy and also be more in tuned to our dynamic society and changing times that make old laws less relevant.

Unless the F.B.I. finds a smoking gun, Kavanaugh is likely to be confirmed. In my last post I indicated that he is damaged merchandise. He could very well retain a bias against those that treated him unfairly along with the issues that they champion. We should expect him to lean even further right if confirmed.

Prospectively, confirming a male will be particularly difficult. What goes around comes around. You can be sure that when Republicans are the opponents, nominees will be tormented in kind.

The Kavanaugh process was a total disaster for our country and the Supreme Court. In this instance Democratic senators are most culpable.

In the near future, the country should consider limiting the tenure of Supreme Court justices.

Kavanaugh Is Distressed Merchandise Even If He Is Confirmed By The Senate

Thankfully the journey of Brett Kavanaugh, the nominee for Supreme Court Justice, is near an end. After a heartbreaking supplemental Senate hearing on Thursday, a small group of Republicans, led by Jeff Flake (R-AZ), enabled the F.B.I. to investigate new assertions of misbehavior by the nominee.

The Democrats reacted in a way that was totally predictable. They said the F.B.I. has too little time to investigate thoroughly. Clearly the opposition is trying to delay the process past the midterm elections. A blue wave on Election Day could derail Trump’s attempt to name a conservative to the Supreme Court, if Kavanaugh is derailed.

Dr. Christine Blasy Ford testified first last Thursday and was convincing. Republican questioning through an intermediary was respectful and not accusatory. In fact, it was so tepid that it seemed like Kavanaugh’s confirmation was doubtful.

There are some holes in Ford’s testimony about the location of the alleged attack, how she returned home afterwards and a dearth of corroboration from individuals that may have been involved. But overall, Ford’s testimony was credible, and she was a sympathetic witness.

Judge Kavanaugh’s experience was quite the opposite. He’s been treated with total disrespect from the get go. During the initial hearings he was cooperative when responding to insulting questions, but he turned combative in the face of allegations by Ford on Thursday.

In a lengthy opening statement, the Judge said the Senate Democrats were treating him unfairly, ruined his reputation and good name and turned his personal life into chaos. Throughout his soliloquy Kavanaugh was on the verge of breaking down.

Of note was the Kavanaugh’s complaint that Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) waited for weeks before disclosing the correspondence from Ford about an alleged attack. He said it should have been investigated not at the 11th hour, but earlier in the process. Additionally Kavanaugh pointed out the lack of corroboration by any of the people supposedly present on the day in question 30 plus years ago.

Kavanaugh accused Democrats of using his confirmation as a ploy to attack President Trump. He said they were seeking retribution for their losses in the 2016 elections. He said that Democrats treated him even more harshly than Justice Thomas and Robert Bork.

During the questioning Democrats consistently insisted that Kavanaugh himself should ask the F.B.I. to investigate the accusations made by Ford and others. He responded time and again that he’d already been vetted by the agency numerous times.

Democrats sought to characterize Kavanaugh as a drunken party boy. They asked him countless times if he was intoxicated regularly as a young man and, if he ever passed out while drinking and if he was belligerent when he drank to excess.

New revelations were evident in Kavanaugh calendar, which he keeps vigilantly. It indicated that he attended no such party as the one at which he allegedly assaulted Ford.

Kavanaugh dismissed Ford’s accusations. But, he said he believed that someone assaulted her, just not him. He also indicated that he bore no ill feelings towards his accuser.

Suffice it to say, the Kavanaugh confirmation has been a circus. It’s a low point of recent Senate deliberations fraught with political shenanigans, twisted truths and character assassination.

The big question is: Can Kavanaugh effectively fill a Supreme Court seat after the shellacking he received from his detractors? Doubtful. The damage inflicted upon the man is so great that it makes no sense for Trump to move forward with him. Liberals and women have used Kavanaugh as a whipping boy in lieu of Donald Trump, who is the real villain. This will not change regardless of what the F.B.I. uncovers in their investigation. Some Democrats promised to continue to investigate after Kavanaugh is confirmed, if Democrats win either the Senate or House.

What are the ramifications of this terrible episode? Will the treatment of Kavanaugh by Democrats impact future confirmation hearings? Damn right it will!

All future male nominees beware. You should expect an avalanche of harsh and unfair questioning relating to behavior since birth by the opposition. Every romantic moment in your lives will be investigated. Those seeking dirt will comb high school and college yearbooks and social media looking for hints of any inappropriate behavior.

The jury is still out. There remains much more mudslinging to come. The Democrats will be relentless and try to stymie the confirmation. Republicans may jam the nomination through the system if the F.B.I. comes up empty.

But the damage has already been done. Kavanaugh is distressed merchandise abhorred by most women and all liberals. He will never be the judge that most expected him to be because of the past few months. I hope those that treated him unfairly lose sleep over their actions, especially if the authorities are unable to find any corroboration of allegations.