We can listen to Trump's logorrhea with our jaws on the floor, but honestly, this is the position of the majority of the Republican Party right now: We're not doing enough to help Ukraine (because Biden is the President), but the GOP has no opinion on what we should be doing. You ask a Republican if we should be doing more to help Ukrai…
We can listen to Trump's logorrhea with our jaws on the floor, but honestly, this is the position of the majority of the Republican Party right now: We're not doing enough to help Ukraine (because Biden is the President), but the GOP has no opinion on what we should be doing. You ask a Republican if we should be doing more to help Ukraine, you will get an emphatic yes. You ask them what we should do, you get something like Varney heard from Trump. In reality, there is not much left we can do at this point short of a military intervention, but Republicans and Democrats overall don't want to intervene militarily, so Republicans are left saying we should do more because Biden bad, but they are unwilling to suggest that we actually do the one thing we're not doing. So it's all just tribal, as always.
As far as the SCOTUS turning into a political football, Olsen is basically right, but this is the monster that Mitch McConnell created with his handling of the Garland nomination. That was the watershed moment, and it has possibly permanently damaged the entire process. People can boohoo about how the Kavanaugh hearings went down, but I've never heard anything to undermine Blasey-Ford's credibility, there were other nominees Trump could have chosen, and Mitch McConnell even advised Trump against nominating him, knowing it would be a contentious and difficult confirmation process because of his history of drinking and allegations circulating like Blasey-Ford's.
I agree with everything you said, but I think the Democtats contributed to the Supreme Court political football with Clarence Thomas. I don't know how it should have been handled, but all I remember is how unseemly the constant televised hearings were. I don't doubt the allegations, but I don't know why they couldn't have been handled better. And the accusations that the current nominee is soft on child porn is absurd.
As for Kavanaugh, I also don't understand how one's behavior at a drunken teenage party can be held against someone. I'm older than Kavanaugh, but as a teen, I knew exactly how a party with a bunch of drunken teenage boys would go, and I went anyway. I certainly wouldn't whine about it 20 years later. But again, these things should be handled better and not out in the in the 24/7 TV news.
Here's my view, for what it's worth: Although I am left-of-center and found Christine Blasey Ford's testimony compelling and believable, I would have excused what happened as poor judgment by a drunken teen, just as you do, had Kavanaugh owned up to it. Instead, despite testimony from many parts of his life that he had a major problem with alcohol at least though law school, he never acknowledged that or gave any explanation such as "I drank too much when I was younger, but I no longer do." In addition, a decent person, whether or not that person was being considered for SCOTUS, would have said something to the effect of, "I do not remember anything like this happening. I did have a drinking problem in high school, and there were nights that I did not remember what happened. I certainly have not behaved in the way described in my adult life, and now, as a father of girls, I am horrified to think that my friends and I might have acted in a way to terrorize a teenage girl, even if we only meant it as a joke."
The fact that he didn't, but never showed the least bit of concern for what Blasey Ford experienced, or accepted any responsibility for past bad behavior is what makes me think he is not a suitable person to be a decision maker of last resort on issues that involve the health and safety of Americans.
He also ranted and raved at the confirmation hearings in a completely un-judicious manner, displaying an absolutely appallingly bad temperment- and in a way that would have been completely dismissed as hysterical if he'd been a woman.
100%. Those hearings were his job interview and he completely came unglued. I get that it was difficult. Something that may have happend 30 someodd years ago comes back to haunt you. I'd be frustrated too. But, dude... you've got to keep it together. The appointment is for LIFE and you make decisions that impact hundreds of millions of people for generations. You've got to keep your powder dry. If a woman did that, she'd never get another job again. She'd be ruined.
Can you imagine the Fox News explosion (and an awful lot of mainline media) if KBJ threw a tantrum anything like what we saw from Kavanaugh, when bullies like Cruz and Hawley were accusing her of pro-pedophilia positions, or pointed out the race-baiting?
I was one of the girls at the high school party. We knew if you started out with a guy what was going to happen. I've been with some pretty aggressive guys and always got away, as did Blasey Ford. I don't feel the slightest bit sorry if she went to party and started fooling round with a drunk teen age guy. She knew exactly what would happen. As it was she was able to get away from him. But unless she was really stupid, she knew he was going to try something. Maybe after she left, she was upset, fine, I get it. Hopefully, she never went to another party. But 20 + years later she can't complain about.
YES! I was screaming this at the time. I probably would have gotten on board if he could have shown any humility at all. Spoken as a father of girls who might be in that situation sometime soon. Just own it. But he did that stupid Fox interview where he said he was too busy going to church and doing community service to party. It was so obnoxiously BS. And then came to the hearing screaming and promising revenge. I am not a lawyer, and I really don't feel qualified to judge if a person is legally qualified to be on the SC. But his reaction to this situation made me confident he didn't have the temperment or judgement to be in a lifetime role of this magnitude.
So someone accuses another person of something that supposedly happened 30 years ago at a party. She has absolutely no corroborating Witnesses and can't remember details about the party. But the person who is accused is supposed to simply accept the accusation as true? Absolutely not. In our system we don't assume people are guilty simply because they're accused. We require evidence. There was none. Doesn't mean it didn't happen. But it does mean we don't assume he's guilty.
I actually didn't think he was guilty. When I heard about what happened, I honestly felt like it was kids who were drinking and the situation got out of hand and over their head. But I didn't hear that story and think "Sexual predator". I wasn't even confident it was him at that house. (It was a little sketchy that the other friend went AWOL while all of this was heating up, but that still isn't evidence of anything.) Which is why his response made me so crazy. He could have just said, "I don't recall an event as she described, but there are also nights that I may have drank too much. I can't say for sure what happened at every party, but I feel confident that I never would have intentionally acted in a way that made a woman feel unsafe. I feel terrible she has been carrying this trauma. I have teenage girls and I would never want them to feel disrespected. As a nation, let's take this oppertunity to have a conversation about consent and perspective taking and maybe not drinking when you're not really mature enough to be fully aware of the impact of your choices. Etc. Etc.." Maybe I'm too Pollyanna about this. Maybe it wouldn't have calmed the waters. I know there are some people who still would have called for his head. But I think a number of moderately minded people would have been satisfied.
But first he claimed he was too perfect to ever do anything wrong. And then he came out so aggressive, promising revenge and retribution. I don't think what did or didn't happen at that party made him a poor choice for SC. I think his lack of grace, humility and level headedness while dealing with the situation is where he lost merit, in my opinion. I suspect, he probably received poor advice on how to deal with the situation. Maybe he's not a hot head IRL. I know a few people who know him and swear he's a great guy. Many people felt his testamony in that hearing was for an audience of one. I'm sure he received a standing ovation from that audience. Sadly, he turned off a lot of other people who may have been in his corner if he'd taken another approach.
I feel as though if it were any other time in America, any other president, they would have ditched him and found another candidate. Someone equally conservative, I'm sure. The country would have been better off for it.
Its not hard to find someone who is "conservative." The problem is getting enough people to turn out to vote for them. The beauty of Trump (if you want to call it that) is that he provided a lot of motivation for people to come out and vote on the GoP side.
The truth is people don't really vote for policies, they vote on the basis of emotion and identity. The GoP recognizes this--the Democrats think policy is meaningful. The joke is on them.
We can listen to Trump's logorrhea with our jaws on the floor, but honestly, this is the position of the majority of the Republican Party right now: We're not doing enough to help Ukraine (because Biden is the President), but the GOP has no opinion on what we should be doing. You ask a Republican if we should be doing more to help Ukraine, you will get an emphatic yes. You ask them what we should do, you get something like Varney heard from Trump. In reality, there is not much left we can do at this point short of a military intervention, but Republicans and Democrats overall don't want to intervene militarily, so Republicans are left saying we should do more because Biden bad, but they are unwilling to suggest that we actually do the one thing we're not doing. So it's all just tribal, as always.
As far as the SCOTUS turning into a political football, Olsen is basically right, but this is the monster that Mitch McConnell created with his handling of the Garland nomination. That was the watershed moment, and it has possibly permanently damaged the entire process. People can boohoo about how the Kavanaugh hearings went down, but I've never heard anything to undermine Blasey-Ford's credibility, there were other nominees Trump could have chosen, and Mitch McConnell even advised Trump against nominating him, knowing it would be a contentious and difficult confirmation process because of his history of drinking and allegations circulating like Blasey-Ford's.
I agree with everything you said, but I think the Democtats contributed to the Supreme Court political football with Clarence Thomas. I don't know how it should have been handled, but all I remember is how unseemly the constant televised hearings were. I don't doubt the allegations, but I don't know why they couldn't have been handled better. And the accusations that the current nominee is soft on child porn is absurd.
As for Kavanaugh, I also don't understand how one's behavior at a drunken teenage party can be held against someone. I'm older than Kavanaugh, but as a teen, I knew exactly how a party with a bunch of drunken teenage boys would go, and I went anyway. I certainly wouldn't whine about it 20 years later. But again, these things should be handled better and not out in the in the 24/7 TV news.
Here's my view, for what it's worth: Although I am left-of-center and found Christine Blasey Ford's testimony compelling and believable, I would have excused what happened as poor judgment by a drunken teen, just as you do, had Kavanaugh owned up to it. Instead, despite testimony from many parts of his life that he had a major problem with alcohol at least though law school, he never acknowledged that or gave any explanation such as "I drank too much when I was younger, but I no longer do." In addition, a decent person, whether or not that person was being considered for SCOTUS, would have said something to the effect of, "I do not remember anything like this happening. I did have a drinking problem in high school, and there were nights that I did not remember what happened. I certainly have not behaved in the way described in my adult life, and now, as a father of girls, I am horrified to think that my friends and I might have acted in a way to terrorize a teenage girl, even if we only meant it as a joke."
The fact that he didn't, but never showed the least bit of concern for what Blasey Ford experienced, or accepted any responsibility for past bad behavior is what makes me think he is not a suitable person to be a decision maker of last resort on issues that involve the health and safety of Americans.
He also ranted and raved at the confirmation hearings in a completely un-judicious manner, displaying an absolutely appallingly bad temperment- and in a way that would have been completely dismissed as hysterical if he'd been a woman.
100%. Those hearings were his job interview and he completely came unglued. I get that it was difficult. Something that may have happend 30 someodd years ago comes back to haunt you. I'd be frustrated too. But, dude... you've got to keep it together. The appointment is for LIFE and you make decisions that impact hundreds of millions of people for generations. You've got to keep your powder dry. If a woman did that, she'd never get another job again. She'd be ruined.
Can you imagine the Fox News explosion (and an awful lot of mainline media) if KBJ threw a tantrum anything like what we saw from Kavanaugh, when bullies like Cruz and Hawley were accusing her of pro-pedophilia positions, or pointed out the race-baiting?
She is really doing such a remarkable job.
No kidding. She is so calm in the face of Lindsey's hysterical perforance.
Honestly, I didn't watch the circus.
Thank you for all of this.
Even overlooking how he handled everything, and how the Senate handled it as well, that he was so openly partisan should have disqualified him.
I was one of the girls at the high school party. We knew if you started out with a guy what was going to happen. I've been with some pretty aggressive guys and always got away, as did Blasey Ford. I don't feel the slightest bit sorry if she went to party and started fooling round with a drunk teen age guy. She knew exactly what would happen. As it was she was able to get away from him. But unless she was really stupid, she knew he was going to try something. Maybe after she left, she was upset, fine, I get it. Hopefully, she never went to another party. But 20 + years later she can't complain about.
Agreed.
YES! I was screaming this at the time. I probably would have gotten on board if he could have shown any humility at all. Spoken as a father of girls who might be in that situation sometime soon. Just own it. But he did that stupid Fox interview where he said he was too busy going to church and doing community service to party. It was so obnoxiously BS. And then came to the hearing screaming and promising revenge. I am not a lawyer, and I really don't feel qualified to judge if a person is legally qualified to be on the SC. But his reaction to this situation made me confident he didn't have the temperment or judgement to be in a lifetime role of this magnitude.
So someone accuses another person of something that supposedly happened 30 years ago at a party. She has absolutely no corroborating Witnesses and can't remember details about the party. But the person who is accused is supposed to simply accept the accusation as true? Absolutely not. In our system we don't assume people are guilty simply because they're accused. We require evidence. There was none. Doesn't mean it didn't happen. But it does mean we don't assume he's guilty.
There was also no investigation, so I'm not sure where you expected evidence to come from.
I completely agree with you.
The accusation was 30 years old and there was no corroborating witnesses. You can't assume Kavanaugh was guilty.
I actually didn't think he was guilty. When I heard about what happened, I honestly felt like it was kids who were drinking and the situation got out of hand and over their head. But I didn't hear that story and think "Sexual predator". I wasn't even confident it was him at that house. (It was a little sketchy that the other friend went AWOL while all of this was heating up, but that still isn't evidence of anything.) Which is why his response made me so crazy. He could have just said, "I don't recall an event as she described, but there are also nights that I may have drank too much. I can't say for sure what happened at every party, but I feel confident that I never would have intentionally acted in a way that made a woman feel unsafe. I feel terrible she has been carrying this trauma. I have teenage girls and I would never want them to feel disrespected. As a nation, let's take this oppertunity to have a conversation about consent and perspective taking and maybe not drinking when you're not really mature enough to be fully aware of the impact of your choices. Etc. Etc.." Maybe I'm too Pollyanna about this. Maybe it wouldn't have calmed the waters. I know there are some people who still would have called for his head. But I think a number of moderately minded people would have been satisfied.
But first he claimed he was too perfect to ever do anything wrong. And then he came out so aggressive, promising revenge and retribution. I don't think what did or didn't happen at that party made him a poor choice for SC. I think his lack of grace, humility and level headedness while dealing with the situation is where he lost merit, in my opinion. I suspect, he probably received poor advice on how to deal with the situation. Maybe he's not a hot head IRL. I know a few people who know him and swear he's a great guy. Many people felt his testamony in that hearing was for an audience of one. I'm sure he received a standing ovation from that audience. Sadly, he turned off a lot of other people who may have been in his corner if he'd taken another approach.
This right here.
I feel as though if it were any other time in America, any other president, they would have ditched him and found another candidate. Someone equally conservative, I'm sure. The country would have been better off for it.
Its not hard to find someone who is "conservative." The problem is getting enough people to turn out to vote for them. The beauty of Trump (if you want to call it that) is that he provided a lot of motivation for people to come out and vote on the GoP side.
The truth is people don't really vote for policies, they vote on the basis of emotion and identity. The GoP recognizes this--the Democrats think policy is meaningful. The joke is on them.