Tunnel Wall

Saturday, October 6, 2018

Conservative Commentary on the Kavanaugh hearings

The other woman

Democrats' big miscalculation: Conservative women like me won't abandon Brett Kavanaugh . . . "Many conservative women detest the McCarthyite tone of the proceedings; we feel sickened by the sight of crowds of college girls ripping up pro-Kavanaugh posters; we are worried as mobs chant, “We believe survivors!” (What if Ford is not truly a “survivor”? Don’t we have to establish whether she’s a survivor first?)" . . .
. . . "This article confirms what I've been seeing on a purely social basis. My analysis is not a poll, but rather just plain conversation, from talking to people at church, over coffee, waiting at the bank, and so on.

"People grow angry when they see an injustice on the level of destroying a man and his family.

"The Democrats clearly overplayed their hand. They never anticipated that women would be angry at them. Maybe they will show up to vote and express their discontent. I hope so!" . . . This article links to the following commentary in USA Today:

"The Democratic Party's war on men" . . .
. . . "We know that college campuses have been a nightmare for young men for years as unfair panels established to judge alleged sex abuse have proliferated — aided and abetted by President Barack Obama’s threat to withdraw federal funds for universities that weren’t swift enough in establishing these faux courts.
. . .
"We know that popular culture created in the salons of the East Coast relentlessly portray men as bumbling idiots, as children. And we bleed for our sons and husbands and brothers who have been scarred by these relentless attacks.". . . Just watch your average TV commercial.
. . . "How about a movement called “Not In Our Name”? It’s time everybody — from lawmakers tempted to make policy that they think will placate women to our male brothers who increasingly are saying they’re afraid to hire and even date women — to know that "the women who won’t put on the pink hat" are out there in big numbers."

How to Prevent Another Kavanaugh Circus . . . "If the next Christine Blasey Ford has information, she must volunteer it to the committee by a pre-set cutoff date.

"Next, Senator Feinstein must undergo an FBI investigation into how Ford's letter found its way to the media. At the same time, she must undergo a Senate Ethics Committee review, with the possibility of being removed from the Judiciary Committee. This would remove her reward, taking the piggy bank she craves away. If she were demoted to "just another senator," Feinstein would lose her reason to be in the Senate.

"With Feinstein gone, another Democrat would take her place, since for the time being, California is locked in the throes of a leftist coup. But that Democrat would think twice about pulling a stunt like Feinstein did. Not having the benefits of your seat is as bad as not having your seat."

Conservative students holding a pro-Kavanaugh demonstration at the University of Texas-Austin were met by liberal counter-protesters.

If Christine Ford's lawyer needs a lawyer, the fat lady's singing . . . "I am betting on today's FBI to begin at the top to rebuild and regain its honor. The special agents in the field are still a national treasure. The top leadership ranks in the Obama administration are the ones who lost their moral compass, along now with those working with Dr. Ford." . . .

Regarding the temperament of Judge Kavanaugh... . . . "Just a job interview?

Where the job is an advancement in a large organization where you have worked for years with dignity and competence.Where the executive position for which you are recommended suddenly brings half the board members to immediately oppose you in every way they can and call you evil.Where the job interview lasts several weeks or months and is a public spectacle.Where half the board members lie in wait to spring surprise accusations rather than show they are interested in knowing the truth.Where opposing board members welcome the most vile accusations and act as if they have merit even when reason dictates otherwise.Where opposing board members put forth the ridiculous and offensive argument that you, as the accused, must prove that you are innocent.Where if you fail to secure the position, your life and your family are turned upside-down and ruined.

"This is not just a job interview. It never was just a job interview, and it became much more and much worse than a case of the Senate performing its role to advise and consent on the president's nomination. The opposing and unworthy senators made sure of that."

Liberal Institutions Are Casualties of the Kavanaugh Affair

Commentary Magazine

"The Brett Kavanaugh drama is approaching its dénouement, which means we can now survey the damage to the institutions that tried to ruin the high-court nominee—his life, his career, his family. That damage is immense.

"The next time Donald Trump rails against the “fake-news media,” his words will resonate with a larger share of Americans than they did before most of the mainstream media decided to enlist in the Democrat campaign against Kavanaugh.

"The next time there is a critical judicial nomination at stake, congressional Republicans and the broader conservative legal ecosystem will be that much more dismissive of white-shoe gatekeepers such as the American Bar Association.

"Likewise, the credentialing mills that shape the worldview of the liberal elite will have that much less credibility among broad swaths of the nation.

"Trump didn’t force Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer to taint the New Yorker’s record for painstaking factual accuracy by publishing Deborah Ramirez’s baseless, uncorroborated allegation about Kavanaugh exposing himself to her. By Farrow and Mayer’s own account, Ramirez took days to meditate on the vagaries of memory and consult her attorneys. That should have been warning enough, never mind the complete absence of firsthand corroboration.

"The Ramirez debacle was self-made.

"Nor did Trump force Farrow and Mayer to return to the story days later by profiling the Yale alumnus who offered hearsay backup to Ramirez—only to have the alumnus’s own supposed firsthand source deny all knowledge of the alleged incident.

"That cock-up, too, was entirely avoidable.

" And it wasn’t Trump who dispatched Emily Bazelon—a Yale alumna who had declared her opposition to Kavanaugh’s nomination from day one—to report a ludicrous story about a bar brawl at which the future judge threw ice. No, it was the editors of the New York Times who did that. They gave Bazelon a straight-news byline, though she had a long record of partisan and ideological grandstanding on court issues.

"That was a journalistic wound the Grey Lady inflicted on herself. " . . .

"Our Supreme Court confirmation process has been in steady decline for more than thirty years. One can only hope that the Kavanaugh nomination is where the process has finally hit rock bottom."

Ann Althouse "I read [Susan Collins' words] and thought, no, this is not rock bottom. There's more ahead, lower places to sink. Why wouldn't there be? Maybe the 2018 elections will punish the Democratic Party for what it did with the Kavanaugh nomination, and everyone will realize they'd better never do anything like that again. But to say that is to say, there is a lower depth, and they've got to get there before they'll see they've got to enter recovery.

"Notice the connection between "rock bottom" and "hope": "One can only hope... the process has finally hit rock bottom." "Rock bottom" means more than just: at least we can't sink any lower. It means a confrontation with reality that shocks you into changing your ways.
. . .
"American politics is shot through with us/them rhetoric and emotion right now. I don't know the way out, other than to resist it myself, as I continue my daily scribblings here. I like hope as much as the next person, but I don't think hitting rock bottom is the beginning of a path of recovery, and if I did, I'd need to believe that the Senate can't go any lower, and I don't think the musings of Susan Collins are going to turn anyone back.

"It was a great speech, but why did we hear this from her so late in the process she purports to decry? Why is she only willing or capable of saying these things when she's looking back on the wreckage?"

The Lecture We Deserved. But did anyone hear it?

Amid palpable national tension and with the fate of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination yoked on her shoulders, Collins chose not to release the pressure by launching into the allegations against him and how they would affect her vote. Not right away, at least. Instead, she provided a stern lecture to a nation that had earned every word. . . . Noah Rothman

The left escalates its vilification of Susan Collins

. . . Her Kavanaugh vote today says no. For all her appearances of leftishness, she seems to have a thing against being pushed around and her independent backbone is not just confined to Republicans. That comes as a shock to the left because she was up until now, always "theirs," and pushing her around was their whole plan.They used the foulest tactics, far worse than the media reported, according to Sen. Marco Rubio. And it all backfired, so they're seething, yet incredibly, not stopping. With the witch hunt over, they are coming for the heretics. . . .

‘A different time’: Milano drastically changes her tune on Bill Clinton, stealthily scrubs adoring tweet

What about your goddess Hillary, destroyer of those who dared speak out against her husband, accusing him?

BizPacReview "Like a big, fat sore thumb, Bill Clinton stands out amid the left’s weaponization of the #MeToo movement.

"Actress/Activist Alyssa Milano, who says she was the victim of a traumatic sexual assault as a 19-year-old, has been a leading voice in protests against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and was surprisingly asked about Clinton in an appearance Thursday on CNN.

“You are a fan of Bill Clinton, anchor Chris Cuomo noted. “Should Kavanaugh receive the same benefit of the doubt?”

“ 'No, and I don’t think Bill Clinton should have gotten that benefit of the doubt hindsight,” Milano said. “I think that as a nation, we were in a different time. I think that women were continually being silenced. And I think we gave him the benefit of the doubt and we probably should’ve investigated the allegations against him as well.” . . .

My considered opinion: Milano is a trained actress, always aware of where the camera is. Knowing how a photographer would compose the photos of Judge Kavanaugh with his wife beside him, I strongly maintain she positioned herself so she would be there between them, assuming the pose of an angry accuser. Shame on Alyssa Milano as she relishes seeing this picture enlarged and carried by paid protesters whom she knows will cheer for her just as they cheer for the beloved wife of Bill Clinton. The Tunnel Dweller.

Friday, October 5, 2018

Communism sympathizers post numbers, jobs of pro-Kavanaugh protesters

Has Robert Francis "Beto" O'Rourke commented on this?

Campus Reform "Students at the University of Texas-Austin (UTA) held a demonstration in support of Supreme Court justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh. But their attempts to protest peacefully on campus were met with resistance.

"The Young Conservatives of Texas at UT Austin (YCT) held a pro-Kavanaugh demonstration on Tuesday as counter-protesters aggressively tried to stop the event from occurring, yelling “this is a fuck you to survivors” and claiming that the demonstration threatened “the safety of students on campus.

"The Senior Associate Dean of Students, Douglas Carrard, attempted to defuse the situation, telling the protesters “you guys can express your views, and they can express their views.” Carrard was met with opposition from the counter-protesters, one of whom stated that the YCT demonstration was “a threat to minorities everywhere.”

"The YCT members held signs saying “#MeToo Gone #TooFar!,” “Kava-Not Guilty,” “Kavanaugh Did Nothing Wrong,” and more, but some of the signs were torn apart by counter-protesters at the event. When one YCT member asked the protesters if they wanted to talk about the Kavanaugh sexual assault allegations in a civil way, a counter-protester shouted at him “do you think we give a fuck about your views?" . . .

Read more...

Editorial: Mean girls victimize us all

Trib Total Media

"Raise your hand if you were personally victimized by a mean girl.
"The Tina Fey-penned Lindsay Lohan movie “Mean Girls” is the mother of a thousand memes. It’s one of those movies where people of a certain age can just start sputtering lines at each other and it puts you right back into the first time you saw it, or right back into the halls at your own high school, navigating cliques and dealing with the popular kids who ran it.
It’s funny because it’s exaggerated but it’s also a little bit real.
It’s not funny for a boy who is being homeschooled in Butler County.
Where the characters in the movie lied and manipulated each other casually and with consequences that were wrapped up in two hours to a happily ever after, that’s not what Michael and Alecia Flood say happened to their son. In a federal lawsuit filed this week, the couple demand justice for false claims of indecent assault, simple assault, criminal trespass and harassment that five girls either levied or backed up in two separate incidents.
These claims had consequences. The boy went to juvenile detention. He was kicked off the baseball team. He was kept on house arrest.
Three of the girls later admitted to lying, according to the suit. They were not charged for it. That’s part of the suit, too.
This is exactly the kind of case people point to when a high profile sex crime is alleged.
See, they say. Girls lie. Girls are devious. Girls are mean.
They aren’t wrong. Some girls do lie. Some girls are mean. But just as they caution that every man is not a predator and can’t be assumed to be an attacker, and that everyone accused of a crime has to have a presumption of innocence, we have to answer back the same about the accusers.
Some girls do lie. It’s true. Other girls tell the truth. Most girls tell the truth. The National Sexual Violence Resource Center estimates between 2-10 percent of reports are “false.” . . . More here...

It’s ON! Kimberley Strassel tags Flake, Collins, and Murkowski in BRUTAL thread about what voting no on Kavanaugh really means

Twitchy "Kimberley Strassel wrote a thread about what voting no on Brett Kavanaugh could really mean BEYOND even just the fact that he wouldn’t sit on SCOTUS. It’s bigger than SCOTUS at this point … and she tagged Jeff Flake, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski in the thread.

"And damn.

"The media is working overtime to make Kavanaugh into someone he isn’t because at this point it’s also bigger for them. If he is confirmed then all of their efforts in smearing him and controlling the narrative have failed.

"This isn’t about ice. Or cursing. Or even allegations of sexual assault at this point.

"No.

"This is about right and wrong, and the dirty tactics Democrats are willing to use, the lengths they are willing to go to, in order to retain or regain power.

"Even if Flake, Collins, and Murkowski are more moderate, even they have to see how absolutely gross this has been.

Lisa Murkowski Should ‘Pair No’ with Steve Daines’s ‘Paired Yes’

National Review

"Conservatives of course are deeply disappointed with Senator Lisa Murkowski’s decision to vote against cloture on Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, and we hope that for some reason she changes her mind for the final floor vote. (I would love a chance for a one-on-one conversation to help her get to “yes.”) But even if she doesn’t, there is something she can and should do that would show real decency and judgment, and that could help, at least at the margins, start a long healing process that is necessary within the Senate. Murkowski should restore a once-common Senate tradition that has fallen out of use, but should be renewed. There was a time when, if senators with known views on an issue were unavoidably absent because of reasons of health or major family events, senators with the opposite view would “pair no” with them, with neither of them voting at all. That would leave the status quo the same as if both voted their known proclivities.

Did this encounter affect Murkowski's decision?

"It was a wonderful tradition of courtesy, decency, and mutual respect. It also played a huge role in the ultimate confirmation of Daniel Manion to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in 1986, when Joe Biden went back and forth as to whether he would honor a “paired” agreement until Robert Byrd shamed him into staying true to it, with Manion being confirmed only after a controversial re-vote.

"Anyway, it is known that Republican Steve Daines of Montana, a strong supporter of Kavanaugh, will be walking his daughter down the aisle on Saturday. Word is that he has said he will find a way to get back to Washington if his vote is absolutely needed for Kavanaugh to pass — but he should not need to be worrying about that. He, his daughter, and his family should be able to enjoy the daughter’s big day, without having to monitor every last development or leave the celebration to manage a cross-country flight at the last moment. A daughter’s wedding is a once-in-a-lifetime event, and no father should be forced to miss it if humanly possible."

Murkowski should therefore offer to “pair no” with Daines’s “paired yes,” so the vote margin will be the same as if both were there — but so Daines will be able to remain in Montana.

"Note: A paired vote is absolutely not the same as voting “present,” which is tantamount to a no vote because it pushes up the total votes needed for a simple majority. Instead, it is literally not a vote at all, as if both senators are absent.

"Memo to Senator Murkowski: If you won’t vote for Brett Kavanaugh, at least demonstrate this collegiality so Senator Daines can act wholly as a dad on Saturday."

Campus Chaos Has Come to Congress

Mitch McConnell: Democrats "Tarnished the Dignity" Of The Senate 10/5/18

Victor Davis Hanson

The Senate adopted the modern university’s doctrine of self-censorship, no-go zones, and safe spaces

"The polarizing atmosphere of the university has now spread to Congress.
the Senate. On campus, constitutional due process vanishes when accusations of sexual harassment arise. America saw that when false charges were lodged against the Duke University lacrosse players and during Rolling Stone magazine’s concocted smear of a University of Virginia fraternity. Americans may disagree about the relative credibility of either Kavanaugh or his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford. But they all witnessed how the asymmetry of the campus governed the hearings. Ford’s veracity hinged on empathy and perceived believability. There was little requirement of corroborating testimonies, witnesses, and what used to be called physical evidence. In contrast, Kavanaugh was considered guilty from the start. He had to prove his innocence. One belief of the university is the postmodern idea of relativist truth.
. . .

"Meanwhile, Booker, by virtue of not being old and white, was considered a credible- senatorial examiner. No one cared that Booker had once invented stories about an imaginary friend named “T-Bone.” Such blanket race- and age-based stereotyping was not even consistent. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D., Conn.) is 72 and white. Yet given his progressive politics, no one dismissed him on the basis of gender and age, much less for being a serial fabricator who concocted false stories of being a Vietnam veteran."
. . .
"Swarming and shouting down those who hold different views in order to shame and intimidate them is part and parcel of the modern university. Now, we are seeing such campus street theater in Congress. During a break in the hearings, female protesters cornered Senator Jeff Flake (R., Ariz.) in an elevator and screamed in his face.

"The psychodrama worked — just as it usually does on campus. A shaken and flushed Flake soon backed down from his stated intention of voting to confirm Kavanaugh.

"Campuses are no longer out-of-touch ivory towers. Their creed is now beginning to run the country, which is frightening. "

Kavanaugh Pens Op-Ed Defending His Impartiality as a Judge

If a hated-by-the-liberals judge writes an op-ed and Democrats refuse to read it, does it make a sound? TD

“After all those meetings and after my initial hearing concluded, I was subjected to wrongful and sometimes vicious allegations. My time in high school and college, more than 30 years ago, has been ridiculously distorted. My wife and daughters have faced vile and violent threats,” Kavanaugh wrote.

Townhall "Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on Thursday defending his impartiality as a judge.

"His remarks come after liberals criticized him for his temperament during last Thursday’s hearing.

"Kavanaugh acknowledged that at times his testimony reflected his “overwhelming [frustration] at being wrongly accused, without corroboration, of horrible conduct completely contrary to [his] record and character.”

"He also was upset over how the allegations have been handled.

" .I was very emotional last Thursday, more so than I have ever been," he said. "I might have been too emotional at times. I know that my tone was sharp, and I said a few things I should not have said. I hope everyone can understand that I was there as a son, husband and dad. I testified with five people foremost in my mind: my mom, my dad, my wife, and most of all my daughters." . . .