The Kavanaugh Hearing

As a conservative watching this very closely, all I can say is Kavanaugh is hiding something and how he treated Fred Guttenberg is deplorable.


Vacanculo said:
As a conservative watching this very closely, all I can say is Kavanaugh is hiding something and how he treated Fred Guttenberg is deplorable.

I think he's hiding a bunch of controversial ideas and opinions, but not a particularly big bombshell, which is why McConnell didn't want him. But he passed Trump's loyalty test. 


dave23 said:


Vacanculo said:
As a conservative watching this very closely, all I can say is Kavanaugh is hiding something and how he treated Fred Guttenberg is deplorable.
I think he's hiding a bunch of controversial ideas and opinions, but not a particularly big bombshell, which is why McConnell didn't want him. But he passed Trump's loyalty test. 

Yep.

Whereupon McConnell is now tasked with preventing the controversial documents from getting out to the public. 


BG9 said:

Yep.
Whereupon McConnell is now tasked with preventing the controversial documents from getting out to the public. 

And the Dems are grandstanding (and offering legitimate criticism) while their staffs read through the docs. Pretty good theater.


Learned last night (TV) that Kavanaugh wasn't on the original Heritage Foundation list but was added after Mueller was appointed. Hmmmm...


Vacanculo said:
As a conservative watching this very closely, all I can say is Kavanaugh is hiding something and how he treated Fred Guttenberg is deplorable.

 But he's very fond of Fred's bible.


cramer said:
I've been really impressed with Sheldon Whitehouse.  He's excellent.  

 Little Rhody's own! 


Here's my bet, which is contrarian to a lot of what you'll hear: There's a lot of speculation that The Times puffed up the person's importance, but I think the official actually is indisputably "senior."

  • Here's why: If I'm The Times, I know that publishing the anonymous blast is going to be controversial. I assume the person will be unmasked, perhaps sooner rather than later. And I don't want to look like a dope when the identity is known. If it weren't an actual big fish, I'd have a "fake news" problem.

axios


mrincredible said:
So you want Democrats to nominate a pro-life fiscal conservative who supports gun rights and promises to roll back entitlement programs.  I see your ploy.

 Where did I say that?  My comment was that a reasonable centrist Democratic candidate will waltz into the White House in 2020. 


DannyArcher said:


mrincredible said:
So you want Democrats to nominate a pro-life fiscal conservative who supports gun rights and promises to roll back entitlement programs.  I see your ploy.
 Where did I say that?  My comment was that a reasonable centrist Democratic candidate will waltz into the White House in 2020. 

 Republicans have gotten a tax cut, conservative judge appointments and increased military spending. The democrats would have to nominate John Kasich to get ANY republicans to actually vote for their candidate.



mrincredible said:


DannyArcher said:

mrincredible said:
So you want Democrats to nominate a pro-life fiscal conservative who supports gun rights and promises to roll back entitlement programs.  I see your ploy.
 Where did I say that?  My comment was that a reasonable centrist Democratic candidate will waltz into the White House in 2020. 
 Republicans have gotten a tax cut, conservative judge appointments and increased military spending. The democrats would have to nominate John Kasich to get ANY republicans to actually vote for their candidate.

 I was going to make a similar post last night, asking, who should we nominate? Kasich?

And what bugs me, hearing from my Republican friends who claim its the Dems fault that Trump got in, I always ask, why didn't they pick Kasich or Rubio or Bush. What made them go so far out there? It proves to me, that they didn't like any of the 16 choices from their own party never mind ours.


This terminology is new to me. Abortion inducing contraceptive. Could he telegraph his position any more clearly? However as a female I'm reassured that with his history as an altar boy and his ongoing relationship with the Catholic Church, our future reproductive rights will be safely cradled in the arms of Holy Mother Church.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/07/health/kavanaugh-abortion-inducing-contraceptives.html


People have raised over $600,000, almost one-half of what Susan Collins has on hand right now, to run someone against her if she votes for Kavanaugh. 

https://www.crowdpac.com/campaigns/387413/either-sen-collins-votes-no-on-kavanaugh-or-we-fund-her-future-opponent/updates/2872?source_code=campaign-fb-share-2872&ref_code=campaign-update#updates



cramer said:
People have raised over $600,000, almost one-half of what Susan Collins has on hand right now, to run someone against her if she votes for Kavanaugh. 
https://www.crowdpac.com/campaigns/387413/either-sen-collins-votes-no-on-kavanaugh-or-we-fund-her-future-opponent/updates/2872?source_code=campaign-fb-share-2872&ref_code=campaign-update#updates



Good strategy. I'm actually hopeful that she will cave if Lisa Murkowski does. And Mazie Hirono's share of the document that is of concern to both natives of Hawaii and Alaska should give Murkowski a push. 


cramer said:
People have raised over $600,000, almost one-half of what Susan Collins has on hand right now, to run someone against her if she votes for Kavanaugh. 
https://www.crowdpac.com/campaigns/387413/either-sen-collins-votes-no-on-kavanaugh-or-we-fund-her-future-opponent/updates/2872?source_code=campaign-fb-share-2872&ref_code=campaign-update#updates



 How much will the Right raise to Primary her if she votes the other way?


mrincredible said:


 Republicans have gotten a tax cut, conservative judge appointments and increased military spending. The democrats would have to nominate John Kasich to get ANY republicans to actually vote for their candidate.


 Donald Trump is President and you still want to believe that the voters are logical, consistent, reasonable and rational. 

A Trump-like demagogue could run touting universal government funded healthcare, a higher minimum wage and decreased military spending for "foreign adventures"  and some Trump voters would support him (if Trump was not running).

Forget about the Dems trying to appeal to republicans or Trumpites, they have to appeal to minorities and millenials and greatly increase the voter turnout from those groups.


All well and good, but how much do they actually HAVE bs that $1.3m of Collins?  Doesn’t seem like they’ve actually “raised” anything, have they?  


ctrzaska said:
All well and good, but how much do they actually HAVE bs that $1.3m of Collins?  Doesn’t seem like they’ve actually “raised” anything, have they?  

They have$600k in commitments. They charge your credit card if she votes for him. (If I'm understanding your post.)


dave23 said:


ctrzaska said:
All well and good, but how much do they actually HAVE bs that $1.3m of Collins?  Doesn’t seem like they’ve actually “raised” anything, have they?  
They have$600k in commitments. They charge your credit card if she votes for him. (If I'm understanding your post.)

You understood it perfectly.  I almost posted a caveat that referenced a process whereby those pledges would automatically be turned into actual cash as a way to say the funds have been raised, but figured they’d never be able to do it.  


I’ll stand corrected anyhow. 


Same process as a GoFundMe campaign.


cramer said:
People have raised over $600,000, almost one-half of what Susan Collins has on hand right now, to run someone against her if she votes for Kavanaugh. 
https://www.crowdpac.com/campaigns/387413/either-sen-collins-votes-no-on-kavanaugh-or-we-fund-her-future-opponent/updates/2872?source_code=campaign-fb-share-2872&ref_code=campaign-update#updates

When I posted this, the amount raised was a little over $600,000. It's now $727,000. That's a lot of support. 

eta - I just made a pledge. 



GL2 said:
.

 Good one. Just snagged it for my FB page.


"We continue to find more evidence that Judge Kavanaugh misled me and the Judiciary Committee under oath. I’m posting important documents that Senate Republicans didn’t want the American people to see. We deserve transparency about this nominee."

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1039630250106408963.html


For my money, both Gorsuch and (most likely) Kavanaugh have asterisks next to their names following the Garland boycott. They're the Sammy Sosa and Mark McGuire of the Court. And, of course, they join the last grievous error, Clarence Thomas, whose wife is a Tea Party nut.

Moreover, their appointments complete the GOP hat trick of completely politicizing the 3rd branch. From what I read, the only hope for fairness is that Roberts might care about his legacy and temper his conservative views.


cramer said:


cramer said:
People have raised over $600,000, almost one-half of what Susan Collins has on hand right now, to run someone against her if she votes for Kavanaugh. 
https://www.crowdpac.com/campaigns/387413/either-sen-collins-votes-no-on-kavanaugh-or-we-fund-her-future-opponent/updates/2872?source_code=campaign-fb-share-2872&ref_code=campaign-update#updates
When I posted this, the amount raised was a little over $600,000. It's now $727,000. That's a lot of support. 
eta - I just made a pledge. 

No matter how Collins votes on Kavanaugh, the Democrats and liberal organizations will do everything they can to defeat her, since she is a Republican and her presence in the Senate is a vote to empower Mitch McConnell and not Chuck Schumer.  For instance, Lincoln Chafee was very liberal, but that didn't stop the Democrats (Sheldon Whitehouse) from defeating him in 2006.  

Likewise, Republicans would do the same thing to any conservative-moderate Democratic Senator, hence their current campaign to defeat Joe Manchin, who voted for Gorsuch.  All that matters is who has the Senate majority, not the characteristics of one's own Senator.  

The only thing that protects a Senator from being attacked by the opposite party is a sense that that Senator cannot be defeated anyway.  

So if I were Collins I'd take a "damned if I do, damned if I don't" attitude and vote my conscience on Kavanaugh.  If I were going to make a political calculation, since the Democrats will try to defeat me no matter what, but a vote against Kavanaugh is more likely to inspire a right-wing primary challenge (like what happened to Dick Lugar), I'd have a greater political fear of voting against Kavanaugh.


 


Runner_Guy said:

No matter how Collins votes on Kavanaugh, the Democrats and liberal organizations will do everything they can to defeat her, since she is a Republican and her presence in the Senate is a vote to empower Mitch McConnell and not Chuck Schumer.  For instance, Lincoln Chafee was very liberal, but that didn't stop the Democrats (Sheldon Whitehouse) from defeating him in 2006.  

Likewise, Republicans would do the same thing to any conservative-moderate Democratic Senator, hence their current campaign to defeat Joe Manchin, who voted for Gorsuch.  All that matters is who has the Senate majority, not the characteristics of one's own Senator.  

The only thing that protects a Senator from being attacked by the opposite party is a sense that that Senator cannot be defeated anyway.  

There’s a peculiar inference behind that analysis of electoral politics: If an incumbent is acceptable, why try to elect a candidate you think would be better?


DaveSchmidt said:


Runner_Guy said:

No matter how Collins votes on Kavanaugh, the Democrats and liberal organizations will do everything they can to defeat her, since she is a Republican and her presence in the Senate is a vote to empower Mitch McConnell and not Chuck Schumer.  For instance, Lincoln Chafee was very liberal, but that didn't stop the Democrats (Sheldon Whitehouse) from defeating him in 2006.  

Likewise, Republicans would do the same thing to any conservative-moderate Democratic Senator, hence their current campaign to defeat Joe Manchin, who voted for Gorsuch.  All that matters is who has the Senate majority, not the characteristics of one's own Senator.  

The only thing that protects a Senator from being attacked by the opposite party is a sense that that Senator cannot be defeated anyway.  
There’s a peculiar inference behind that analysis of electoral politics: If an incumbent is acceptable, why try to elect a candidate you think would be better?

Committed Democrats and committed Republicans are increasingly unlikely to find someone of the opposite party acceptable due to how each and every Senator or House member can be the 51st vote for Senate control or 218th vote for House control.  Americans, like voters in parliamentary systems, have learned that they should vote for the party, not the person.  

why try to elect a candidate you think would be better? 

( :  Because don't we all want "better" rather than "acceptable"?

In the 2016 election there was not a single divergence between the partisan identity of the victorious Senate candidate and that state's presidential choice.  There was a record low for the number of House seats won by the opposite party of the presidential victor.

Why would a Democrat, who is still angry about what happened to Merrick Garland, ever vote for Susan Collins when Collins' support for McConnell is what enabled the blockade in the first place?  

Although there are still some moderate voters who will cross party lines to vote for an opposite-party politician, even fewer donors will do this, and we all know that donors are extremely important to any politician's survival.  

Collins can vote against Kavanaugh, but even if she does, Democratic donors will still pour money into her opponent's campaign if they believe that Collins is vulnerable.

She should just vote her conscience.  



Runner_Guy said:

She should just vote her conscience.  


 Objection:  Assuming facts not in evidence.


Steve said:


Runner_Guy said:She should just vote her conscience.  

 Objection:  Assuming facts not in evidence.

  question 


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.