The ‘Lion of the Senate’ Ted Kennedy can drive drunk and leave a girl to drown, JFK can schtupp anything that moves, ‘Slick Willy’ Clinton can get creative with cigars and an intern in the Oval Office, and that’s all a big ‘meh.’ Brett Kavanaugh on the other hand…
Well, he’s ‘problematic.’
Yes, Brett Kavanaugh’s teenage behavior is more problematic than Bill Clinton’s rape of Juanita Broaddrick, his groping of Kathleen Wiley, and the infamous ‘kiss it’ moment with Paula Jones, it seems.
Those on the left claim it’s because there are multiple (two — we’ll just set Michael Avenatti’s claims of some sort of gang-rape circle aside for now) allegations of inappropriate sexual behavior both stating that alcohol was flowing at the time. At least one incident is alleged to have occurred when Kavanaugh was a minor. Both allegations so far have zero (0) corroborating witnesses, nor a single shred of evidence, and many, many people coming forward stating that the accounts don’t seem to be consistent with the Brett Kavanaugh that they have known for decades. Maybe that’s why the initial complainant, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford seems to be waffling on appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee unless a host of demands are met.
But setting aside the lack of evidence, no witnesses, gaping holes in the stories, and the fact that both women are registered Democrats that have both lawyered up with Democrat lawyers, there’s this weird situation where the ‘free love’ hippy-dippy leftists have morphed into pearl-clutching Puritans.
It’s just another example of their patchwork quilt of a political philosophy where you try to stitch things that normally don’t go together and try to make something out of it.
The same people that want the voting age lowered to 16 because children are so ‘wise’ also argue that there should be a separate court for those under the age of 21 because new research on brain development shows decision-making functions of the brain continue to develop well past the teen years. It wouldn’t be compassionate to hold a 17 year old accountable for their criminal behavior because their brains just haven’t matured yet. In California, a 12-year old can get life-changing gender reassignment surgery on the taxpayer dime, but that same person shouldn’t have shoplifting charges count against them when they’re an adult because that’s just an example of ‘poor decision making.’
Indeed.
Now, the latest is that leftists are questioning the cultural practice of excessive drinking as a teen.
Slate published a ‘News & Political’ piece titled, ‘Kavanaugh’s Drinking Should Be Investigated: It’s possible the Supreme Court nominee was so intoxicated that he doesn’t remember assaulting his accusers. We must find out‘ written by
It’s a bizarre piece of ‘journalism’ — but, of course, that’s nothing new these days.
This one starts by attacking Trump for dismissing The Second Very Serious Sexual Misconduct Accusation™ by Deborah Ramirez, who admitted in the New Yorker story that she wasn’t sure that it was Brett Kavanaugh that had exposed himself in front of her very drunk first-year Yale student self.
To be fair to Saletan, he does address this, but then he points the finger at Kavanaugh.
It’s reasonable to ask whether alcohol impaired Ramirez’s memory or the memory of Kavanaugh’s other accuser, Christine Blasey Ford. But it’s just as reasonable—and based on current evidence, more warranted—to raise that question about Kavanaugh himself.
He then lays out four possible scenarios:
- Kavanaugh is lying
- His accusers are lying
- Nobody is lying — the accusers believe that he did what they said he did, but he actually didn’t do it
- Nobody is lying — Kavanaugh doesn’t believe he did what he is being accused of, but he actually did do it. In this scenario, Saletan implies that Kavanaugh was too drunk to realize that he did it.
The article continues to point to the drinking by Kavanaugh and his fellow students as nearly pathological. He cites passages from conservative writer and friend of Kavanaugh, Mark Judge as ‘evidence.’ Judge has written extensively on his abuse of alcohol in his teen years.
Kavanaugh was part of this culture. His friend Mark Judge, who is accused of collaborating in the alleged assault on Ford, has written books and articles that detail extensive drinking in their social circle. In his writings, Judge calls this group “Alcoholics Unanimous.” He describes their school, Georgetown Prep, as “swimming in alcohol.” He depicts house parties like the one at which Ford says she was assaulted. According to Judge, these were informal, unsupervised gatherings at which boys and girls from single-sex schools could party together whenever “someone’s parents were going away.” For boys, the goal was sex. Judge writes: “Most of the time everyone, including the girls, was drunk. If you could breathe and walk at the same time, you could hook up with someone.”
Saletan then states, ‘A person who drinks to the point of passing out, and who experiences personality changes when he’s drunk, can’t reliably say what he did or didn’t do while intoxicated,‘ and dismisses the claims that Brett Kavanaugh made in his interview with Martha MacCallum stating that he didn’t drink until he lost control.
So, get ready, college campuses — here comes the Inquisition.
The pearl-clutching Media (D) will even scour yearbooks and make ridiculous claims about the inside jokes all high schoolers make.
The alcohol theory is arguably the most plausible explanation of what happened. It’s less crazy than Ford inventing a story and putting herself through hell so Trump can nominate a different conservative judge to the Supreme Court. It’s less crazy than two different women developing false memories about the same man. It’s less crazy than Kavanaugh being a total fraud who has conned friends and colleagues into thinking he’s a decent guy. And even if you prefer one of the other theories, this one is sufficiently plausible and well supported to merit scrutiny.
Source: Slate
But it’s not just the suggestion that we investigate drinking by teenagers.
Benjamin Wallace-Wells, in his article, ‘Why Haven’t Republicans Abandoned Brett Kavanaugh?‘ in the New Yorker thinks that this whole thing is a travesty and Republicans should just distance themselves from Kavanaugh once and for all. Not only are Kavanaugh’s cries of innocence and virginity in high school and college requiring a ‘suspension of disbelief’ but they are examples of the ‘weakness’ of his defense.
That Kavanaugh was reportedly compelled to grant the interview suggested how weak his position had become. The truly powerful broadcast their sentiments directly on social media; the televised interview tends to be for those who enjoy celebrity but not control. Estes Kavanaugh’s presence suggested that an older form was being attempted, in which the wife humanizes the husband. “He’s decent, he’s kind, he’s good—I know his heart,” she said. But these affirmations seemed peripheral, since she met her husband in 2001, nearly two decades after the two alleged incidents, in high school and in college. During the interview, two pink-and-white floral arrangements sat somewhat incongruously in the background; because most of the conversation focussed on an accusation of attempted rape, they cast a slightly ghoulish pall, as if they were offerings of condolences.
Well, it’s a good thing he isn’t biased, amirite?
Wallace-Wells writes that Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) was forced to hold a hearing once the accusation made by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford was published in the Washington Post. Of course, he fails to admit that the allegations that were sat on for months by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).
That it has come to this—that a Supreme Court confirmation will hinge on whether a young man in the nineteen-eighties drunkenly degraded women or comported himself as a figure of Catholic chastity—represents a breakdown of the most successful effort of the Trump Administration, the confirmation of conservative judges.
He then writes that it should have been an easy 1, 2, 3 like the nomination of Justice Neil Gorsuch, and condemnation for the Senate GOP Majority that are willing to ‘plow right through’ the confirmation process.
The esteemed Wallace-Wells then ponders why Republicans don’t just toss Kavanaugh to the curb.
One obvious question is why the Republicans don’t simply abandon Kavanaugh. There are plenty of other conservative jurists, after all, and McConnell advised Trump against picking him in the first place. The answer may not be complicated. With the midterm elections drawing close, the President under investigation, and the Senate majority dependent on the narrowest of margins, “plow right through” is not a declaration of strength. It is an effort to manage political weakness.
Source: The New Yorker
Perhaps it’s because teenage drinking and baseless accusations should not be enough to scuttle the career and reputation of a man that has comported himself with decorum and dignity throughout his adult life.
What happened to the studies on brain development? Are those not relevant in Kavanaugh’s case just as Democrats claim that the presumption of innocence doesn’t seem to apply to him?
If Republicans allow this to keep Kavanaugh from the Supreme Court, then there is no hope for anyone.
Anyone, at any time, could face unfounded accusations with zero evidence and that’s it for them.
Of course, Democrats hold themselves to higher standards, right?
It's a good thing nobody on their side has ever admitted to being part of a 'choom gang' or using cocaine, isn't it?
— Wes Walker (@Republicanuck) September 26, 2018
Yes, indeed, the party that brought us MoveOn.org is now saying that Republicans should allow baseless allegations to destroy a man’s life and that excessive drinking in the 1980s should be ‘investigated.’
What a time to be alive.
