This Has Nothing to Do With Kavanaugh

 

I’m sorry to contribute the 100th post on Kavanaugh from the past few days, but I think we may be missing the point here. I really don’t think the Democrats expect that their last-minute surprise will keep Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court. They don’t control the Presidency or either house of Congress, so they know they’re sort of stuck here. They’re probably secretly grateful because Trump could have nominated a more conservative firebrand, and there wouldn’t have been much they can do about it. So I don’t think keeping Kavanaugh off the court is the reason they did this. I suspect it is a combination of some of the following reasons:

  1. This is a warning to any conservative who might consider a spot on the Supreme Court, or any other high office, in the future. This has more to do with future nominations than with Mr. Kavanaugh’s nomination.
  2. If the Republicans vote on this and approve him (as they should, and probably will), then every Democrat running for office in the next few elections can remind voters that “Republicans put a known rapist on the Supreme Court!!!” The only way to stop the Republican Party from expressing their hatred for women in the future is to elect more Democrats. This has more to do with future elections than with Mr. Kavanaugh’s nomination.
  3. The rise of the far left in their party has the old establishment Democrats understandably nervous. This is an opportunity for an extremely wealthy 85-year-old white person to polish her progressive bona fides. I refer to Sen. Feinstein, but also to most other Democrat congress-humans. This is more about those in power protecting what they have and getting re-elected than with Mr. Kavanaugh’s nomination.
  4. Pure desperation. Like a shot from half-court as time expires, there’s really no reason not to give it a try. It’s amazing how your options open up when unconstrained by ethics, religion, and other inconvenient truths.
  5. There’s really no downside to this, as far as the Democrats can see. If the other side is pure evil, then what tactic is unacceptable? How can anyone criticize any effort to combat evil? There is no downside to this – no Democrat will ever have to pay for this charade. So if there is any possible upside at all, why not do this?

My point is that this really is not about Mr. Kavanaugh – he’s just collateral damage. It’s a shame somebody had to be destroyed, but as long as he’s conservative, it’s not too much of a shame.

This really isn’t about the Supreme Court, either. This may look stupid, but it’s probably good politics. For the Democrats. Again, it’s amazing how your options open up when unconstrained by ethics, religion, and other inconvenient truths.

The catch is, the Democrats have to know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it’s not just national Democrat office holders. They have to know that their supporters are also unconstrained by ethics, religion, and other inconvenient truths. So this really doesn’t tell us what Democrats think of Mr. Kavanaugh. It tells us what they think of the media, the educational establishment, and Democrat voters. And they apparently think that all those people are unethical bastards, willing to easily abandon any pretense of virtue, in an effort to demonstrate their virtue to one another.

There were a lot of conservatives who found it difficult to vote for Donald Trump because they disapproved of his ethics (or apparent lack thereof). Try to imagine what a Democrat politician would have to do to get Democrat voters to abandon him/her due to ethical concerns. The Democrats think that their lack of ethics will not create a backlash among Democrat voters, because they think that Democrat voters lack ethics as well.

I wish I thought the Democrat party was miscalculating on that point. But I don’t. What a horrible thought.

So this this may look stupid. But it’s probably good politics.

What say you? Please tell me I’m way off base here…

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 65 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    • #61
  2. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    The lack of ethics by the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee is deplorable and execrable, from Spartacus, and the deceitful DiFi to the horrible woman from Hawaii who has told all men to shut up.

    I just wish that we hadn’t nominated a Birther-womanizer. That way it would have so much easier to sweep away these last minute allegations against a truly remarkable jurist.

    Tell it to Bork, Thomas, and Estrada. Tell it to Estrada’s dead wife.

    • #62
  3. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    The lack of ethics by the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee

    @garyrobbins, I respect your desire to deplore reality, but what do you do while you wait for reality to conform to your desires… particularly when current reality is seen as desirable and a step in the right direction by a party you don’t vote for?

    • #63
  4. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    The lack of ethics by the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee is deplorable and execrable, from Spartacus, and the deceitful DiFi to the horrible woman from Hawaii who has told all men to shut up.

    I just wish that we hadn’t nominated a Birther-womanizer. That way it would have so much easier to sweep away these last minute allegations against a truly remarkable jurist.

    Oh, yeah. They wouldn’t have dared do this with a President McCain or President Romney in office. Right.

    • #64
  5. Richard Easton Coolidge
    Richard Easton
    @RichardEaston

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    The lack of ethics by the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee is deplorable and execrable, from Spartacus, and the deceitful DiFi to the horrible woman from Hawaii who has told all men to shut up.

    I just wish that we hadn’t nominated a Birther-womanizer. That way it would have so much easier to sweep away these last minute allegations against a truly remarkable jurist.

    It worked with Bork. /s

    • #65
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.