Share This Article with a Friend!

Outsiders vs. Insiders: Democrats’ sick stalking of Kavanaugh disqualifies them from humanity

The disqualifying event.

Prior to Donald Trump, or perhaps even Bill Clinton, there was a commonly held belief in American politics that a person just couldn’t do – or have done -- certain things in their personal lives if he or she planned a credible Kavanaugh witnessesrun for president. For example, in the (really) old days, if a candidate was divorced and remarried it was thought to disqualify him from consideration by a moralistically judgmental and conservative citizenry.

Ronald Reagan overcame the stigma in 1980, however, having previously been married to Jane Wyman for nine years (divorcing in 1949) – and of course then marrying Nancy Davis in 1952. 80’s voters loved Reagan’s forward-thinking vision of America’s future when he did run…so his pre-Nancy nuptials weren’t even an issue. Besides, the would-be first couple had been wedded for 28 years by then, right?

Plenty of prominent American political figures dabbled outside of marriage, including a good sampling of our most famous presidents, but that’s a story for another time.

With all the recent media hubbub over Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s background it’s brought the concept of a “disqualifying event” back into focus. Should Kavanaugh be barred from a Supreme Court seat if Democrats somehow prove he did what his accusers swear he did in his late teens? Should Alabama’s Roy Moore have been run through the wringer because he allegedly liked young-ish girls during his single days four decades ago?

In Kavanaugh’s case we’ll find out soon enough how “disqualifying” his past turns out to be. Democrats aren’t even waiting to hear from Kavanaugh’s memory-challenged complainants or the judge himself (to refute the assertions) -- many already announced they’re voting “no” regardless of what he or his accusers testifies to the Judiciary Committee this week.

At least a few red state Democrats are leaving open the possibility of confirming Kavanaugh though. Al Weaver and Laura Barrón-López reported at the Washington Examiner, “Key Senate Democrats in Republican states are keeping an open mind about Judge Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination, even as others in their party say two accusations of sexual assault are enough to disqualify him.

“Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota are top targets for Republicans in 2018, and all three are in wait-and-see mode on Trump's nominee. Republicans have said Kavanaugh has been unfairly targeted by Democrats looking to scuttle Trump's pick at all costs, and so far, the three Democrats are still willing to give him a chance…

“The way Manchin, Heitkamp, and Donnelly ultimately vote could also be contingent on the choices made by a handful of undecided Senate Republicans. According to one GOP strategist, the three Democrats are truly up for grabs and will look to see where Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, land on Kavanaugh.”

As has been mentioned quite a lot lately, Senators Collins and Murkowski hold the keys to the entire kingdom in their wishy-washy little hands. Needless to say, the Founding Fathers never intended for any individual senators to possess such vast political power – they’re there to represent their state’s interests, after all. And they’re legislators, you know, supposed to make laws?

Instead, Collins and Murkowski (and perhaps Republican Senators Jeff Flake and Ben Sasse as well) can tip the republic on its head by joining Chuck Schumer and his socialist reputation-flattening crew for a gigantic Kavanaugh demolition party. If either Collins or Murkowski announces they’ll vote down the judge the chances of a wayward Democrat risking the wrath of his or her party heads – and the leftist electorate – to confirm Kavanaugh is next to nil.

John McCain’s no longer around to meet with so-called “moderate” Democrat senators to forge a “gang” deal either. Now that the bipartisan-touting Arizona senator is dearly departed there’s nobody remaining to fulfill his role as chief conciliatory go-between in the upper chamber. McCain buddy (and frequent “gang” member) Sen. Lindsey Graham doesn’t seem interested in the job either, especially since he’s been outspoken in his support of Kavanaugh and is more concerned with trying to move President Trump on foreign policy these days.

Therefore those “red state” Democrats are on their own, pathetically hoping to cower under the flimsy protective umbrella of RINO sisters Collins and Murkowski. As it is, it doesn’t take a boatload of political courage to pile on a 51st, 52nd or 53rd vote for Kavanaugh. The Washington Examiner reporters also mentioned Montana’s Senator Jon Tester as another possible Democrat considering a thumbs up for the judge. But would Tester do anything politically courageous of his own volition? Don’t bet the farm on it.

Should Kavanaugh ultimately fail it will be due to a “disqualifying event” that can’t be proved one way or the other, a sad commentary on the state of American politics and a historically bad omen for the long-term survival of the republic. Thursday would appear to be a critical day in the life of Donald Trump’s presidency as well – and it all centers around the words of a woman (or women) who up until now conceded she doesn’t remember very much.

But to Democrats, a simple accusation is all that’s needed to pass judgment. Listening to them (such as Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono) pontificate and shame Americans about Kavanaugh is truly stomach-churning and nauseating. One only figures it’ll get much worse before the day is over.  

Pat Buchanan wrote at The American Conservative, “Thursday’s meeting between Trump and [Deputy Attorney General Rod] Rosenstein will coincide with the Judiciary Committee’s hearing into the charge by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford that, as a 15-year-old, she was sexually assaulted by 17-year-old Brett Kavanaugh, Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court…

“What is at stake in Thursday’s appearance by Kavanaugh and Ford is huge. A successful defense of his good name could mean Kavanaugh’s swift elevation to the high court, a historic victory for the GOP’s judicial philosophy, and the culmination of a decades-long campaign dating back to the Earl Warren era of the Supreme Court…

“We are often told that the moment we are in has historic significance and will be long remembered. Yet, how many can still recall what the ‘resistor’ in the Trump White House or Cabinet wrote in his or her anonymous op-ed in The New York Times? How Kavanaugh conducts himself Thursday, however, and whether he is elevated to the court, could decide the fate of constitutional conservatism and the Republican Congress in 2018.”

Yes, there’s much riding on the say-so of a token few these days. Democrats don’t put stock in the veracity of outlandish claims figuring they’ll bring forward any woman/girl who might have known Kavanaugh at the time to besmirch his character. Forget the multitudes of admiring people (both women and men) who’ve worked with the nominee over his adult years – it all boils down to how well Christine Blasey Ford convinces a handful of Republican senators she was attacked at a party in the early 80’s and it was Kavanaugh who did it.

Why did Democrats suddenly cease complaining about a lack of document production during Kavanaugh’s Bush White House days? Why have they now become solely fixated on a piece of information rickety-old Senator Dianne Feinstein sat on since July? Why are they currently all-in to dam-up the entire court system just because a couple women who might have met Kavanaugh (and might not have too) say he was a bad drunk 35 years ago?

Sadly, because of the media’s obsession with Kavanaugh’s late teen years the president’s meeting with Rosenstein isn’t getting much attention. Rosenstein’s version of a “disqualifying event” took place last year when the man who’s charged with overseeing the “Russian collusion” investigation (him) bragged during a meeting about wearing a wire with Trump and reportedly also broached the prospect of invoking the 25th Amendment to remove the president.

Rosenstein insists he was “joking” about these matters at the time, but if a regular Joe can’t go to the airport and utter the word “bomb” on an airplane then why should a career civil servant -- who’s supposed to be unbiased -- be given a free pass for blurting out a plot to remove Trump? Doesn’t Rod know the subject’s just a tad sensitive these days?

“Disqualifying events” aren’t confined to Washington either. This year in Texas there’s a close U.S. senate contest between liberal Democrat challenger Congressman Beto O’Rourke and conservative stalwart incumbent Senator Ted Cruz. It turns out even the liberal Washington Post agrees O’Rourke was caught red handed telling a whopper.

Caitlin Yilek reported at The Washington Examiner, “The Washington Post's fact-checker gave Rep. Beto O’Rourke, D-Texas, ‘four Pinocchios for claiming he did not try to leave the scene of a crash while he was intoxicated. O’Rourke made the claim during a debate against Republican Sen. Ted Cruz earlier this year.

“[T]he Washington Post cited police records that said otherwise. A police officer who responded to the scene wrote in his reports that O’Rourke ‘almost fell to the floor’ when asked to get out of his vehicle. His Blood/Breath Alcohol Concentration levels were 0.136 and 0.134.

“A witness to the crash told a police officer that O’Rourke had driven by him at a high rate of speed in a 75 mile per hour zone, then lost control of his vehicle and ‘struck a truck traveling the same direction.’ O’Rourke’s vehicle then crossed the center median and came to a stop. ‘The defendant/driver then attempted to leave the scene,’ the police officer reported.”

Yilek’s article revealed a witness confirmed O’Rourke tried to leave the scene but was twice prevented from doing so by a reporter.

What does it all mean? O’Rourke admits he was three sheets to the wind that night (in 1998) and got behind the wheel but doesn’t remember – or is lying about – attempting to leave the scene. Further, his story was contradicted by a law enforcement officer and an independent witness who were there with him and contemporaneously recorded their observations. Heck, even the Washington Post’s fact-checker (who must hate Ted Cruz) thinks O’Rourke isn’t being honest about his own “disqualifying event.”

O’Rourke made the denial during a debate with Cruz earlier this year. Though this type of format wouldn’t technically come under oath it’s never a good idea to so blatantly lie during a public candidate forum, as untruths like this weaken credibility in all other matters. If the congressman had just confessed to the mistake of trying to leave the scene -- or even more believably said he didn’t remember -- voters might be willing to get past it.

After all, it was twenty years ago, and who in their right mind would hold a grudge against an office-seeker for something he did two decades ago? Doesn’t everyone believe in the old biblical adage, “To err is human to forgive is divine?” Or does the Bible only apply to Democrats and their army of accusers who concoct crazy stories no one can corroborate and demonize Republicans for wanting to move forward with the process nevertheless?

At the same time are Democrats willing to call off their leftist dogs when the Kavanaugh matter is finally settled? Hardly. By the looks of it they’re just getting started. Michael Burke reported at The Hill, “Former President George W. Bush White House press secretary Ari Fleischer on Tuesday called it ‘awful’ that protesters of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh chased Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) out of a restaurant, adding that ‘Washington has become a sick town.’

“’I lived in DC for 21 years. There were many contested, emotional battles,’ Fleischer wrote on Twitter. ‘But this is awful. Washington has become a sick town.’

“’Forcing people you don’t like out of restaurants, especially when they’re with their spouse, doesn’t solve any problems. It makes everything worse,’ he continued.”

If you haven’t seen the Cruz incident, click here – it’s well worth a minute of your time. In a nutshell the video depicts a gaggle of leftist morons approaching Cruz and wife Heidi at a fine restaurant, then as a group repeatedly bellowing “We Believe Survivors! We Believe Survivors!” One of them even got in Cruz’s face and asked how he would vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination… as if it were a big secret. Smartly the Texas senator didn’t specify either way, which is the proper response to a nimrod – all the “evidence” isn’t in yet, after all.

For what it’s worth, Beto O’Rourke condemned the protestors, saying Cruz and his family should be treated with respect. We’d better not ask Maxine Waters however, since she thinks all Trump supporters should be harassed wherever they’re found. Waters’ attitude appears to be echoed by the vast majority of Democrats these days too. Fleischer is correct – thanks to Democrats, Washington is indeed a “sick town.”

Whether or not Kavanaugh’s teen history truly constitutes a “disqualifying event” Democrats and the media will treat it that way regardless. Decency and fairness are in short supply these days – if you’re Ted Cruz you can’t even go to a restaurant without being harassed. Is it sick? You decide.

Share this