“I’m Just Glad We Ruined Brett Kavanaugh’s Life”: Colbert Writer Tweets Out A Celebration Of The Politics Of Personal Destruction

As discussed today, the Kavanaugh nomination unleashed a form of primordial politics that seemed to reach horrifying levels on both sides of personal destruction and no holds barred attacks.  No sooner had that column run in the Hill when Ariel Dumas, a writer for CBS’s “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” declared that “Whatever happens, I’m just glad we ruined Brett Kavanaugh’s life.”  It summed up in a Tweet that vicious character of our politics and discourse.

I expect Dumas’ desire for the ruination of Brett Kavanaugh will ultimately prove unrealized.  As I have discussed, while Kavanaugh’s Wikipedia page might start with this controversy, it will not end there. What will follow is decades of consequential cases.  That is called a legacy. The Ford controversy was an allegation.

That legacy will start sooner than most expected.  Last week, the court heard three cases dealing with areas like environmental law and the death penalty where Kavanaugh is likely to shift the Court to the right.  I expect that some if not all of those cases will be a 4-4 split.  Tradition allows for those cases to be reargued for Kavanaugh.  This week, there are additional criminal cases.  In other words, Kavanaugh’s confirmation will start to pay dividends for conservatives in the first week.


281 thoughts on ““I’m Just Glad We Ruined Brett Kavanaugh’s Life”: Colbert Writer Tweets Out A Celebration Of The Politics Of Personal Destruction”

    1. You might want to worry a bit more about Trump and the likes of McConnell, Grassley and Graham overplaying their hand and a bit less about some guy like Jerry Saltz (who?) overplaying his hand. Mind you, you don’t have to if you don’t want to. I’m just saying–if they’re all going to run around the country complaining about how unfairly they’ve been treated by a bunch of “girls,” and if they’re going to vilify and demonize the survivors of sexual assault as a bunch of “lying liars,” then they may overplay their hand to point of unnecessarily jeopardizing pretty much everything that Tabarrok has always ever wanted for Christmas from Santa Trump stretching all the way back to the days of Santa Nixon.

  1. I get the impression she was just trying to out-liberal her fellow sycophants at the show in a competition to see who has the bragging rights as being the most loyal follower and the best champion of their clique. It’s more about ego boosting than anything.

    1. Ego boosting is serious business. Will to power. Do Republicans have the same kind of will that Dems do? The same profound ruthless determination? We will see. Usually they seem like tired old golfers in the way they fight, not pugilists. I want to see more Lindsey Graham level enmity coming from the red side of the ledger.

      1. For me, with regard to ordinary individuals, those identifying themselves as Republicans don’t prioritize politics as Democrats do. The Republicans tend to put politics at a lower priority in their lives than other interests whereas Democrats in my observation tend to hold it as a central tenet to their choices as most everything they do has a political angle to it. Democrats also tend to be more emotional about political issues and exercise themselves more markedly. Those core differences in my view tend to favor more aggressiveness and resolve in Democrats than Republicans.

        1. Mr. Smith said, ” . . . those identifying themselves as Republicans don’t prioritize politics as Democrats do.”

          Mr. Smith, have you never read Res Ipsa Loquitur? Have you not just identified yourself as a Republican? Can one put politics at a lower priority in one’s life in the same breath with which one pejorates one’s political opponents? Have you never seen with your very own eyes and heard with your very own ears two politicians pointing their fingers at one another whilst proclaiming their opponent to be playing politically-motivated, political games with the vital issues of the day? Will Mr. Smith never tire of hearing politicians tell Mr. Smith that all politicians are liars? Epi-Epi-Epimenides–Who?

      2. HoD said, “I want to see more Lindsey Graham level enmity coming from the red side of the ledger.”

        The public presentation of a persecution complex as the platform for an entire political party does not often succeed at the polls on election day. Although, it did succeed on November 8th, 2016. But it was tempered and annealed by means of a persecutor pose, as well. Remember? The system is rigged. She never should have been allowed to run. Crooked H; lock her up!

        Flynn and Son claimed she ran a child sex trafficking ring out of a pizza parlor. Evidently the Q-Anon crowd just can’t get enough of that “same profound ruthless determination” stuff. What dose HoD suppose the chances are that Mueller is secretly working FOR Trump to put the entire Clinton/Obama child sex trafficking ring behind bars?

    2. Darren,

      It’s quite funny to read your words — the words of Mr. Censor — with the word ‘sycophant’ being used.

      You’ve been nothing but the same in your years here. It’s been heartening to see your glib meanderings expose you for the weak intellect you possess, and your censoring questioned and pared back.

      All due to a weakness of OS back in the day; a weakness he has confirmed many times since.

      Before you attempt to author compound sentences — which is your wont — maybe you should read some. Ambiguities are rife in your attempts to impress — which is why very few respond to the same.

      Your stench of censorship here is wafting less, which is a very good thing.

      1. R. Lien:
        Now R Lien that was nasty. Darren does a lot of remarkable and diligent work here and your over-the-top rhetoric is abusive. I think Darren’s LEO perspective is a wonderful addition and just ‘cause you don’t like his syntax makes you neither correct nor glib. It’s fine and direct and, in many instances, courageous — qualities you oughta shoot for.

        1. I agree with Mespo. Darren’s posts are honest, direct and devoid of drama. I appreciate his observations and LEO experience.

      2. Good Lord dude Lien, talk about ad hominem attack….is that your only rebuttal to Darren? Show some dignity, if only for self vanity reasons!

        1. Would Hepzi have R. Lien suppose that Mr. Smith’s comment was something other than an argumentum ad hominem?

          P. S. Hepzi’s derivation of dignity from vanity would be far less curious if only Hepzi had identified a form of vanity other than the usual self-referential kind.

  2. Thanks to the past couple years of ignorant insane hysterical violent behavior and vicious hateful attitudes and false accusations on the part of the left, Hollywood, and the mainstream media, I am no longer an Independent (classically liberal) voter. I will no longer vote ‘the person’. I will vote a straight Republican ticket FOR THE REST OF MY FRIGGIN’ LIFE.

      1. You’re right, Sam. Those who are “ignorant insane hysterical violent…”.

    1. This will also be my first time voting straight Republican. Trump was the first “Republican” I ever voted for. From ’86 – ’08 I strictly voted for Democrats even though I always called myself “independent.” Like you, I will vote a straight Republican ticket FOR THE REST OF MY FRIGGIN’ LIFE.

      Feels good.

      1. And I will remain an independent voter FOR THE REST OF MY FROGGIN’ LIFE! 🐸🐸🐸

  3. “Tradition”, according to Turley, means that cases already decided will be reconsidered. Yes, Turley is all about “tradition”, like the “tradition” that a woman who accuses a wealthy or powerful man of sexual misconduct will be branded a liar, even if she is very well-educated, has a prestigious job and there is no evidence of any agenda behind her allegations other than to do her civic duty. And, there’s the “tradition” of proving political cover to people like Susan Collins by conducting a phony, incomplete “investigation” into the accuser’s allegations by limiting the scope to assure the predetermined outcome. Therefore, traditional little Susie can go back to Maine with a clear conscience, because there was an “investigation”. If Dr. Ford’s allegations had been ignored, there would be a backlash, even among Republican women. So, we investigate, but in a big, fast hurry, because of the blue wave coming in November. We can’t let Americans have a voice when Republicans are in a position to force their will on the American people. Never mind that the investigation wasn’t complete or intellectually honest. Never mind that 40+ witnesses who volunteered information relevant to Kavanaugh’s credibility and integrity were turned away. We’ll dictate to Americans and even the FBI what constitutes an “investigation”. And, to keep little Susie sleeping well at night, we lock away the FBI reports so that the American public, who will be saddled with a judge who would lie to get a seat on the SCOTUS for decades, can never determine for themselves whether the “investigation” was accurate or complete. Susie’s safe, for now.

    Another “tradition”: just yesterday, Mitch McConnell stated that if another SCOTUS opening comes up, even in the waning days of Fatso’s vainglory tour, Republicans, if they possibly can, will shove through yet another radical conservative. That, of course, reverses the position he had when Barak Obama was President. At this point, there are 4 “Justices” on the SCOTUS who were nominated by a POTUS who lost the popular vote. The “tradition” of Americans having a say as to who sits on the court of last resort in this country gone by the wayside. Such winning for democracy!

    Here are some “traditions” you can’t rely on, Turley: The American public knows that Trump is a chronic, habitual liar, racist, misogynist, tax cheater and draft dodger who cheated to get into the White House. He has historically and consistently low polling numbers and will NEVER be accorded the respect of predecessors. He is not legitimate, and will never be treated as such, and will be accorded the disgrace Nixon earned for himself. No buildings, airports or other public projects will be named after him. The same is true for Kavanaugh: setting aside Dr. Ford’s allegations and his lies, his demeanor and clear political agenda proved he was unfit, but then, Republicans don’t want someone who is fair. Fair scares the hell out of them, so no Merrick Garland, no allowing Barak Obama, who was elected by the vote of more Americans than Fatso, his constitutional right to fill Scalia’s seat. The main “tradition” that has gone away is the public’s trust and confidence in leadership. When you have a reality TV performer con his way into the White House and who consistently lies, who alienates America’s allies with his phony bravado, who brags about grabbing womens’ private parts and who cheats on his wife with Playboy models and porn stars, where is anything to admire? Another “tradition” gone in the age of Trump: teaching children that cheaters don’t win and winners don’t cheat. Trump and Kavanaugh did away with that one. How about these: that the SCOTUS is above politics, that stare decisis means that landmark decisions aren’t overturned every time there is a new administration. Watch that one go away quickly. I predict it will happen in less than a year. Remember that to get the votes of Evangelicals, Fatso promised to only nominate judges who would overturn Roe. So, sly Kavanaugh gave weasel-worded answers to Susie Collins’s questions, and she bought it because deep down in her soul she is a coward. When they take away peoples’ health care and overturn Roe and curtail SNAP benefits, people will literally die as a result. Susie: their blood will be on your hands. You, too, will not be respected in the long run.

    1. She’s been branded a liar because she provably lied on a number of ancillary matters and because there is no evidence she was ever acquainted with Brett Kavanaugh or Mark Judge. Find an old Polaroid, find a diary entry, find a witness who says these two ever were in the same room. The Democratic Party’s oppo researchers have had 3 months to work on finding such a person and surely in the age of social media someone could readily come forward or be urged to come forward. Occam’s razor: that person does not exist, and does not exist because Chrissy didn’t actually know BK or MJ.

      You cannot stop lying. Not to yourself and not to others. And you do so at tiresome length.

      1. Her father was the president of Burning Tree CC, where Kavanaugh’s dad is a member. They have played golf together for many, many years. She knew Brett Kavanaugh and his friends prior to the attack.

        1. Um, no. Her father was the President of Burning Tree in 2004, more than 20 years after this supposed incident. Burning Tree’s membership list is confidential, so the contention that EE Kavanaugh was ever a member is just that, a contention. No one has asserted that Kavanaugh and Blasey had more than a nodding acquaintance. Neither Ralph Blasey nor anyone in the Blasey family have stated that the two families are acquainted and Christine Blasey herself did not contend that she knew the Kavanaughs through her father’s membership in Burning Tree. Burning Tree is an all-male club and women are banned from the grounds. Chrissy never been in the door.

          Blasey contended that she met Christopher Garrett at the Columbia Country Club and that he introduced her to his friends. Problem: Christopher Garrett’s attorney has said for public consumption that he had no knowledge relevant to any claim she has made. His confidential statement to the FBI was not helpful to the Democrats’ case, or they wouldn’t have been so dissatisfied with the investigation conducted.

          1. Your conclusion overstates the case. Garrett’s lawyer’s letter stating that Garrett has no knowledge pertaining to Dr. Ford’s allegation against Kavanaugh does not entail that Garrett never introduced Christine Blasey to Garrett’s circle of friends. That Garrett’s statement to the FBI supposedly did not corroborate Dr. Ford’s testimony to the SJC does not entail that Garrett never introduced Christine Blasey to Garrett’s circle of friends. You can be assured of that non-entailment by realizing that Garrett’s statement to the FBI also does not entail that Christine Blasey never visited Garrett in the hospital in 1982, nor that Garrett either was or was not ever hospitalized in 1982. And, when you consider that the details of the FBI investigation have not been publically disclosed, your speculative and conjectural account of those undisclosed details of the FBI investigation is as seriously overdrawn as your assertion that Dr. Ford has “provably lied.”

            P. S. Kavanaugh knows the real names of everyone whose drunken debauchery was described in “God and Man at Georgetown Prep” by Mark Judge. Everyone whose drunken debauchery was described in “God and Man at Georgetown Prep” knows that Kavanaugh knows their real names. Kavanaugh had damned well better not have had anything to do with Ed Whelan’s swift-boating of Chris Garrett. If the contrary ever comes out, then Kavanaugh is through.

      2. A full investigation would reveal the truth. There was not a full investigation, but there was a wealth of circumstantial evidence and plenty of witnesses who asked to be heard. Americans, Dr. Ford and Kavanaugh were owed a full investigation, but the agenda was to shove Bart onto the SCOTUS before Americans could have any say. He will never, ever be legitimate, so if it was the glory and prestige he craved, he will be forever denied that He can sit there with his pathetic little butthole grin on his face, wearing his black robe, but he isn’t legitimate and never will be. There is a big difference between respecting the office of Justice of the SCOTUS and respecting the person. Lack of respect and prestige is what his little Kellyanne-connived performance of righteous indignation, plus his political outburst, earned him. He had power before on the DC Circuit, but he wanted more. Well, he’ll get the power, but never the respect or prestige he craved. The days of telling children inspirational stories about how George Washington “cannot tell a lie” about chopping down the cherry tree, or Thurgood Marshall taking on Brown v. Board of Education and winning are over for good. If Kavanaugh wanted legitimacy, he should have demanded a full investigation, which would have cleared him if there was nothing there. Instead, he went along with the Kellyanne plan of righteous anger and railed against the Clintons without any evidence that they or any other Democrat recruited Dr. Ford to lie. Trump took care of the fake “investigation”. Kavanaugh came across as a pathetic political hack, not a judge. This is his legacy, and he created it.

        1. He’s been investigated 7 times, Natacha. None of her ‘witnesses’ provide any corroboration at all and her supposed BFF supposedly present denies any acquaintanceship with BK. That’s the truth revealed that you can’t handle.

          1. The report wasn’t released, so you don’t know what was said, but we do know that the 40+ witnesses were refused an interview. The Kellyanne talking point about prior investigations did not include the matters raised by Dr. Ford, Ms. Ramirez or the 40+ witnesses. If Kavanaugh wanted legitimacy, he should have required a full investigation. It goes back to the binary choice of what should be done when a credible witness testifies as Dr. Ford did: brand her a liar, or investigate. If it is “investigate”, then do a complete investigation of everyone with relevant information. That wasn’t done, and this is why Kavanaugh will never be respected. This is even before he starts with his radical opinions that will no doubt garner him everlasting condemnation, and before he refuses to recuse himself from decisions involving politics, which he should do as a result of his little political outburst.

            It amazes me that Republicans and Trumpsters would accept the argument that Democrats behaved badly in the Kavanaugh matter. Were they supposed to ignore Bart’s yearbook references to sex and excess drinking, as if he is above being asked about such matters when a credible witness claims he was drunk and tried to rape her? Where is the proof that either of the Clintons ever knew or spoke to Dr. Ford, Ms. Ramirez or anyone else who has adverse information on Kavanaugh? Accusing the Clintons and Democrats of orchestrating a political hit job without any proof is outrageous for anyone to claim, much less a judge. Kavanaugh dug his own grave in the cemetery of disrespectable public servants.

            1. Again, Natacha, she gave the names of Mark Judge, PJ Smythe, Leland Keyser, and Christopher Garrett. There weren’t 40 people present even in her telling. And it wasn’t 40 people she named as having introduced them, but 1 person.

            2. not outrageous, rather, obviously true. and sorry but the Dems could care less about boozing or assault or any of that. they are not hobbled by consistency in such regards.

              Republicans are starting to get it, which is why they don’t lose sleep over DJT’s irregularities. Trust me you want fighters in front, choirboys in the rear. From now on let the saints stay home and pray while the rest of us gear up. Dems have shown incredible nerve with this calculated smear job, and an impressive willingness to run risks and take casualties on their own side. Very impressive.

              Republicans may rise up to the Dem level soon, however, not all hope is lost.

              1. Where is your proof? You want proof that Dr. Ford had an agenda to lie, but where’s the proof that either of the Clintons or any Democrats, for that matter, got her, Ms. Ramirez, or any of the 40+ witnesses who wanted to speak to lie? People who say they don’t recall this or that fact or association do not provide proof that Dr. Ford lied. A full investigation would, no doubt, prove that Kavanaugh was the drunken party boy who brags about sexual conquests, who went along with the group insult of a girl named Renate, and who generally did not lead the monastic life of a scholar and athlete he tried to claim. If Kavanaugh didn’t want people to believe the things implied in his yearbook posts, he should have not only consented to a full investigation, he should have demanded it. Instead, he was woodshedded for a full week at the White House. Why should someone with the truth on his side nee to be coached by Kellyanne Conway? What Democrats coached Dr. Ford? Why wasn’t Ms. Ramirez allowed to testify?

                Setting all of that aside, what about Bart’s false accusation of the Clintons and his outburst? How has his life been “ruined”, anyway? Lack of the prestige he wanted? He did that to himself. He’ll wear the robe and have the title and still get to screw people out of their health care, SNAP benefits and Medicare and Medicaid, but he’ll never be legitimate, and the SCOTUS will forever lose any pretext of being apolitical. That’s the Kavanaugh legacy.

                1. I don’t need proof that she had an ‘agenda to lie’. What I need and have is evidence she did lie.

                  There is proof that she lied about ancillary matters (fear of flying, polygraph, interview in California). As to her central contention, there should be evidence that she was acquainted with Kavanaugh and Judge were she telling the truth. NO SUCH EVIDENCE HAS EMERGED. Occam’s razor, Natacha. That’s the tool you cannot bear to use.

                  1. If you applied the same standard to Kavanaugh’s testimony that you applied to Dr. Ford’s testimony you would not fail but to conclude that, having provably lied about “ancillary matters,” therefore Kavanaugh just-plain flat-out lied about whole lot of it. But you will never apply the same standard to Kavanaugh that you apply to Dr. Ford. Because you have a mental block that prevents you from applying standards equally and fairly. And you know it. And you don’t care about knowingly deploying a lesser standard for Kavanaugh and a tougher standard for Dr. Ford.

                    1. You’ll get the talking points: (1) Received purloined documents in 2003 something something or other; (2) Charles Pickering something somethingorother; (3) Blacked out in 1983 per James Roche; (4) Porn terms in Yearbook per James Roche [discredited, not yet retired].

                2. Natacha: the 40+ witnesses are a fiction. Anyone who had reason to know something has said their piece in a public forum.

                  1. Saying one’s piece in a public forum presupposes answering questions on cross-examination in that public forum. Grassley literally prevented that. What’s worse, Grassley found a legally permissible way to prevent Mark Judge, P. J. Smyth and Leland Keyser from changing their statements to the FBI during their interviews with the FBI. Ordinarily the FBI would interview witnesses before those witnesses sign sworn statements under penalty of felony. Ordinarily the sworn statements of rebuttal witnesses signed under penalty of felony would be made after the principle witnesses had testified at a hearing. Since when does the rebuttal precede the allegation? Since Grassley needed to prevent the possibility of corroboration of that allegation.

                3. Why wasn’t Ms. Ramirez allowed to testify?

                  Because she had nothing to offer. She ‘remembered’ an incident after working with an attorney for several days. The incident she ‘remembered’ was that she thought she might have gotten a look at BK’s pecker when she was nearly passed-out drunk in 1984. Or maybe it was somebody else’s

                  1. Any reasonably well-educated person who has read your comments on this blawg for any considerable length of time will already know that you cannot refute nor rebut any claim that was actually made, but can only ever misconstrue each and every last claim that was actually made for the express purpose of pretending to refute or rebut those original claims. Although, your straw-men and your red herring are, admittedly, far more stylishly mys-constructed than Allan’s, or Paul’s.

                    1. L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – I really don’t think I need style points from someone who is incapable of making a logical argument.

                    2. Have you figured out how to follow a thread yet? If not, then maybe your perception of what is or is not a logical argument is, in and of itself, logically flawed.

                  2. Or maybe the realization of possible perjury charges caused her to reconsider the verity of her allegations.

                    1. Above in which Hepzi rather fantastically suggests that the legal risk of perjury charges suddenly dawned upon a woman giving sworn testimony and being represented by two lawyers who even more fantastically may not have explained the legal risk of perjury charges to their client.

                      Well, then, it’s a good thing Dr. Ford woke up and snapped out of it before her lawyers allowed her to commit perjury–eh Hepzi?

                4. Give it up. He won this one, Natacha. Kavanaugh did not quit, fold, crumble, back down, or capitulate in the face of the Dems outrageous and reprehensible intimidation smear campaign. This signals to me that he is an innocent man falsely and outrageously accused of something he did not do and he stood his ground.

                  Did you know that Dr. Ford lied numerous times? Changed her ‘story’ numerous time? Was coached? Has a million dollar GoFundMe campaign? That not one person has come forward to say they remember driving Ford home from that party? That her best friend Leland has zero recollection of the party, or the incident, and denies even knowing Brett Kavanaugh. Ford named her best friend as being at the party and the best friend says she doesn’t even know Kavanaugh. My God, woman. Wake up and smell the political hit job.

                  Kavanaugh is now the first justice in the history of the Supreme Court to have a group of all women law clerks — including an African American woman.

                  1. And did you hear that Devils Triangle really is a drinking game made up by one of Kav’s friends? And that the friend he referred to about the FFFFF really did talk like that? All of this, and more, has been proven true.

                    Sorry we can’t say the same for Chrissy Ford’s story that keeps on changing and coming up short on credibility.

              2. Anonymous said, “Accusing the Clintons and Democrats of orchestrating a political hit job without any proof is outrageous for anyone to claim, much less a judge.”

                Mr. Kurtz said, “[N]ot outrageous, rather, obviously true.”

                Not obviously true; but rather deeply revealing of Kavanaugh’s underlying assumption that The Clintons might have a plausible reason to pursue a vendetta against Kavanaugh. In some circles that would be called an excited utterance belying knowledge of a guilty conscience. In other circles it might be construed as confirmation for Kavanaugh’s participation as a player in the so-called “vast right-wing conspiracy of professional Clinton haters.” In still other circles it might be more readily dismissed as an odd sort of “Whataboutism/volleying-back” combo-platter.

                And then there’s Mr. Kurtz’s circle: “Fighters in front; choirboys in the rear.” Well, then, no more choirboys on The Supreme Court. It’s nothing but Republican Fighters for SCOTUS from here on out–eh, HoD? (I swear! It’s almost as though HoD didn’t know that he was making Natacha’s point for her).

    2. ‘Justice Kavanaugh also faces more than a dozen judicial misconduct complaints over his public statements as a nominee to the Supreme Court.

      And the American Bar Association has reopened its evaluation of Justice Kavanaugh’s temperament.’

      Things can still happen in the up an up…..

      1. Becka G – the judicial complaints will be heard by the SC where they will be heard by Kavanaugh. That is where they go to die.

        1. According to both our host and proverbial wisdom, no man can be both judge and juror in his own case. One wonders from how many other “complaints” Kavanaugh will have to recuse himself.

          1. L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – only the Associate Justices themselves decide if they should be recused from a case or not. So, it will be up to Associate Justice Kavanaugh. Democrats clearly said they would do everything they could to bring down Judge Kavanaugh, however, they did not recuse themselves. They continued to examine him knowing they would vote against him.

            I think Associate Justice Kavanaugh is due one payback vote for each member of the committee who tortured him. Two for Whitehouse for the boofing and five for Schumer’s release of Chrissy’s letter (if he is the one who did it or ordered it). So, this whole first session belongs to Kavanaugh. Let’s just call it “Kavanaugh’s Revenge.”

            1. Clearly and distinctly, you are just not paying attention. Kavanaugh cannot be a judge in his own case. Democrats were not judges in their own cases when refusing to recuse themselves from Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing or from their vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

              Elsewhere on this thread, the current complainant belly-ached most presumptuously about somebody else’s supposed inability to make a logical argument. Pshaw!

              1. L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – Cory Booker is on the Ethics Committee that will be investigating the ethics complaint against him.

                1. Okay, Pauly Paul Paul. You sound like you’re a kid. And not a particularly mature one.

                    1. “I speak the truth…” – Pauly Paul Paul

                      Sure you do. You post a lot of nonsense like this:

                      “October 9, 2018 at 2:07 PM
                      L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark”

                      “…and you want to call me a kid?” – More from Pauly Paul Paul

                      Yep. That’s exactly what you are.

          2. L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – have you read Mouffe’s book or are you just talking the talk again? It does not make any difference because I do not buy into it. What we do know, in this age of the Internet, is that the Democrats will go to any lengths to get what they want.

            Let’s use a better analogy. The Democrats and Republicans are poker players in a winner take all game which is being watched not just by the nation, but by the world. The Democrats literally have an ace up their sleeve which they play at the very last minute. The Republicans allow them to play that ace but then examine it as well. They find the ace came from another deck. The nation finds the ace came from another deck. The world finds the ace came from another deck. The ace is worthless and the Republican’s hand wins, in the end. Even though the hand won, it has been sullied. And some people in the nation and the world will still think the Republican’s hand was sullied. It will always be sullied for them.

            1. Who the blazes is Mouffe? For that matter, to what point are you and Mouffe now responding? Your inability to follow a thread? Ah-ha! You tricky debil you. So Mouffe is some sort of expert on . . . following threads on blogs? Or making logical arguments? Or the impossibility of making logical arguments on threads on blogs? I swear. If Mouffe turns out to be an expert on Greek tragedy, then . . . this comment nest is terminated.

              1. Chantal Mouffe briefly excerpted from the article linked above:

                “In response [to Trump], the left must create what I call a “a populist frontier” of all the popular classes against the elites and establishment. The only candidate who could have provided this alternative was Sanders.”

                This reminds me. What’s up with Autumn?

  4. I will be glad when all the mud is off the media. When Dr. Ford gets her interview at the Pearly Gates she will be sent straight to Hell without a handbasket. We can call Schumer: Mudslide Slim/

    I will vote RepubliCon in the next election because of all of this apCray.

    1. The media will never change. It is held by corporate oligarchs who are intent on permanent sustained social atomization. So they perpetuate it at every juncture. Profits are always secondary issues in American mass media.

    1. Inappropriate use of agonistics. Agonistics are permissible if, and only if, the agonistics, in question, are both relevant and proportionate to the analogous issue.

      For those of you who do not yet know the meaning of those words, consider that Kavanaugh was not sent to a concentration camp and asked to “take a shower.”

    1. amanda4321,

      You might not be aware but this website only permits two hyperlinks per comment. I edited the above comment so that it will post.

      In the future if you desire that the readers review more than two links, this may be achieved through the use of additional comments.

  5. There was precious little, if any, viciousness from the Republican side of the aisle, so I would quarrel with your allusion to “both sides” The hysterical and despicable democrat members of the Judiciary Committee, yes. The worst that any Republican member did was Sen. Graham’s wonderful tongue-lashing of them. I am not a Republican, and I am sure they are corrupt in the traditional sense in the same or similar way to Democrats, but for matters like this, they comparatively are the adults in the room.

    1. ‘There was precious little, if any, viciousness from the Republican side of the aisle,’


      You obviously did not watch the interview or follow the procedure. Kavanaugh was vicious with his allegations against the Democrats and the Clintons. Regardless of whatever else they might be guilty of the interview was necessary and only hypocrisy would argue otherwise. Kavanaugh was vicious, rude, and uncooperative in how he answered questions regarding his drinking habits. Grassley was vicious in how he hamstrung the process until the ABA, Flake, and many others called for further FBI investigating. The Republicans were vicious in how they designed the conclusion after an orchestrated investigation curtailed by unnecessary time limits and specified in advance limited witness interviews.

      If you watched the interview, the Democrats were the most civil and least vicious. Review that lapdog/pitbull Senator Lindsey Graham if you need more convincing. The Democrat Senators were carefully watching their demeanors and designing their questions to avoid confrontation. The Republican Senators were out of control. “Did you?” “Nope” “Well that’s good enough for me.”

      There was much viciousness to begin with, primarily on the Republican side, review Trump’s mocking of Ford, review the Senator’s comments, and watch Kavanaugh perform. The Democrats’ viciousness came as a result of the hopelessness of a fair proceeding, the Republican designed FBI investigation, the sham that is this procedure. Of course if the shoe were on the other foot the political parties and their performances would be reversed. However, it was what it was, a shameful exhibition of power for power’s sake.

      1. If you honestly believe that BK was vicious when he defended his good name with fully appropriate righteous indignation at the uncorroborated smears directed at him and his children, then I guess you have never been wrongly accused of anything– or had children. I have– on both scores– and he behaved like a normal parent/husband/son, which as the Prof. noted some posts ago, also includes saying the wrong thing which you regret (to Klobuchar). He apologized, also as a normal human being. Did one Dem criticize the mob sentiment, the shrieking protesters, or the over bearing media? No, those shrieks are the “sounds of democracy”. Has any of them disavowed the calls by T-Bone and Waters to confront their colleagues in restaurants and other public places? No. Not a single one to my knowledge.

      2. I hope you’re right Isaac. If a little too kind to them. I don’t feel the intensity that you attribute to them. I think they were hotter than usual, but overall, still a little weak. The Reps need to get some brass.

        1. The Republicans didn’t cave in to the Democrats…for once. From the Democrat’s perspective, that is viscous. I’ve said for a long time that the Democrats are playing with house money. Until this confirmation process, the Democrats had become conditioned to believe the Republicans would not go on the offensive for anything. What they were handed by the Democrats was not just a political win, the Democrats handed the Republicans the moral high ground. In the process, they have exposed the Democrats, along with their media and Hollywood cohorts as the thugs they are. Just in time for the midterm elections.

          1. Nailed it, Olly. The Dems’ whole strategy was to bully BK into withdrawing. When that didn’t work, they had to go all in, and now have completely undone themselves. The whole world was watching…

            1. What Republicans are reaping today is the fruit of Obama’s uncontrolled ego and the DNC’s awful choice for their candidate in 2016. Obama just had to be the one to finish what the progressives began decades ago. By pushing his fundamental transformation agenda so hard, he woke up conservatives and in so doing he galvanized the Republican party to take control of Congress.

              SCOTUS was always the prize. And Obama wasn’t going to get it without the cooperation of the Senate. Thanks to Obama, we get Trump. Thanks to the DNC, we get Clinton. And thanks to the Senate Republicans, we get 2 conservative justices on the Supreme Court. And thanks to the Senate Democrats, we once again have energized conservatives and the Republican base for the upcoming midterms.

  6. Like I have said before, there is a mindset that permits someone like Ariel Dumba$$ to express such a level of viciousness without any conception of it being a horrible thing to say. People like her, in an earlier age would have expressed their inner viciousness in whatever way was most socially acceptable. People of her mindset would have reveled in a witch being burned alive, and perhaps even lit the fire. She would have watched or helped as a priest pulled the living heart from a victim on an alter. She would have persecuted or killed Jews in Germany. Knocked people in the head with a bat for the Khmer Rouge in the killing fields. Busted up saloons during the pre-Prohibition days.

    Whatever, that inner meanness is part of some people’s psychological makeup. That is what makes psychopaths and sociopaths. People who can say “Love trumps hate” with a straight face while spewing out vomitous levels of hate.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  7. “Whatever happens, I’m just glad we ruined Brett Kavanaugh’s life.”

    Sure just like you “ruined” Clarence Thomas’ life! GIve it a year and it’s “What was the name of that woman who came after Justice Kavanaugh, again?” “Betty Ford?”

    1. You remembered Clarence Thomas, didn’t you? Doesn’t everyone? Kavanaugh’s life has been irreparably damaged. I don’t know if he deserves it or not but the damage is irreversible. This is great tragedy material because it’s impossible to prove guilt or innocence or anything in-between.

      1. Rex:
        I remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Roberts, too. We’re their lives destroyed during the nomination process, too. We know Thomas the Justice; we forgot about Anita Whatever the accuser.

        1. You may have. Three or four academic institutions have had her in patronage jobs since she left Oral Roberts. IIRC, her current employer has appointed her ‘professor of public policy’. Do you really think Anita Hill, JD has any stats chops?

          Also the Museum of African-American History didn’t forget her. The curators thought it would be a dandy idea to have a display on her while ignoring Clarence Thomas. I think they curated an exhibit on him after a public outcry.

        2. Oh come on, everybody remembers the Clarence Thomas / Anita Hill hearings. And yes, it is a stain on his legacy. Obviously he thinks so, as he has pretty much sat mute ever since he gained his seat on SCOTUS. And about a year ago, his wife Virginia actually called Anita and asked her to apologize to him! So as for Kavanaugh, everyone will also remember the controversy surrounding his nomination. How much it impacts his career and legacy is up to him. I heard on the news that today, his first day on the court, he dove right in and asked several questions of attorneys appearing before scotus, so that would suggest that he’s willing to move on from this and not let it cripple him like it did CT. Although from several bios I read, CT has other issues that have left him uncomfortable with himself and his identity. I think that Kav is a much more confident person and more comfortable in his role as a judge.

          1. Obviously he thinks so, as he has pretty much sat mute ever since he gained his seat on SCOTUS.

            This is a witless non sequitur. He doesn’t participate in oral arguments. Your imputation of this reason for that is just arbitrary and inane. (He’s hardly been ‘mute’. He’s been producing opinions for 27 years).

            And about a year ago, his wife Virginia actually called Anita and asked her to apologize to him!

            It was 8 years ago and so what?

            1. His LAW CLERKS have been producing opinions for 27 years. Clarence does nothing. It’s hardly any secret. Try reading up on the subject before commenting, you fook.

          2. TIN – did Anita apologize? She sure owes him a big one, along with about half her salary. She earned it on the back of his reputation. BTW, Associate Justice Thomas has gotten a little fiesty in the last few opinions he authored, asking for certain cases to be brought forward. Release both Kraken!!!

            1. Paul: No, Anita did not apologize, she has nothing to apologize for. However, Joe Biden did apologize last week, saying he should have called the witnesses she requested.

              1. TIN:
                Sure, if the apology was anything more than “I’m sorry you feel the hurt you do.” That’s human. Being sorry for something you didn’t do is psychotic masochism. It’s “slave mentality” as Nietzsche might say.

                1. mespo and Cindy Bragg – even Edsel agreed the Edsel was a bad deal. 😉

  8. The Democrats smear job did not ruin Kavanaugh’s life. If anything all it did was re-energize apolitical Republicans (like my husband) to vote. Kavanaugh is a saint compared to PAST presidents and senators and we all know who they are. Some committed real crimes with real evidence and real victims (some even alive today but no one wants to hear from them). Even George W. Bush had a DUI and had to stop drinking but he did a fine job as president. And I thank him for calling all the senators to vote for K. McCain committed infidelity as well as JFK and they were both beloved as judged by the recent funeral.

    K will interpret the Constitution as written–not a living document . And finally the Garland comparison is not an argument. Everyone knows Obama appointed justices that interpret law based on their personal beliefs not the C. We couldn’t trust his third pick. That’s why the court is divided.

  9. Words have meanings and what she wrote about is no joking matter. No spin or justification for that quote. In the immortal words of Steve Marriucci: “Believe what you see”.

  10. I’m assuming that this story was fact checked. I have asked a couple fact checking sites to verify the accuracy of this claim. In any event, I decry this attitude from both sides of the aisle. I get no pleasure out of how this entire debacle unfolded or seeing peoples having their lives upended.

    1. Great! Then I hope you will also never vote for another Democrat again. Because they are the party of this stuff. Democrats are the ones putting on black masks and beating up people who disagree with them. Stop supporting them with your vote.

      Ariel Dumba$$’s crap is not a one-off for Democrats. Instead, it is what the whole party is made of.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  11. The DemoKKKrats vision for the American People does not comply with the Constitution

    So their only means of turning America into a shithole of socialism is to not only influence the courts but place upon the bench left wing judges who will ignore the laws of the land and rule as the DemoKKKrats demand


    Rules by the Book 🇺🇸

    1. Hocus, As a friend, I feel the need to tell you that your spellchecker is not working.

  12. Stephen Colbert isn’t funny. He’s been mocking folks of all kinds for years. Colbert & former CEO of CBS Leslie Moonves have a face you just want to punch. Les Mooves is laughing all the way to the bank. Les Moonves made $650 million as CBS CEO. Stephen Colbert for some reason, doesn’t tell any jokes about Les & the women he raped.

    1. Those folks he does not roast have stepped down or lost their positions of abused power. He and other like him focus on the injustice of those whose abuse leads to gains in power…Dems are not screaming for Socialism, they are screaming for less corruption, crime and abuse of power. The ‘sexual’ crime Kavanaugh was accused of was not about sex….it was about an abuse of power. I don’t think he demonstrated an ability to hold power by screaming back and denigrating the Senators questioning him. I don’t think Turtle man has been any less abusive in his squelching of process fr the Democrats and therefor the Country. I am so looking forward to a healthier conservative side.

      1. The ‘sexual’ crime Kavanaugh was accused of was not about sex….it was about an abuse of power.

        No, the base-stealers were accusing him of a sex crime. Of which there was no evidence but Blasey’s account. There has as yet appeared no evidence that Blasey was the least bit acquainted with BK in 1982, 1985, or any other time.

        1. Dr. Ford = Tawana Brawely rape hoax of 1987

          The charges received widespread national attention because of her age (15), the persons accused (including police officers and a prosecuting attorney), and the state in which Brawley was found after the alleged rape.

          After hearing evidence, a grand jury concluded in October 1988 that Brawley had not been the victim of a forcible sexual assault and that she herself created the appearance of such an attack. The New York prosecutor whom Brawley had accused as one of her alleged assailants successfully sued Brawley and her three advisers for defamation.

        2. well you are wrong. They were both members of the same wedding party ffs. And I’m surprised you can’t acknowledge what has been proven and accepted for years,,,maybe you are one of the anti-science sorts….


          1. Becka G, ever here of PSYOP, Ft. Bragg, NC?

            Psychological operations (PSYOP) are operations to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.

            PSYOP can encourage popular discontent with the opposition’s leadership and by combining persuasion with a credible threat, degrade an adversary’s ability to conduct or sustain military operations. They can also disrupt, confuse, and protract the adversary’s decision-making process, undermining command and control. When properly employed, PSYOP have the potential to save the lives of friendly or enemy forces by reducing the adversary’s will to fight. By lowering the adversary’s morale and then its efficiency, PSYOP can also discourage aggressive actions by creating disaffection within their ranks, ultimately leading to surrender.

      2. I guess it is some other party who is calling for universal health care, universal income, higher taxes and chasing legislators and press secretaries and their families out of restaurants.

      3. It’s about power alright. Gaining power denying Trump his prize appointment, through phony accusations, in that instance. And if you think that Dems are about less crime and corruption, then you are a big sucker. But a lot of Dem activists usually are. Dems are great at mobilizing dogooders with their lies.

        Reps need to sit down and study their methods and get a clue. You need to rile people up and steel them for the next level and do it fast.

  13. “horrifying levels on both sides of personal destruction and no holds barred attacks”

    I do not buy the equivalency claim. Both sides did not try to destroy another human being; it was only the left and their fellow travelers in the media. “Both sides are doing it,” has been used for years to explain why one continues to support democrats in spite of frequently outrageous and spiteful comments that should bring condemnation. There is no Republican equivalent of Maxine Waters. For that matter, even in the darkest days of Nixon, he was no Republican equivalent of President Obama’s use of the FBI and DOJ to destroy a political opponent. There also is no Republican equivalent of the violent, confrontational mobs that descended on the Supreme Court and frequently appear at Trump rallies. And, there is no Republican equivalent of the Hollywood crowd that has publicly called for the death and destruction of the Trumps. No, if you have chosen to support Democrats in the upcoming election, you must accept the mantle of an enabler of the politics of personal destruction.

    1. well, maybe it’s time for Republicans to man up, get thicker skins, and realize that the conflict is sharpening. they better sharpen their knives too or face the prospect of being gutted like defenseless fish, time and again.

      And Republicans have realized this process is worsening. that’s why they elected DJT, Hail to the Chief! The Leader shows the way.

    2. ” it was only the left and their fellow travelers in the media.”

      ….if you believe that Kavanaugh is the choir-boy he claims he is. If you believe there were no holds placed on the FBI investigation. If you believe that Blasey-Fords life is so much more expendable that it could never be considered anything but expendable…and that weould mean it wasn’t worth counting as ‘ruined’. Go ahead….cast a stone….

    3. One of the techniques of appealing to both sides is to equate their conduct. It’s like equalling crediting John Dillinger for keeping the money supply in check and the Chicago cops/Feds for shooting the armed bank robber to death. Just like that example, we instinctively know who the real bad guys are.

    4. Yes but quit being so proud of all that. The Republicans lack nerve and ruthless determination. They need to get hot around the collar more often like this, and lose the country club demeanor.

      It’s payback time and Reps better figure out how to win the midterms and then unleash the punishment.

  14. Mr Kavanaugh could become an honorable justice of the Supreme Court if he defies those who participated in the political circus by supporting women’s rights, public safety, and civil rights.

    1. Kavanaugh should make judgements based ON THE LAW, not supporting certain policies. This statement shows exactly why Democrats are clueless about the role of the Supreme Court. It is the job of the court to look to the laws AS WRITTEN, not as they WISH they were written.

      1. I think Kavanaugh should have one payback vote for each Democratic member on the committee. Release the Kraken!!! Bring us Roe v Wade to overturn!!!

    2. I think he would become an honorable justice if he will just apply the constitution the same way he has in the past. This would would also be the best way to defy the participants of the political circus.

    3. he stood up for his own civil right, the presumption of innocence, at the core of due process, and made a good start and example in the confirmation process.

    4. by supporting women’s rights, public safety, and civil rights.

      1. His job is to assess whether case law or administrative rules are in conflict with statutory law; whether case law, administrative rules, or statutory law are in conflict with the constitution; and whether a state constitution is in conflict with the federal constitution. That’s it.

      2. Women as citizens have rights. Woman-qua-woman do not have rights.

      3. ‘Civil rights’ at one time meant enforceable entitlements entrenched in law. Which is not what you mean.

      4. The only enemies of public safety are lawfare artists and their allies in the apparat who fancy arrests and convictions should be evenly apportioned between coarse ethnic categories (something which is absurd).

  15. In fairness to Colbert, she worked for him intermittently in 2015 and 2016, not before or after. Comedy writer appears to be a sideline. It’s not clear how she makes rent.

  16. She was being sarcastic! He’s on the SUPREME COURT for god’s sake. His life is not ruined!

    1. Read the rest of her Twitter feed, putzette. This is who she is and how she thinks and feels.

    2. It may be ruined insofar as he must now be much more careful about his alcoholism, gambling, and womanizing.

      1. There is no evidence for any of these things you lying sh!tsack.

    3. “She was being sarcastic! He’s on the SUPREME COURT for god’s sake. His life is not ruined!”

      Either way, she’s definitely OK with democrats using vicious lies to get their way as opposed to, you know, pursuing sane policies that might help them win elections.

      1. don’t whine about this. Just realize that it’s coming, and in a lot more adverse form than 36 year old phony accusations.

        accusations of criminal activity can be engineered not only to smear someone, but get them thrown into prison. they are active in that kind of strategy too.

        getting someone thrown in prison on bogus charges, is an act of war. locking a person up is taking away their freedom. their life. if they will lock people up for poor cause then they will kill for poor cause too, eventually. or maybe they have, have been?

        wake up Republicans, you are at war. the other side will do every thing they think they can get away with. time to get serious.

    1. No, stupidity is characterisitic of some of the people she retweets. She’s just vicious and the people she communicates with traffick in fictions to help themselves feel better.

Comments are closed.