Michael Barone: Democrats' Foul Tactics On Kavanaugh May Come Back To Bite Them
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
"I can't think of a more embarrassing scandal for the United States Senate since the McCarthy hearings," said Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn as then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the afternoon of Sept. 27, "and the question was asked, 'Have you no sense of decency?'"
Cornyn was quoting Joseph Welch, the Boston lawyer who represented Sen. Joe McCarthy's targets in the June 1954 hearing, responding to McCarthy's charge that a young lawyer of Welch's was a communist. Six months later, the Senate censured McCarthy by a vote of 67-22, and his name became a synonym for manipulating parliamentary procedure and making spectacular and unsubstantiated charges for political gain.
Which is what Senate Democrats, with the active and avid cooperation of many of their friends and fans in the press, did throughout the confirmation process for Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh. They have, in truth, been doing it for decades now. Character assassination has become their weapon of choice.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, ranking Democrat on the committee, concealed a letter she received on July 30 from Christine Blasey Ford for six weeks, rather than turn it over to bipartisan staff in accord with normal committee protocols, which would have allowed confidential investigation of her charges. She did not take advantage of opportunities to pursue the matter in private meetings with the nominee or with committee Republicans. That allowed the letter's charges to be leaked, by one or more Democratic sources, after the long-scheduled four-day committee hearings on the nomination.
This naturally left the field open for other highly implausible charges to emerge from the undergrowth of ideological warfare, to be leaked to left-wing media outlets eager to give them an airing without being subject to the committee's bipartisan scrutiny. Senate Democrats, starting with Feinstein's opening statement in the Sept. 27 hearing, cited not only the ostensible subject matter but also the dubious charge of Deborah Ramirez that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her while they were students at Yale; this was aired in the New Yorker but not in The New York Times, whose reporters failed to obtain corroboration.
Feinstein also raised the utterly ludicrous claim by slime lawyer Michael Avenatti and his client Julie Swetnick that Kavanaugh engaged in gang rapes. Swetnick has a history of dubious legal claims, and her incredible story totally lacked corroboration, but Democrats nevertheless launched it into public debate with their blessing and made sure it was in the official record.
News media reported a claim made in an anonymous letter to a Republican senator that Kavanaugh had shoved a woman up against a wall; the woman denied the story that day.
Nonetheless, the impression was created that there were multiple plausible charges of sexual assault against the judge. One cable network headlined "5 accusations," even after one of them was retracted. Viewers were invited to assume that where there's smoke there's fire. Republicans, to their credit, took a different course. The morning of the Sept. 27 hearing, two men were reported to have claimed that they, not Kavanaugh, assaulted Ford in the 1980s. Sen. Lindsey Graham dismissed the charges succinctly, saying: "One's crazy as a loon. I don't believe the other one. ... I'm not going to play this game."
Senate Democrats' McCarthyite conduct was not out of character. In fact, the question is not whether they will stoop to character assassination -- that's what bookies call a racing certainty -- but how long voters will accept and even reward the Party's disgraceful conduct. Can it go on indefinitely, or will it come back to bite Democrats, as would be their just deserts?
Events that led to the Sept. 27 hearing with Ford pitted against Kavanaugh were reminiscent of those that led to the October 1991 confrontation featuring Anita Hill and then-Supreme Court nominee Judge Clarence Thomas. Ford, like Hill, had requested that her charges not be made public. Democrats in both cases nevertheless violated that stricture. The Party's unwritten maxim is that all is fair in the pursuit of political power. But wasn't America founded on the principle, among others, that might does not make right?
Anger is a reasonable response. Clarence Thomas reacted angrily to the "high-tech lynching" and was criticized. Kavanaugh reacted with outrage to the even more voluminous and excessive attack on him, and he, too, has been criticized for it. It's been argued by some that his righteous anger demonstrates that he lacks the right judicial temperament. But it seems likely that at some point, voters, too, will react with anger to Democrats' revolting excesses. And voters always get the last laugh.
Feinstein's withholding of the Ford letter for six weeks, during the first of which her staff recommended that she hire lawyer Debra Katz, left time for a two-question polygraph test and for her account to be altered in several particulars, as the detailed Sept. 30 memorandum by Judiciary Committee Republicans' sexual crimes professional Rachel Mitchell demonstrated. Ford's testimony was further delayed, until 20 days after the regular hearings on Kavanaugh's nomination ended, by claims that the Californian accuser was afraid of flying. The claim turned out to be bogus; she had taken many cross-country and trans-Pacific flights. Even so, when Ford delivered her testimony, it entirely lacked corroboration, and even the persons she cited as witnesses testified in writing that they knew of no events of the type she described. Ford's lifelong friend Leland Keyser declared that she did not know Kavanaugh and had never met him.
Kavanaugh was not the first Supreme Court nominee in recent decades opposed by a unified Democratic front. Nor was Thomas. The first, in 1987, was Robert Bork, opposed by 52 Democrats and six Republicans, who was attacked for his positions on legal issues. Every nominee of either Republican or Democratic presidents since has declined to state their views on legal controversies.
In 1991, Thomas was opposed by 46 Democratic senators and two Republicans. This was far more than the three Republicans who voted against Bill Clinton nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993 or the nine who voted against Stephen Breyer in 1994. Chief Justice John Roberts drew 22 nay votes in 2005; Barack Obama nominees Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan drew 31 and 37 nay votes in 2009 and 2010, respectively. Republican nominees Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch drew 42 and 45 nay votes in 2005 and 2017.
Alito and Gorsuch were both confirmed, even though neither got the 60 yea votes needed to overcome a filibuster under the Senate rules in effect from the 1970s until very recently. In 2005, the filibuster was under attack by some Republicans, who favored a "nuclear option" in which the Senate would change its rules to allow a majority of senators, rather than a supermajority of 60, to close debate.
Republicans were particularly frustrated that Democrats used the filibuster to prevent confirmation of lower-court judges. One case in particular stood out: For more than two years, Democrats blocked Miguel Estrada's nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, because of fears that this highly qualified Hispanic lawyer might be appointed to the Supreme Court. During this time, Estrada's wife miscarried. She then died of an accidental drug overdose.
By spring 2005, enough Democrats feared that Republicans would pass the nuclear option that the so-called Gang of 14 senators, seven of each party, was formed pledging that they would filibuster judicial nominations only "in extraordinary circumstances." They managed to hold down the number of Democrats voting to filibuster Alito to just 25 (including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama), even though 42 Democrats sided against his nomination when it came to a vote. Among other results of the Gang of 14 agreement was the 2006 confirmation of Kavanaugh to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals by a 57-36 margin.
Senate Republicans, always more willing to vote for Democratic Supreme Court nominees than Democrats are for Republicans, made no attempt to filibuster the nominations of Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. But they used the filibuster to block confirmation of some of President Obama's appointments to federal judgeships. In November 2013, with lawsuits challenging ObamaCare pending in the D.C. Circuit Court and three vacant judgeships, Sen. Harry Reid, then-Democratic Majority Leader, decided to employ the nuclear option, outlawing filibusters for lower federal courts but not Supreme Court nominations. Only a few years before, he and many Democratic colleagues had decried that proposal as a violation of venerable Senate tradition, a protection for the Senate minority and an incentive for bipartisan cooperation. But to preserve endangered provisions of ObamaCare, all that high-sounding rhetoric was tossed in the trash. The nuclear option passed 52-48, and the balance of the D.C. Circuit Court was shifted temporarily to the left.
It was characteristic of Reid's 12 years as Senate Democratic leader that he did not bother to enunciate a neutral principle in favor of this rules change. It was enough that it served his purpose for the time being, and perhaps for a few years to come; in November 2013, there were three more years left in Obama's term, and it was widely assumed that Hillary Clinton would be elected in 2016 to follow him in the White House. Thus, the filibuster was seen by Democrats as an irritant from which they wished to be free. Once again, it was Democrats judging that the accumulation of power excused or justified any procedural outrage.
For Reid, the ends justified the means. In August 2012, a few weeks before the national conventions, Reid went to the Senate floor (where his words cannot be questioned in libel litigation) and attacked then-Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney for not paying taxes. "The word's out that he hasn't paid any taxes for 10 years," said Reid, knowing it was a lie he had invented. When asked for his source, he told reporters, "I have had a number of people tell me that." Actually, Romney disclosed records that said he paid $1.9 million in federal taxes in 2011 and $3 million in 2010.
The Washington Post fact-checker gave Reid four Pinocchios for his claim, but Reid was not embarrassed. When challenged on his false claim by CNN's Dana Bash, he blandly replied, "Romney didn't win, did he?" To the Post's Ben Terris he bragged, "It's one of the best things I've ever done," and when Terris asked him whether there was a line he wouldn't cross in political warfare, he replied, "I don't know what that line would be." His party seems to not see any line now, either.
Reid's invocation of the nuclear option ensured that Kavanaugh would be in the minority in the D.C. Circuit Court in several important cases, but it also seems to have increased his chances of being confirmed to the Supreme Court. After President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court in 2017, Senate Democrats made it clear that they would use the filibuster to block the Senate from confirming him.
Back in spring 2005, Mitch McConnell's predecessor as Senate Republican leader, Bill Frist, could not convince all of his Republican colleagues to support the nuclear option; many resisted changing a longtime Senate tradition. But in April 2017, after Reid had done so for federal trial and appeals court judges, McConnell had no difficulty getting his narrow Republican majority to make the change apply to Supreme Court nominations as well. It helped that there were no heavily publicized personal charges against Gorsuch. If Democrats had declined to change the filibuster rule in the relatively quiet winter of 2013, it might have been harder to persuade every Republican senator to do so in the turbulent spring of 2017.
One of my longstanding rules of life is that nothing is free in politics; there is some question of when you pay the price. The Democrats are now paying the price of Harry Reid's shameless promotion of lies, and cynical and unprincipled changes in the rules for short-term gain. The question still remains whether voters will also make the Party pay. Until recently, the intensity of the Democratic voter base was measurably greater than that of the Republicans heading toward the midterm elections. Now the gap has closed. Conservative talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh warned Republicans that voters would destroy them if they were to fail to confirm Kavanaugh. It's an issue that has stoked political passions. If Democrats don't get the blue-wave election they have been hoping for and believing in, they will know at least one reason why.
- Barone is a senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and longtime co-author of The Almanac of American Politics.
Tags
Who is online
72 visitors
There is no "may" about it.
This will likely be a historic midterm election. Midterm elections, where the minority party traditionally gains ground in the House and Senate. Short of some presently unforeseen sea-change, that clearly isn't going to happen and they might actually lose ground in both houses.
Either way it will likely be a historic loss for the left. Thus exasperating an already self-inflamed situation even worse. First there was TDS. Now there is KDS and soon there might be CDS
The left better change their tactics soon or its just going to get worse. The majority of Americans aren't buying it and likely never will.
It's likely there isnt a true sentence in that entire paragraph. Amazing performance. I take it you are a Fox News devotee.
The Republicans are behind in all national polls , and Trump has never seen the sunny side of 50 % approval. His Gallup average for his entire term is 39%.
The 50 senators that voted to approve Kavanaugh represent 44% of the American people, and Kavanaugh was appointed by someone who got 46% of the vote.
Where is this mythical "majority of the American people" you are talking about ?
We'll see on November 6th. You'll be singing a different tune then.
And yet, buy rule of law, Trump is POTUS and Kavanaugh currently sits on the SCOTUS. In spite of the clearly odious smear campaigns that were orchestrated by the left against both of them.
You'll find out on November 6th.
Neither Trump nor the Republican party, nor the political right have ever had a "majority of Americans" behind them, since Trump took office.
Again, we'll find out who has the most votes to win races on the 6th. That's all that matters.
November 6th isn't going to be pretty for your side John. You best get prepared for that.
Why would they need to overthrow it, some work to amend it as in the past, others dont like that. This isn't new.
Forgot what happened in 2016 with the polls already huh?
This time the electoral college won't be involved so they may prove to be more accurate.
From my experience and memory it does seem unhappy people do tend to vote more than happy people, in fact I do believe that is why trump is now president and part of why he keeps his base upset with everyone else. He aint no dummy.
This midterm in part will probably be about the republicans pissed that their nominee was threatened and the dems will be pissed that they dont think this was handled fairly.
Nether is really good for the country.
Voting is wonderful a privilege that we should ALL participate in if possible. but when fear and anger is driving the numbers how great is that for America really ?
divided we..........
You are probably correct in 242 years the constitution only thirty-three amendments to the United States Constitution have been proposed by the United States Congress and sent to the states for ratification since the Constitution was put into operation on March 4, 1789. Twenty-seven of these, having been ratified by the requisite number of states, are part of the Constitution.
I think most conservative are fearful of the world around them changing and most liberals are fearful it won't change to accommodate them.
Both are angry at the other for their desires.
Just my take on things.
The only fear, if you want to call it that, is "Innocent until proven guilty" being changed to "Guilty until proven innocent".
That's all I see going on these days.
Then I doubt you have much to fear. I really think it goes much deeper than that, As we accumulate stuff we become protective of that stuff and of how we accumulated it. We really are afraid if things change too much we may not be able to keep or get more.
The old saying is young men are liberal older men turn conservative.
I think there is some truth to that and I think it has some to do with what we accumulate and how.
Well my Friend, if you really look at it, the complaints have been that some people have too much stuff. It's not conservatives complaining about that, that's for sure.
I'd have to say....."Stuff" is only on Liberals minds, and how they are gonna get it !
I have "Stuff", lots of "Stuff". Why shouldn't I be upset if someone else "Wants" my "Stuff" for themselves. After all, I bought my own "stuff".
I think getting stuff is on all of our minds.
On our own, or with help from outsiders ?
I hear the "Mafia" isn't what it used to be.
I think "Antifa" is trying to play the "Tough Guy" game these days.
No man's an island, I got my stuff from working for an with "outsiders".
I know what ya mean though, of course everyone should work to earn what they have and of course we have those who would like nothing more than to take, take, take, But we have laws against that.
I am ! Edumacation and all that rot !
I get to choose who, when and/or where. I get to make and purchase on my time.
" we have those who would like nothing more than to take, take, take, But we have laws against that. "
Problem is, Those are people in High places wanting to change laws to do just that.....because the ignorant want that.
we all do earning a living that seems for most of us a little more complicated, Sometimes we need to work with or for "outsiders."
Problem is, Those are people in High places wanting to change laws to do just that
That is why I no longer vote straight party line. I think that is how bad politicians take power over us.
I voted Trump, only because "I", as a voter, thought it was time for a mega shakeup in the halls of the "Prehistoric" and "Petrified" lifers.
He is checking off one promise after another since he became president. Really nice seeing promises fulfilled for a real change. Everything has picked up on my end for sure these last two years. The 8 years of Obama was sooooo stagnant for me and my business.
I'm not the 1% and I got to keep my money in my wallet because of it. Explain that ?
You don't pay taxes ?
Did you give your pittance back?
Good, then it went to good use. Less out of your bottom line. You can thank Trump for that.
And i never said i know everything but i do know Jack Shit. Pretty nice guy once you get to know him.
"Explain what ?"
Figures !
Whaaaaaaaaat ?
Do you really ?
Sorry to hear that, I was luck I guess After retraining and relocating I did quite well during Obama's time. I too am and was not real happy with our government and did not want to vote for either hildabeast or trump. In the end I did vote for the beast mainly because trumps ways and means concern me so much.
I also do not disagree with some or even much of what president trump has or is doing, but I have yet to agree with his methods of accomplishment or his ways and means or governing.
I was pushed into a early retirement so my main concern at this point is that I dont actually lose what I wave to last me the rest of my time on the planet.
My secondary concern is how the country is and will be governed now and in the future.
Fortunately for me, that concern is kinda way down there cause I have no one to worry about after I'm gone.
As long as the world doesn't explode in the next few decades... I dont really give a shit what happens. If the rest of America want to fight to the death, just stay the Hell away from my home is all I ask. To each their own !
Yep, Ya gotta respect the wisdom the founding fathers had and put into the construction. Which I see as basically an outline of how to run the country that has built into it a mechanism of change, setting that bar of amendment so high as to protect the base outline for many years to come in part because IF necessary as the world changes or changed it was able to adapt and not be redone or done away with.
Smart dudes eh !
Yeah I understand, Unfortunately I''m not surprised, I actually anticipated this.
When in a two party system or even an agreement when one side has limited to no power or control they often will turn to means they may not usually turn to out of desperation even up to violence.
We see it also sometimes in individuals who also feel hopelessly out numbered and out of control desperately searching for a way to assert their own control.
It also isn't an ideologically driven reaction. I remember not too far back when we were actually having some real problems with some radical anti abortion activists turning to violence when they didn't have the control or power to assert their will.
If we look at other countries that have been down this path before we see the same.
agreed, the communist playbook of using govt sponsored chaos to bring about change is nothing new. the left had been using taxpayer dollars to fund this chaos. but sessions ended that bs.
what's left today is but a small fraction of the chaos we saw under obama. (minuscule by comparison)
no govt money = less funny business
a couple hundred protestors for kavanaugh is not a harbinger of a national crisis. it was a very weak showing at best.
despite all this rhetoric by talking heads?
it has been very quiet in contrast to the protests during the obama yrs
if you look at other countries that have been down this road notice how a DOJ that was not complicit with leftwing violence made all the difference in the outcome.
as our DOJ no longer funds, or turns a blind eye to violence from the left I think the left has all bark and no real bite.
in the end. our country and our constitution will be just fine. our best days are in front of us.
a little bs from the left in a few blue cities? no one else in the country even cares... LOL
what good is the lefts threats of violence when they can not back it up? worthless.
cheers
None, sooner or later they'll see that and stop threatening and start doing to see if that works.
only in blue cities and it will not affect the nation one little bit.
since the fed govt is no longer funding or supporting that violence im not betting on all that much actual violence. not any more than we have already seen.
it is no fun getting your ass kicked, arrested, and charged with a felony for free.
like I said... NO LEGAL COVER and NO MONEY = much less interest in funny business.
all they have is threats.... nothing else.
the lefts best threats are hollow from one end to the other.
OK I hope you are correct but: That wasn't alway the case and may not be again.
http://www.bing.com/search?FORM=UP97DF&PC=UP97&q=riots+of+the+60s+and+70s
I remember this shit, I was just a kid in Peoria Ill and at the time our city was torn in half.
Depending on your race. Half of Peoria was off limits at the time and it was that way for months at least. Unless you wanted bricks thrown thru your car window and your ass hauled out and beaten half to death you watched where the hell ya went,.anytime of the day but especially after dark. Peoria became a battleground.
O the good old days.
and the people in my neighborhood did not even notice... kind of like violence in chicago today. besides the people in chicago? no one else actually cares - they made their bed and they can lay in it as long as they like. the same was true with your town - we did not even notice.
obamas admin followed the communist playbook to the "T" with endless funding and legal cover and still, it was not enough.
without govt funding and doj support the progressive / anarchists are essentially toothless.
as we watched under obama... one or two outbreaks here and there in blue cities mean nothing to this country as a whole.
the left trying to riot outside their blue city walls will be similar to a 5yr old trying to beat up an adult football player... there will be a few who try anyways, and we will crush them.
Cool I'd like to see America run for long today without the city dwellers That would certainly be interesting. for a start maybe we could go back to bartering and using gold.
Different time and different leadership.
Now the liberals have no political power.
Expect to see more havoc caused, I expect if they dont regain some power soon we'll see the desperation and violence increase.
Great question.
Why one group over another goes to violence quicker and easier and more as a whole are great questions.
Questions I dont have the quick answers to and till now really never asked, even myself.
But from what I have seen it does happen quite often in other countries and we have had bouts of it here as well, including our own civil war. When two competing sides can not compromise on ruling the same land.
That is why I really do prefer a nation much less devided including the people we hire to run it and instead they work together for the good of the nation instead of control of it by one party or the other.
One land, both parties cannot rule it at the same time, IN their own way(S).
That's like two kids trying to watch two different shows at the same time on one TV.
Good Luck America !
Thank you !
THIS IS the trajectory I fear most for our country !
The one we're on ! Division.
"Diversity" and "individualism", all at the same time ?
No such thing.
Folks don't want to be the same. At least "Most" that is. We've already been seeing the ones that want ALL to be "inclusive" to their thought process, and it ain't pretty.
It's been tried by other world leaders, and millions have been murdered when "Cohesiveness" was required and forced when it wasn't wanted.
I think ya hit the nail on the head, A common goal !
How long has it been since we've even heard those words?
Russia/Germany/china/WWI/WWII where are ya when we need ya ?
lol
But seriously I think you are so correct THAT common goal is lacking and needed !
and thanks for the "verbal" thumbs up, back at ya !
Those words also are not heard much. Congratulations and another hit on the head.
I do agree, they May be our saving grace. Unfortunately they have a hell of a way to go, including getting the old on their side.
Many old folks dont think shit about the youth of today, all they know, see and have heard is negative shit. Good news today is boring and makes for poor ratings.
But I do agree If anything besides something like a long term national emergence like a WWIII can and will bring America back together IT WILL BE the youth of today.
They are much more accepting and feel more equal because of it more than many of us were, especially of each other and the different races and sexs. They are probably also much more united and much less devided than us adults as a whole.
So Yep, I Believe you are correct the youth may save the day in the long run .
In fact: Replacing us and our politicians may be the "Common goal" they need !
lol
I think that goes for both sides but NO one seems to want to stop fighting over which side does the ruling.
With only one land to rule, that's a problem.
Which only reaffirms the genius that is the Electoral College. It asssures representation for all.
Perhaps ideologically and on paper but, from what I see many Americans don't feel represented at this time, they actually feel powerless.
Nah, it clearly prevents the possiblity of a tyranny of the majority. And true, it is much to the chagrin of many.
many Americans don't feel represented at this time, they actually feel powerless.
I 'd say this time at least it did both.
So do you think we are worse off with the EC?
No, its a form of a check and balance.
losing has that effect on the weak.
learning to deal with it will make them stronger.
we have not felt represented for decades and yet?
we did not try to change anything in the constitution to make it easier for us to win.
yep, but with some to many more violent as well. I expect.
It's part of the package of turning America to the right again. Great for some.
Unwillingly for some others and Very unwillingly for yet some others.
Your opinion of "Weakass folks" or not, it doesn't take much brain power or wrist power to throw molotov cocktails or to ram a car or truck into a bunch of selected people or to even torch an abortion clinic or something.
Wrong HELL YES, But, Expected if the power continues to all flow to one side especially.
Good Luck America. (We all claim to love you so much we'll tear ya ta sherds to take or keep power to prove it.) Great plan... sarc
IMO: Until and IF both sides decide the country is more important that their party I dont see this changing or getting better, In fact: I see it getting worse.
That's my opinion.
Time will tell.
so what... if they want to be criminals that is their choice.
we will arrest them, and then forget them.
not even a problem.
taking power away from the progressives/anarchists is the best plan to date.
note: ya aint seen nothing yet.
not even a problem.
Yep Might makes right, for a time, then people revolt in earnest.
hate to break it to ya but.
not going to happen
the power of the left in this country to FORCE change thru violence has been greatly exaggerated and will only serve to bring about their political end even faster than previously scheduled.
the progressives / anarchists will not have this country in this lifetime or the next.
they can get as violent as they wish... will not change a thing.
Not all of the opposition are progressives / anarchists in fact I wouldn't doubt if that segment isn't actually the minority of the opposition to the current way it is.
Many true financial conservatives themself don't seem real happy with much of how the president sees things either. Plus most of what's left of the democratic party and many of us independants oppose a one party government.
The idiotical pendulum likely has not stopped swinging. But,Time will tell.
think about it some more.
I guess some of that portion we were talking about would depend on what is being defined as a progressive. It seems many of us differ in what the word progeresives means to us.
I have little doubt my and your definition of the word progressive is quite different.
my definition is much along this line:
Ofcourse I include it all. But my impatise and mainly when I use the word I'm more referring to the upper half above and or the quality traits of a person. Growing,developing, changing, progressing
My beloved grandmother was so cool, she accepted that the world changed (she was born as flight was being developed and watched it develop) she was always up to see, hear, experience, new places, things and people. She also was quite happy too she was what I think of when I think of a progressive person.
I'll bet that differs from now you see the word....lol
Also I do believe Both ideologies have their own advantages and disadvantages and that we need a mix so progressives to me isn't any nastier of a word than is conservative, independent, republican, democrat, or even liberal and yes progressive. I also believe America is much better off as a nation when we all with our various ideologies work together to solve our nations problems. One nation and all that. After all there really is only One land that Both parties seem to want control over.
they are not equal by a long shot...
criminals vs conservatives - the ending is so very predictable.
well this conversation was.
To each their own, one land two parties
Time will tell.
Both sides have turned to violence in the past and could again if the conditions were right.
I remember many right wing radical violent problems over abortion clinics not so long ago.
Yes that was individuals but the different kinds of personality groups likely join together at different levels of discernment with their lives and the system some quicker than others
For instance look at the independents we are so different and unorganized as a group we dont even join up enough to produce candidates,
I understand it sure seems a lot different but IMO: there is only so much any of us will take before we could react in ways against our better judgment including violence.
That’s not balance
I agree it is what it is though
one nation devided with two sides wanting to dominate the other
Good Luck makin this country great like that
how many parties should we have
1, 3, 5, ?
it has been working for over 200 yrs.
but again I ask...
how many parties should we have?
what is the magic number?
that is called progressive anarchists
and contrary to popular belief?
they only represent 1/12 of our society.
the moderates are leaving the democrat party in droves.
the progressives anarchists power and threats are greatly exaggerated and becoming weaker each day
IMO: at least two, with 325,000,000 citizens plus that's squeezing us into even too small of a option for my liking though.
The more choices of the mix of ideologies we have is fine with me.
well... we have three... LOL
our system of govt has worked for well over 200yrs. less than ten percent of our population does not get to change our system of government regardless of how much violence they create.... at best they are on a fools errand.
Nor should they. I agree.
I certainly do not advocate or support violence, I do see that in many countries it comes to that to force change and from our own history I believe we’ve had our share of that here as well.
My goal if any is to avert violence by trying to explain what Could cause violence or more of it, if violence is already occurring.
I really doubt many Americans really want to see the country being ripped apart with violent behavior but IMO: few are seeing we could be headed that direction again if we allow ourselves to be divided enough.
We do have only one land mass to share, both sides cannot have full control at the same time in the same place and both parties together got us to where we are. “United we stand, divided we fall” I believe has more meaning than many people give it credit for or believe in its truth. Witnessed by how so many American are so easily divided.
I hate little in life, seeing America divided is something I do hate because I believe it threatens the country we all really do love.
Thanks for the conversation. Have a nice rest of the evening, I’m soon calling it a night
No we aren't. I don't know about ou but I was Born in this Country. My Great, Great, Great, Great Grandfather and Grandmother would be considered "Legal" Immigrants. But not me. I'm "American" Through and Through, and so are YOU ! Your NOT some other "Fill in the Blank Country American" !
Still have your head buried in the left's faux polls I see, this is so hilarious I am saving this post so I can taunt yuou with it after the election. Even the MSM polls show the Dems have lost ground after the BS they pulled on the SCOTUS hearings...history dictates that actually means they have lost at least twice as much ground as reported by MSM. Try not to be so surprised on the 7th, we don't want another replay of the meltdown after the 2016 election. It's embarassing for the country.
None of them will be prepared for it. They will lose their collective minds just like they did when they were lied to by the MSM about how bad Trump was going to lose the precidetnial election.
Why am I not surprised you blame Trump for your parking fees. Just curious. Did they get a minimum wage hike in your state? Want to share a link on skyrocketing food prices? Yea, I din't think so.
JBB: "Republican's foul tactics on Kavanaugh WILL come back to bite them"...
Foul doesn't even begin to describe odious behavior of many on the left.
The anarchistic tactics of the resist movement has and continues to backfire on them. As it should be. They have clearly overplayed their hand and are losing ground all over the country. 2018 is going to make 2016 look like a picnic to the resisters so buckle up buttercups.
2018 is looking to be a historic election. In that the minority party likely WILL NOT gain the usual ground in the House or Senate. Thank you resist movement for really screwing the pooch on this one ...... your "Spartacus" moment that never was ......
Republican's foul tactics? Which hearing did you watch?
None of them, nor the lead-up to the hearings. So, they do not realize 1) Before Kavanaugh was even nominated, the Democrats were going to use "Any means necessary to stop Trump's nominee." and 2) Diane Feinstein sat on the letter that started all of the controversy until after the initial hearings were over and it looked like Kavanaugh was going to breeze through to the Supreme Court, despite having had the letter for 2 months prior to the release to the public. She didn't even bother to let Grassley to look at it and he is the Chairman of the committee. Frankly, every single accusation at that point should have been ignored and no extra hearings held with the Republicans excoriating the Democrats for their telegraphed Modus Operandi of "Any means necessary" before Kavanaugh was nominated.
I think it will befinatly hurt them. Historically the opposing party ALWAYS dominates the mid terms. All the morons had to do was keep thier mouth shut, but now after the SCOTUS circus and with prominent party figures including Waters, Booker, Holder, and Hillary Clinton not ony condoning but advocating violence, sensible people will do the sensible thing and vote Republican. Civil and Sensible people are appauled/dissappointed/discusted in the new Democratic party and are running in the opposite direction.