At this point it seems like Kavanaugh realizes that he's finished as SC nominee and has decided to take off the gloves and come out swinging.

IMO the optics of Kavanaugh's broadside aren't good for Republicans. The juxtaposition between a fragile, soft-spoken, (allegedly) sexually assaulted woman and a confident, powerful, strong-voiced man is pretty extreme and will impact the way people perceive this thing.

The mention of his daughter and subsequent emotional breakdown will likely gain some sympathy though.

He's imploding.

Nothing beats the Fox News comments page for depravity:

"Hyphenated Ford listen up. No matter where you go, no matter where you work, no matter where you live, no matter what you do, you will always have a much deserved target on your back. You will be taken out one way or the other.."

That was probably one of those pro-gun anti-abortion people.

He's falling apart on the issue of an FBI investigation. He obviously doesn't want one nor do any of the Republicans. Looks bad.

Is all this just about a better performance? Debord pointed out in the Society of the Spectacle: “the truth is a moment of the false.”

Well when two people give radically conflicting accounts of an event and we have no way of knowing who to believe, then sure, the credibility of the participants is all we have to go on. And we base this on their performance.

My take is that (at least democratic) politics has likely ALWAYS been about the spectacle, going all the way back to ancient Athens where sophists trained aspiring young men on how to manipulate the thoughts and emotions of others in order to achieve their desired ends. Politicians are strange hybrid between priests and actors, and our society is becoming increasingly politicized, with a resulting increase in manipulation. I think the cynicism is warranted.

I would like to read Debord's book. All is false may be an overstatement, but "most of life is false" sounds pretty accurate - esp in world of politics. Many better minds than my own have taken such a position (e.g. Nietzsche).

Edit: I originally misread the Debord quote. "The truth is a moment of the false" sounds like an accurate assessment of our world - assuming I'm understanding it. Even genuine sincerity (a redundancy) is viewed with suspicion as being indicative of a shady person working some dishonest angle.

My take is that (at least democratic) politics has likely ALWAYS been about the spectacle, — Erik

Indeed, in Periclean Athens, leading politicians (including Pericles himself) took part in a kind of spectacle, political theatre. Yet, there was an entirely different regime of truth; direct democracy functioned without the medium of mass media. In Society of the Spectacle, it is absolutely impossible to find out the truth. If you compare CNN with Fox News, you will find the two utterly incompatible (but extremely plausible) versions about Kavanaugh vs. Ford.

Over the last few hours the Republican Senators have been hammering the point that the Democrats who call for an FBI investigation are dishonest and hypocritical since they ought to have called for an investigation as soon as Ford brought her allegations to Sen Feinstein. But then Sen Blumenthal referred to Kavanaugh's complaint that the whole thing is a conspiracy engineered by the Democrats; isn't he thus implying that Ford's allegations are politically motivated? Kavanaugh replied that he isn't blaming her but rather blaming the Democrats who violated her request for confidentiality. So, it appears that Sen Feinstein, and whoever else she shared Ford's allegations with, behaved unconscionably when they *did* respect their pledge of confidentiality and also when they *didn't* keep the allegations confidential anymore after Ford herself came out following the leaks.

On edit: And then, minutes ago, there was an interesting exchange between Feinstein and Grassley where Grassley revealed that he was quite confused regarding the nature of the leaks. He got caught into the contradictions of his theory and fell silent. The Republican conspiracy theory seems to be falling appart, under close scrutiny, but I don't think this is going to have much of an impact on the outcome of those messy public hearings. There is presently a huge rally for Kavanaugh's side on the Predictic prediction market.

That's the Republican spin, but Feinstein was directed by Ford not to release the information and there's no evidence she did. Also, according to Ford, her friends knew about it and word could have got out to the media from there. She had a journalist come snooping around her house just before she went public. We don't know how it got out.

That's the Republican spin, but Feinstein was directed by Ford not to release the information and there's no evidence she did. Also, according to Ford, her friends knew about it and word could have got out to the media from there. She had a journalist come snooping around her house just before she went public. We don't know. — Baden

Yes. Grassley was attempting to corner Feinstein, asking her how it might be possible that the press got a hold of the confidential letter if Feinstein or her staff didn't leak it, and if Ford merely talked to close friends about the allegations. But Feinstein told Grassley that the letter itself never was leaked, to her knowledge, and only some of the things Ford confided to her friends did. Thereafter, Ford began being hounded by the press. This is when Grassley fell silent. The Republican strategy to blame the Demograts and pretend not to be hostile to Ford at all was misfiring.

(On edit: Both Grassley and Cornyn were involved in this exchange)

So the almost tears of Kavanaugh as he recounted his totally un-traumatic youth seemed rather less convincing than his anger at 'the conspiracy'. Comparing his responses with Ford, he was more definitive in his universal denials (of ever forgetting anything for example) than I felt he had a credible right to be, and and evasive to the point, on more than one occasion of turning questions back on his questioner, which is an aggressive, uncooperative, rhetorical trick. He did not seem to understand the difference between a hearing and an investigation, which you would think a judge would be clear about. and simply blustered and refused to answer some questions. Ford, by contrast, did her best to answer every question without evasion or trickery, and seemed to have a much clearer grasp of the sort of detail the FBI could produce that would shed light on the matter. All in all I think she would make a much better supreme court judge.

NYT:

The second from the left on the bottom is pretty much what I envision you look like.

(None of those look as pissed off as Lindsey Graham did during his meltdown by the way.)

Sen. Flake: "In the end there is likely to be as much doubt as certainty going out of this room today." "As we make decisions going forward, I hope that people will recognize that...and just have a little humility."

Looks like a pointed rebuke of Graham's hyperbolic and unjustified rant. And an indication he's going to go "no".

Looks like a pointed rebuke of Graham's hyperbolic and unjustified rant. And an indication he's going to go "no". — Baden

It could be read both ways. He may be signaling to Kavanaugh that his forthcoming "no" vote is a prudent statement of uncertainty rather than an indictment of him; or signaling to Ford that his forthcoming "yes" vote doesn't entail that he categorically takes Kavanaugh's word over her's either. He may also still be undecided.

Watched the majority of both testimonies. Absolute shit show for Kavanaugh and the GOP. No doubt though that they'll try to "plow through" the nomination and may very well have the vote in to confirm Kavanaugh. They do so at the expense of a midterm bloodbath, which they are probably expecting anyway, so they are just doubling down on it.

Yes. Good points.

After watching this, I believe Dr. Ford believes she was asaulted by Judge Kavanaugh
I also believe Judge Kavanugh believes he did not assault Dr. Ford.

These are not incompatible beliefs based on 36 year old memories from teenage years.
which after all this testimony is really all we still have.

The second from the left on the bottom is pretty much what I envision you look like. — Baden

I imagine the second from the left on the top row is what you look like--on a good day.

I've posted my picture you could post yours.

The second from the left on the bottom is pretty much what I envision you look like. — Baden

The picture is untouched. The brightness is the result of my Transfiguration which was beginning that morning.

These are not incompatible beliefs based on 36 year old memories from teenage years.
which after all this testimony is really all we still have. — Rank Amateur

I think Ford might agree with you but Kavanaugh wouldn't. It's conceivable that things happened roughly as Ford remembers them and Kavanaugh was too drunk to remember any of it. It's also conceivable that something happened to Ford, in a party where Judge and Kavanaugh were present, which she now misremembers in some fashion. However, Kavanaugh isn't allowing either one of those two possibilities. He is rather arguing that, whatever happened to Ford, he couldn't possibly have been present to the party she is remembering (or misremembering). This is why his take on the events require more of a conspiratorial mindset to make sense of in light of both of their admittedly imperfect memories.

I think Kavanaugh tried to rape Ford. I also think the Democrats purposefully set this up without much concern for the impact it would have on either Ford or Kavanaugh. Maybe they told themselves it was their duty to do it. Maybe they thought they were justified.

Of course they weren't justified. The ends don't justify the means.

I don't see how anyone could doubt that Ford actually was assaulted as she described. It's less certain that Kavanaugh did it because there's some possibility she was mistaken about who did it.

Kavanaugh sounded generally credible, but on the other hand he would clearly have a motivation to lie. His best points centered around his 1982 schedule.

His worst points were his attacks on Democrats. Nothing the Democrats did has bearing on the facts, so bringing this up seemed a deflection that hurts hus credibility. Beyond the question of his guilt/innocence, a SCOTUS candidate should refrain from partisanship, and he should show respect for due process and fact gathering.

Bottom line, based on the limited evidence available, I have a reasonable doubt about Kavanaugh's guilt. However I could not affirm his appointment because there's a sufficiently good chance he did it (>50%), and I think that is far above the threshhold that ought to be applied.

I heard much of Ford's testimony, then I had to leave for the Dentist. The people in the University dental school cubical didn't know anything about it. Well, the graduate student prosthodontist is from Wales, so he has an excuse. The other two are young-to-middle age women--dental techs. They didn't know jack shit about it.

I missed the melt down and Kavanaugh's ranting (heard excerpts later).

So... we shall see what happens next.

Sorry for calling you a shithead. I just thought you were being unnecessarily insensitive.

Sorry for calling you a shithead. — frank

Shit happens.

I can see why some people would think I was being insensitive. I do understand that Dr. Ford was psychologically damaged by the assault upon her. Kavanaugh was drunk at the time, and his roommate at Yale noted that he became belligerent when drunk. I've lived with mean drunks, and a guy who is sunny and charming when sober can become a tough customer when drunk. And that's speaking of mature men.

Ford spoke about her own brain development (incomplete at 15) contributing to her trauma. Kavanaugh's brain was also incompletely developed. My understanding is that development isn't complete until 25 years on average. I'm pretty sure my brain wasn't done even at 25. The length of time required for the brain to finish developing is why juveniles are not responsible, and why their finished character isn't set at 17.

Actually shit doesn't just happen.



The long green part has a lot to do with it.

Here is the exchange that I mentioned above, between Grassley and Feinstein (and later, Cornyn) regarding the leaks and the Republican conspiracy theory regarding those leaks. This part of the hearings is now up on the CNN YouTube channel.