Kavanaugh Accusation Shows Bipartisanship is Dead

Member Group : Freindly Fire

Ahhh … 1982. Great year. Michael Jackson released “Thriller.” The Dodge K-Car was in full production. Time Magazine’s “Person of the Year” was “The Computer,” EPCOT opened, and Ronald Reagan was in the White House.

Oh, and apparently just as noteworthy, a high school teenager was rebuffed after allegedly trying to force himself on a girl at a party.

Those events were all harbingers of great things: superstardom; Chrysler being saved from bankruptcy; the tech world exploding beyond imagination; Disney becoming the unsurpassed entertainment leader; and The Gipper winning the Cold War.

Perhaps most impactful, the boy learned humility (if the story is true, and that’s a big “if”) – a valuable lesson, given that he is on track to become a United States Supreme Court Justice.

But the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh has hit a roadblock, courtesy of that decades old allegation. Now, for him to be confirmed, he must successfully navigate a minefield of unprecedented political correctness, and a destroy-at-all-costs partisanship that makes modern-day America look increasingly like 1936 Berlin. The potential silver lining is that when Kavanaugh is finally confirmed, perhaps we can begin to tear down the wall of massive intolerance that has been erected across our land.

As a member of the media, I have no friends. And that’s the way it should be.

That said, if I had conservative friends, many would take my next statement as heresy: I have always had an affinity for California’s Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

A centrist, she has always been her own person, prioritizing principle over party. Granted, I disagree with her on most issues, but she always commanded respect by carrying herself with dignity, unlike some of her more strident and showboating colleagues (Sen. Schumer comes to mind.)

But after caving to Senate Democrats by releasing an 11th-hour hit on Mr. Kavanaugh, her reputation tanked, forever tarnishing her legacy.

Sen. Feinstein, as ranking Minority member of the Judiciary Committee, received information in July concerning a woman’s claim that Kavanaugh attempted to force himself on her at a party. In 1982 – yes, 1982. According to the account, she resisted his advances and left the room.

Using her common sense and inherent decency, Feinstein chose not to release the information, since nothing could be proven one way or the other. Instead of going low and engaging in personal mudslinging, she wanted to focus on the legal questioning of Kavanaugh.

But after news of the information leaked, her Democratic colleagues put on the full-court press, and Sen. Feinstein uncharacteristically relented. Then all hell broke loose: the process has been delayed, the media is in a frenzy, Democrats (incorrectly) smell blood, and Republicans are making strategic blunders.

This character assassination of Kavanaugh is wrong, on so many levels. And whether people realize it – especially those who want Kavanaugh torpedoed at any cost, simply because they disagree with his judicial philosophy – the intolerance and witch-hunt mentality affect every one of us, especially our children.

Here’s the situation, free from white noise:

1) Sen. Feinstein informed the press that she turned over the information to federal law enforcement authorities. That was a disingenuous choice of words, for it conveyed the sense that the FBI would be launching a full-blown investigation, casting a pall over Kavanaugh. In truth, the FBI did no such thing. Officials simply placed the information in the file, as required. In short, case closed. Why? Because the bureau had already thoroughly vetted Kavanaugh during its extensive background check.

And let’s not forget this isn’t Kavanaugh’s first rodeo. He was vetted numerous times, and confirmed for his current position as a Circuit Judge on the United States Court of Appeals. He also worked for Independent Counsel Ken Starr, and served in an executive position at the White House in George W. Bush’s administration.

The fact that the current allegation had never surfaced before, and only appeared on the eve of Kavanaugh’s imminent confirmation, says a great deal about “political motivation.”

2) Some are making a laughable attempt to draw parallels between this situation and the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill controversy. Sorry, but not even close. Thomas and Hill were adults who had a history of being friends and work colleagues. To compare their relationship to two teenagers at a party 36 years ago is ludicrous. Enough said.

3) Once again, many in the #MeToo Movement have shown themselves to be extremists. Time to get real.

Why are we discussing something that allegedly occurred 36 years ago? That’s over a third of a century! People can’t remember what they did last week, and we’re expecting crystal-clear recollections of a high school party from an individual – Christine Blasey Ford – who doesn’t go public with her claim until the last minute, and then only after it is leaked?

And an individual, mind you, who redefines “vague.”

She can’t remember the day of the party, how she got there, or whose house it was. Nor can she recall how much she drank, or how she got home. And she apparently didn’t tell her parents or friends. If fact, it’s been reported that she only brought it up during couples’ counseling -30 years later – but the therapist has no mention of Brett Kavanaugh in his notes.

In fact, according to The Washington Post, “Ford’s therapist’s notes state that there were four boys ‘involved’ rather than the two that Ford told her husband about. Ford now says that was an error on her therapist’s part.”

Ford claims there was one witness, yet he called her allegations crazy. And there are no incriminating written documents. So unless the accuser had a briefcase-sized VHS recorder secretly taping the incident, there is absolutely, positively no – zero, none, nada – evidence that anything nefarious happened, or if the party even occurred. And in all the vetting that has taken place, no other women have accused Mr. Kavanaugh of similar behavior.

This is unacceptable.

4) Should Ford have her day? Yes. But only that – a day. By definition, there really isn’t much to say except what we already know. And Mr. Kavanaugh should be afforded just as much time to tell his side. But in all honesty, both of those things should take no more than an hour.

After that, Mr. Kavanaugh’s nomination should be voted upon. No more delays.

And for the record, this author isn’t proclaiming Mr. Kavanaugh’s innocence, nor stating that inappropriate behavior did not occur. But the time gap is so long, and discrepancies so numerous, that there is no way to declare the nominee unfit, and thus, no reason to derail the vote.

5) The Democrats’ ploy is unethical, immoral, and – dare we say it – un-American, not to mention devious. If they can sink Kavanaugh, the Left believes it can buy enough time to delay another Trump pick until the elections. And if not, they think impugning his reputation with a sexual harassment charge will give “political cover” to the D’s in tight Senate races who vote against the nominee.

No matter what, Brett Kavanaugh’s reputation will forever be tarnished, all to serve a political agenda.

6) This ploy will backfire. Most Americans, even those who disagree with President Trump and the Republicans, will be offended by such unfair piling-on. And more so, they realize that if a Supreme Court nominee can be taken down on such a flimsy charge, so can the average citizen.

Ironically, the Kavanaugh hit job hurts women who truly have been victimized, and shows exactly why much-ballyhooed “bipartisanship” will never work in this environment of intolerance.

It’s time to confirm Brett Kavanaugh and begin the long road back to civility.

Nothing could be more supreme.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist and commentator whose column appears every Wednesday. He can be reached at [email protected]