So the Democrats fought dirty in the Kavanaugh nomination battle, and lost...

[One Bad Pig]

The fascists (the above posters) sound like they are ready for a permanent take over.

I appreciate that you make your trolling so obvious.

[firstfloor]

Much mo betterer less worsererer than letting the loony left permanently take over.

[Zymologist]

The fascists (the above posters) sound like they are ready for a permanent take over.

They're not fascists, they're Democratic fascists. Totally different.

[firstfloor]

I appreciate that you make your trolling so obvious.

How very fascist of you to notice.

[JimL]

Their takeaway? "We need to fight even dirtier next time."

Source: Marc Theissen

As Politico recently tweeted, "After failing to stop Kavanaugh's confirmation, Democrats wonder if it's time to be more ruthless."

More ruthless? There are a lot of reasons the effort to stop Kavanaugh failed, but a lack of ruthlessness is not one of them. Kavanaugh's opponents just tried to destroy a man without a shred of corroborating evidence. No tactic, no unfounded accusation, was too extreme.

Democrats demanded that the FBI investigate not just Christine Blasey Ford's uncorroborated accusations, but also the charge in the New Yorker's hit piece that Kavanaugh had exposed himself to a college classmate, Deborah Ramirez, as well as the scurrilous accusation by Michael Avenatti client Julie Swetnick that Kavanaugh participated in gang rapes at high school parties. How can you get any more ruthless than unfounded accusations of gang rape?

Democrats did not lose the Kavanaugh fight because they were not ruthless enough. They lost because, as always, the left overreached. Their increasingly brazen and unsupported charges against Kavanaugh backfired, strengthening the GOP's case that Kavanaugh was the victim of a political hit job, and actually helping to secure his confirmation.

They also lost because of their disastrous decision last year to filibuster the nomination of Neil Gorsuch, a justice of impeccable qualification and temperament. If Democrats had kept their powder dry then, they would still have had the filibuster in place when Kavanaugh was nominated. As it stands, Republicans were barely able to confirm Kavanaugh; they likely would never have been able muster the votes to invoke the nuclear option to get him onto the court.

...Democrats have no one but themselves to blame for Kavanaugh's confirmation. Their strategic miscalculations, and embrace of what they once decried as the "politics of personal destruction," backfired. And the reverberations may not yet be over. Since Kavanaugh's hearings, the number of Republicans who say the November elections are "very important" has grown by 12 points to 80 percent -- closing the enthusiasm gap with Democrats. The attacks on Kavanaugh have awoken a sleeping giant.

It may not be enough to save the House, where Republicans are defending 25 seats in districts Hillary Clinton won. But the Kavanaugh fiasco may cost Democrats their chance to retake the Senate -- and with it the power to block future Trump judicial nominations. If so, it means their search-and-destroy mission against Kavanaugh may end up handing Trump the ability to get even more Supreme Court justices confirmed.

Democrats have also given Republicans reason to look past their frustrations with Trump's erratic behavior in office. Millions of Republicans put aside their misgivings and voted for Trump in 2016 for one reason: the Supreme Court. Now he has delivered. It has not escaped notice that he never once backed down in his support for Kavanaugh. Even at the lowest moments, there were no signs of wavering, no leaks from the White House that the president was quietly looking at potential replacements just in case Kavanaugh's nomination failed.

© Copyright Original Source

source

A bunch of crap. The Dems lost the Kavanaugh battle because the Republicans, who hold the majority, because they're basically still just as unprincipled a bunch now as they were in 1992, were going to confirm Kavanaugh no matter what. The Dems thought they might be able to embarrass the Republicans into doing the right thing, but thats because Democrats still haven't figured out that Republicans have no principles, can't be embarassed, and don't fear their dumbed down constituency. There was nothing dirty about how the Dems proceeded in that hearing it's just that some Democrats are coming to the conclusion that perhaps, with respect to elections, they need to get down and dirty, to roll in the mudd with the pigs in order to win. It's too bad really, it may work in the short term, but once people wake up to the plutocracy they helped to create, it could destroy the Republican party for good. The Dems don't need to go there in my opinion, it's exactly the kind of response Republicans are hoping for.

[One Bad Pig]

A bunch of crap. The Dems lost the Kavanaugh battle because the Republicans, who hold the majority, because they're basically still just as unprincipled a bunch now as they were in 1992, were going to confirm Kavanaugh no matter what. The Dems thought they might be able to embarrass the Republicans into doing the right thing, but thats because Democrats still haven't figured out that Republicans have no principles, can't be embarassed, and don't fear their dumbed down constituency. There was nothing dirty about how the Dems proceeded in that hearing it's just that some Democrats are coming to the conclusion that perhaps, with respect to elections, they need to get down and dirty, to roll in the mudd with the pigs in order to win. It's too bad really, it may work in the short term, but once people wake up to the plutocracy they helped to create, it could destroy the Republican party for good. The Dems don't need to go there in my opinion, it's exactly the kind of response Republicans are hoping for.

CEPG0BtWoAAlovd.jpg

[Cow Poke]

A bunch of crap. The Dems lost the Kavanaugh battle ...

I think the Dems may not have only lost "the Kavanaugh battle", but because of the way they handled it, they may have lost their "blue wave".

[Sparko]

Is JimL still on a bender about Kavanaugh?

[ke7ejx]

Is JimL still on a bender about Kavanaugh?

Looks like it...

[Cow Poke]

Power has to be shared fairly.

Says who?

October 25, 2010

House Republican Whip Eric Cantor gave President Obama a list of modest proposals for the bill. Obama said he would consider the GOP ideas, but told the assembled Republicans that "elections have consequences" and "I won."

Dictators always put the courts in their pockets early on.

That's so dumb it doesn't even deserve a proper response.

[Sparko]

But the Pledge of Allegiance says so!

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
and to the Republicans for which it stands...

[rogue06]

Says who?

October 25, 2010

House Republican Whip Eric Cantor gave President Obama a list of modest proposals for the bill. Obama said he would consider the GOP ideas, but told the assembled Republicans that "elections have consequences" and "I won."

Obama made it crystal clear that he did not need to or want to talk to the Republicans. He said it was useless because they were too extreme while simultaneously offering to open up talks with America's bitterest enemies (obviously because they were more reasonable than the Republicans ).

About the only time he did talk to them it was to deliver a sneering lecture about how he won and elections have consequences where he haughtily told then House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (when the latter offered to negotiate on the stimulus package):

Look at the polls. The polls are pretty good for me right now. Elections have consequences. And Eric, I won.

Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, in his usual cordial manner, put it another way: "We have the votes. F-word them."

Obama and the Democrats in the House and Senate refused to consider a single Republican proposal during the first two years. And after the Republican landslide in 2010 Obama literally had to ask his aides if they knew how to contact the incoming Republican leadership because he never talked to them before.

Bob Woodward detailed a lot of this in his book The Price of Politics