Kavanaugh Nomination: Current Impressions

As the maelstrom around the Kavanaugh nomination may perhaps be starting to draw to a close, a few impressions at the intersection of politics and policy:

As indicated earlier, I submit that Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination should be denied because no one has brought forth a tenable reason why Dr. Ford would make up a claim — of which she has testified she is “100%” certain – when she knew that she would provoke the whirlwind which will now forever mark her life and impact the lives of her family. As far as I can tell, even Republican Senators don’t – as I understand Sen. Orrin Hatch said – find her “uncredible.” I ask my conservative women friends: If the roles were reversed, and you knew in high school a now-liberal male judge nominated to the Supreme Court by a Democratic President, would you make up an alleged assault, purely to prevent your former classmate from being elevated to the Supreme Court? And: how likely is it that even after 30 years, you would be mistaken about the identity of your assailant?

To parrot a point admittedly made by numerous talking heads: While, subject to the outcome of the FBI investigation, a “He Said, She Said” situation appears to exist, this is not a criminal investigation; it’s a job interview. The “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard that would be appropriately required to convict Judge Kavanaugh of sexual assault isn’t required to withhold consent to his ascension to the Supreme Court; what’s required are sufficient grounds to conclude that we as a people should look elsewhere for our next Supreme Court Justice. That standard has – in my view – been easily met.

I have been and continue to be disappointed at the majority of Republicans’ response to this controversy. Too many seemed obsessed by the timing of the presentation of the allegations. I consider the timing of the presentation of the allegations irrelevant – a red herring to stir up the conservative partisan base. I would have expected that the reaction of any Senator of either party to these allegations would have been: Is Dr. Ford telling the truth, or not? The truth, as well as it can be determined, is what matters – whether the allegations were brought forth months ago or minutes before the final confirmation vote. Sen. McConnell is already saying that the Senate will vote “this week.” Clearly, what he cares about is winning this fight, not truth or right – a shameful dereliction of duty on par with his failure to allow the Senate to consider President Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland. Virtually no commentators think Democrats will take control of the Senate in January, so presumably, if there is sufficient evidence of questionable behavior on Judge Kavanaugh’s part to dissuade a couple of Republican Senators from consenting to the Judge’s nomination, there are plenty of other conservative judges President Trump can nominate that will receive Senate confirmation in either this or the next Congress. Sen. McConnell nonetheless clearly believes that he can’t take the chance – which says to me (if we needed further evidence, which I didn’t) that he prioritizes partisanship over truth and fair process.

I found Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony on September 27 disqualifying in two additional respects not evident in the earlier proceedings. First, conceding (as just about everybody that reads these pages is well aware) that the poster of these notes can be subject to his own Irish eruptions, and that those of us with vitriolic natures sometimes need a bit of tolerant understanding when we erupt, Judge Kavanaugh’s opening statement, in which he stated that the concerns regarding Dr. Ford’s allegations involved: “… a calculated and orchestrated political hit,” “apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election;” “Revenge on behalf of the Clintons”; and “millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups,” was … unseemly and unsettling. This display of rank partisanship, no matter the provocation, is unfitting for a Supreme Court nominee and sullies the standing of the Court. His elevation will cause doubt throughout his tenure whether any litigant with a position contrary to his natural inclination will get a fair hearing. Second, and as important to me: although Judge Kavanaugh apologized thereafter, his response to Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s respectful question (given the circumstances) whether he had ever drunk so much that he didn’t remember what he had done the next morning was purely … bullying. He bullied her.

Nevertheless, unless Mark Judge, the only person Dr. Ford places in the room with her and Judge Kavanaugh at the time of the alleged assault, substantially confirms Dr. Ford’s account, I’d consider it highly likely that Judge Kavanaugh will be confirmed. Mr. Judge’s concern if he untruthfully supports Judge Kavanaugh’s account: if Democrats assume a majority in the House of Representatives next January, they are very likely to commission a more thorough investigation of Dr. Ford’s allegations, which will certainly include checking with anyone that Mr. Judge might have talked to about the Kavanaugh-Ford incident. Any material discrepancy uncovered between Mr. Judge’s informal exchanges and his account to the FBI could well ultimately have serious repercussions for Mr. Judge … and then-Justice Kavanaugh.

I find it ironic that Republican Sen. Jeff Flake – sufficiently a pariah in some circles within his own state’s Republican party that he chose not to seek reelection – has, despite Sen. McConnell’s myopic preoccupation with Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation, perhaps saved a number of Republican seats in the upcoming midterms by forcing the FBI investigation of the sexual allegations against Judge Kavanaugh. We have been on the road, but even out in the great southwest, we sensed the paroxysm that would have resulted had the Republicans slammed through Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation without investigation of or regard to, and perhaps in disregard of, Dr. Ford’s claims. Although the partisan skirmishing is continuing, some of the partisan steam seems to have been let out of the pot. Unless the FBI comes up with credible evidence to support Dr. Ford’s claim, not only will Judge Kavanaugh be confirmed, but Republican candidates in close races may escape the wrath that I submit might have been visited on them for a Republican process deemed partisan and incomplete by a substantial number of Americans.

If I were President Trump and Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination fails, I’d immediately nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative favorite. Unless there is anything disqualifying in Judge Barrett’s background that has so far been unreported, a rejection of Judge Kavanaugh will sufficiently vent liberals’ furor while stoking conservatives’ anger that Judge Barrett’s nomination will sail through.

Kavanaugh PPS…

Two laments as this process continues:

I noted news reports this morning indicating that Republicans wished to hurry the vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination. Admittedly being my most Pollyannish: Shouldn’t they want to hear all the testimony — on both sides — before deciding whether Judge Kavanaugh should be confirmed? And if you were Jugde Kavanaugh and innocent as he claims, wouldn’t YOU want all evidence heard rather than ascend to the Supreme Court, if at all, under an undeserved cloud?

Admitting that I am fastidious, I was very disappointed to see Judge Kavanaugh — a SCOTUS nominee, for Heaven’s sake — pleading his case (with Mrs. Kavanaugh) on…Fox News. It shreds any remaining vestige of an impression that the Justices put aside partisan politics. (I’d feel the same if a nominee of a Democratic president was reduced to pleading his/her case on MSNBC.)

Tomorrow…will bring another turn of this unfortunate ride…

Postscript on Earlier Kavanaugh Blog…

A few months ago, I listed the criteria by which I felt Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination — as well as that of any other Presidential nominee — should be judged: (1) Is the nominee qualified for the prospective post? And (2) If so, was there any other factor, such as a substantiated history of drug abuse, sufficient to nonetheless disqualify the nominee?

Conceding that at the time of this post, a credibility contest exists between Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford… If I had a vote, I would now vote to deny Judge Kavanaugh under the second criteria for the reason that I submit that any rational, nonpartisan jury would: the Judge has everything to gain by lying, and Dr. Ford (1) has nothing to gain by lying and (2) wouldn’t have subjected herself and her family to an obviously predictable hyperpartisan whirlwind if she wasn’t sure that it was Judge Kavanaugh that assaulted her.

No matter how this turns out, no one will be a personal “winner” here…

Postscript to Taking a Knee

Around Memorial Day, I did a post on “Taking a Knee,” relating to NFL players’ demonstrations during the national anthem, and it engendered as much response – pro and con, from people on both sides for whom I have the highest regard — as any note I’ve entered thus far.

With so much in our nation and the Catholic Church worthy of discussion, I enter this now only because of an op-ed published yesterday on NBC News by former NFL player Nate Boyer, a six-year Army veteran and Green Beret with tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps all but me are already aware of this, but Colin Kaepernick’s decision to take a knee during the national anthem as his manner for protesting police brutality toward African-American males arose as a result of a discussion with Mr. Boyer. Apparently, the first week that Mr. Kaepernick staged his protest, he had sat on the bench during the national anthem, and Mr. Boyer had taken him to task for his apparent disrespect for the nation and our service men and women. Messrs. Kaepernick and Boyer had their discussion not long thereafter. I found this quote attributed to Mr. Boyer, in which he described the players’ exchange after he understood what Mr. Kaepernick was actually intending to protest by his gesture:

“I expressed to him, maybe there’s a different way of demonstrating, where you’re showing more respect for those who laid down their lives for what that flag and anthem stand for. I suggested kneeling, because people kneel to pray; we’ll kneel in front of a fallen brother’s grave.”

Mr. Boyer makes clear that he disagrees with what Mr. Kaepernick did, but supports Mr. Kaepernick’s right to do it. A link to his recent op-ed is posted below.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/colin-kaepernick-national-anthem-america-how-military-service-influenced-my-ncna906956

Link to Senior Administration Official’s Anonymous NYT Op-Ed

It is likely that everyone that has an interest has already read the anonymous op-ed piece published today in the New York Times authored by a senior political appointee of the Administration (i.e., an official that cannot be labeled a part of the President’s fantasized “deep state”). Nonetheless, this was worth posting in the event that there is anyone having an interest that wishes to access it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html

Two Coming Tests of the Depth of Anti-Trump Sentiment

Although liberal commentators are painting a bit of a different picture this morning, I would suggest that from the national standpoint, the outcomes of the two most-followed primary contests decided yesterday went about as well for Republicans as they could have hoped.

First, Arizona: although Democrats will be running an electable centrist Democrat, Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, for Sen. Jeff Flake’s Senate seat, Rep. Martha McSally’s defeat of two avid Trumpians (Kelli Ward and former Sheriff Joe Arpaio) gives the Republicans a chance to avoid what would have been almost a certain defeat in November. Arizona still leans Republican. Ms. McSally seemingly provides centrists and those Republican right-moderates more comfortable with John McCain and Jeff Flake than they are with President Trump – who would either have stayed home or felt compelled to vote for Ms. Sinema over either Ms. Ward or Mr. Arpaio — a reason to stay in the Republican camp.

Next Florida: its Governorship race is, in and of itself, less important on the national scale, but Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson is also up for re-election and might need as much help as he can get from the Democratic Gubernatorial candidate. Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum’s upset of the more-centrist Gwen Graham wouldn’t, at this remove, seem to be what Democrats nationally would have preferred. Mayor Gillum, while impressive (I saw him interviewed this morning) and clearly pursuing a strategy of focusing on Florida state issues rather than on President Trump, is both African-American and the farthest left of the Democratic candidates; some pundits have suggested that he won the nomination due in part to backing from Sen. Bernie Sanders’ “organization.” Rep. Rick DeSantis, who won the Republican nomination, has wrapped himself in the President’s mantle. It would again seem to me that in a state with certain deep conservative pockets and a significant senior demographic, centrists that might have leaned toward the moderate Ms. Graham due to their unease with Mr. Trump will now be driven back toward Mr. DeSantis due to their fear of what Mr. Gillum’s proposed policies might do to their pocketbooks. (What can only be fairly considered race bating has already started; this morning, Mr. Santis reportedly told Fox News that Floridians shouldn’t “monkey this up” by choosing Mr. Gillum’s agenda.) Florida’s poor and minority populations seem likely to heavily favor Mr. Gillum, but it remains to see how many turn out (and how many of those that do are able to vote; it could be a GEICO commercial: “If you’re a Republican, you disenfranchise as many poor and non-white voters as you can … it’s what you do.”)

Two observations:

First, I would suggest that Sen. Sanders’ organization’s push for the farthest-left candidate in certain races (Mr. Gillum; Randy Bryce, the Democrat running for Speaker Paul Ryan’s seat in Wisconsin’s first congressional district — despite Mr. Bryce’s multiple past arrests including one for drunken driving and allegations that he had failed to make child support payments in a timely fashion — over a middle-aged female teacher with a cleaner resume) indicates either that he’s oblivious to the fact that the average voter is more conservative than he is, or that he’s more interested in making a stand on principle than he is in winning – a time-honored Democratic Party recipe for … defeat. For someone that has expressed such antipathy for Mr. Trump and his policies, Mr. Sanders is arguably backing candidates that could cause centrists and right-moderates to turn to candidates that will, in the end, support the President and his agenda.

All that said: I would submit that it can be fairly inferred that the prevailing sentiment against Mr. Trump is very deep in Arizona if Ms. Sinema wins, and/or in Florida if Mr. Gillum wins …

McCain’s Final Message

Although I suspect that most that care to have already read this, there is no better summation of America’s place in the world and current struggles than Sen. McCain’s last message.

My fellow Americans, whom I have gratefully served for sixty years, and especially my fellow Arizonans,

Thank you for the privilege of serving you and for the rewarding life that service in uniform and in public office has allowed me to lead. I have tried to serve our country honorably. I have made mistakes, but I hope my love for America will be weighed favorably against them.

I have often observed that I am the luckiest person on earth. I feel that way even now as I prepare for the end of my life. I have loved my life, all of it. I have had experiences, adventures and friendships enough for ten satisfying lives, and I am so thankful. Like most people, I have regrets. But I would not trade a day of my life, in good or bad times, for the best day of anyone else’s.

I owe that satisfaction to the love of my family. No man ever had a more loving wife or children he was prouder of than I am of mine. And I owe it to America. To be connected to America’s causes – liberty, equal justice, respect for the dignity of all people – brings happiness more sublime than life’s fleeting pleasures. Our identities and sense of worth are not circumscribed but enlarged by serving good causes bigger than ourselves.

“Fellow Americans” – that association has meant more to me than any other. I lived and died a proud American. We are citizens of the world’s greatest republic, a nation of ideals, not blood and soil. We are blessed and are a blessing to humanity when we uphold and advance those ideals at home and in the world. We have helped liberate more people from tyranny and poverty than ever before in history. We have acquired great wealth and power in the process.

We weaken our greatness when we confuse our patriotism with tribal rivalries that have sown resentment and hatred and violence in all the corners of the globe. We weaken it when we hide behind walls, rather than tear them down, when we doubt the power of our ideals, rather than trust them to be the great force for change they have always been.

We are three-hundred-and-twenty-five million opinionated, vociferous individuals. We argue and compete and sometimes even vilify each other in our raucous public debates. But we have always had so much more in common with each other than in disagreement. If only we remember that and give each other the benefit of the presumption that we all love our country we will get through these challenging times. We will come through them stronger than before. We always do.

Ten years ago, I had the privilege to concede defeat in the election for president. I want to end my farewell to you with the heartfelt faith in Americans that I felt so powerfully that evening.

I feel it powerfully still.

Do not despair of our present difficulties but believe always in the promise and greatness of America, because nothing is inevitable here. Americans never quit. We never surrender. We never hide from history. We make history.

Farewell, fellow Americans. God bless you, and God bless America.

President Claims Russia Favors Democrats

In case you missed it, President Trump tweeted the following earlier this week:

“I’m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election. Based on the fact that no President has been tougher on Russia than me, they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats. They definitely don’t want Trump!”

What precipitated this note was an observation a good friend made in an email about the President’s tweet: “ … IF the Dems win big in the mid-terms, [President Trump and the Republicans] will challenge the results and want special investigations, or at the very least, spread discord that the midterms were affected by the Russians … Either way [i.e., whether the Democrats or Republicans do better in the midterms], Putin wins .…”

Putting aside for just this one post whether or not it is in our best interest for the President to have adopted the attitude toward Russia and President Putin that he has, any citizen with any power of discernment undoubtedly recognizes that his approach has been one of conciliation – bordering on if not constituting obsequiousness. Mr. Putin himself said last week that he wanted Mr. Trump to win in 2016. The body language between the two men at the Helsinki news conference could not have been more fraternal. Even a number of Republicans that hadn’t previously had the courage to speak out against other Administration policies voiced criticism of Mr. Trump’s Helsinki performance.

Although I have grave concern that our friend is correct about the ultimate effect of the President’s latest stratagem, even the most ardent of his supporters should be offended by this tweet. Given the intelligence community’s unanimous assessment that Russia did interfere in our election processes in support of Mr. Trump, for the President to assert that Russia didn’t do that (which he has done repeatedly since taking office, and did again in a tweet this week) while at the same time claiming (1) that no President has been tougher on Russia than him (contra, at least: H. Truman; D. Eisenhower; J. Kennedy; R. Nixon; and – far from least – R. Reagan) and (2) that Russians will favor Democrats in the midterms so strains credulity that it seems … that the President must believe that his followers have super stretching and swallowing powers.

In that spirit, I took a minute to look for those that might have the capacity to accept the President’s claim. Below is a link to the site, “Category: Fictional Characters Who Can Stretch Themselves.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fictional_characters_who_can_stretch_themselves

The only character I could locate with super swallowing powers was Vice President Pence.

President Trump and the Russians, whether through coherence or by coincidence, have regularly sought to undermine our citizens’ belief in our institutions and electoral processes. I hold out the hope that few of our citizens, no matter how substantively conservative, can either stretch or swallow enough to credit Mr. Trump’s latest bull … oney …

The Lamentable Legacy of Paul Ryan: Part I

After Speaker of the House of Representatives Paul Ryan announced his intent to retire from Congress this past April, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell issued a statement intended to praise Mr. Ryan, saying in part, “Paul’s speakership has yielded one signature accomplishment after another for his conference, his constituents in Wisconsin’s 1^st Congressional District, and the American people [my emphasis].”

While one can agree or dispute Sen. McConnell’s characterization of Mr. Ryan’s tenure as one of “accomplishment,” it seems to me that the order in which he placed Mr. Ryan’s constituencies was entirely accurate — and (unwittingly) more indictment than tribute.

By all accounts, Mr. Ryan is an upbeat, pleasant man of probity. His intelligence and grasp of policy detail are legendary. Even those that vigorously disagree with him on substantive issues like and praise him personally. Yet, it is hard, as Mr. Ryan’s tenure draws to a close, not to characterize his record as, at best, one of accommodation and enablement, and at worst, one of hypocrisy and timidity.

Any review of Mr. Ryan’s record demonstrates that the issue of greatest concern to him throughout his career has been the ever-growing federal debt. An internet search yields such a number of the Speaker’s declarations on the issue that if all were recorded here, WordPress would need another couple of servers to hold them. A brief sampling:

In March of 2010:

“This debt crisis coming to our country. The wall and tidal wave of debt that is befalling our nation. Medicare and Social Security go bankrupt within ten years, we have a debt that is looming so high that in the last year of President Obama’s budget just the interest payments on our debt is $916 billion dollars.”

And again, urging a need for fiscal restraint in March, 2013:

“Our debt is already bigger than our economy.”

These are understandable sentiments; a number of thoughtful commentators have suggested that our burgeoning debt may be not only our most important domestic policy issue but also our most dangerous foreign policy challenge. However, anyone looking at the dates of these and his like comments will note that they all were made while Barack Obama was in the White House.

In 2001, Mr. Ryan voted for President Bush’s tax cuts [to be fair, at the time of the vote, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) was projecting a significant federal budget surplus into the future].
In the summer of 2003, he voted for President Bush’s second round of tax cuts. If truly a deficit hawk, he accommodated to his party’s political interests.
In the early winter of 2003, he voted for Medicare Part D. If truly a deficit hawk, he accommodated to his party’s political interests.
According to news accounts, he voted at least five times to raise the federal debt ceiling during the Bush presidency. Good policy, but I’ve seen no indication that he sounded any alarm in those years — as contrasted with the struggles on this issue during the Obama presidency.

If I understand the reporting correctly, the CBO concluded in 2012 that the Bush Tax Cuts and Medicare Part D were the cause of about 30% of the then-current national debt. No matter how one feels about the substance of these measures, it was apparent by the time that President Trump took office that the Bush laws had significantly added to the deficits that Mr. Ryan never tired of railing about. Mr. Ryan nevertheless ushered through the House both a tax cut and a budget deal – which USA Today reported that he called the “biggest accomplishments” of his Speakership — that the CBO estimated in April would add $1.6 trillion to the deficit during the next decade … and more if the individual tax cuts (set to expire in 2026) are extended. This estimate could not have come as a surprise; when Trump tax plan details surfaced in the spring of 2017, The Wall Street Journal reported that “not one respondent” in a University of Chicago poll of leading academic economists thought that the plan would pay for itself.

In the final analysis, the Speaker was more interested in obtaining perceived short term political gain for the members of his House Republican caucus than in America’s long term fiscal stability. The measures he championed placed the entitlements that millions of Americans need and will need on even shakier ground than they were before. He instead chose to accommodate his members. A fact is a fact.

It’s difficult not to conclude that the dichotomy between Rep. Ryan’s words and actions is more evidence of political careerism and opportunism than fervently-held policy beliefs. Even so, I am less troubled by his inconsistency on fiscal issues than by his failure of moral Constitutional leadership. However, recognizing that this is a blog rather than an endless Word document, it’s time to call a halt. More in Part II …

George Will and the Positioning of Mike Pence

Having just brought the site to the attention of a lot of family and friends, I intended the next post to be on some weighty public affairs topic that retirees have time to ponder. However, a good friend called my attention to a piece that George Will just did in The Washington Post on Vice President Mike Pence:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-no-longer-the-worst-person-in-government/2018/05/09/10e59eba-52f1-11e8-a551-5b648abe29ef_story.html?utm_term=.d028269e0169

Mr. Will’s piece is, at bottom, a visceral lament at the disintegration of the traditional Republican Party, but he does it through a blistering denunciation of the Vice President’s slavish behavior toward and in support of the President. Although I love words, Mr. Will’s use of “oleaginous,” “toadyism,” “obsequiousness,” and “lickspittle” all in the introductory paragraph took some doing ;). (For those that remember William F. Buckley, Jr., I’m wondering whether even he ever used “oleaginous”).

As for the Republican Party, Mr. Will’s despair arises from what is apparent to all: for good or ill, the party’s traditionalists have abdicated to the President and the party’s populists. (In a future post, we’ll make Noise addressing whether the party’s traditionalists and populists actually even constitute one coherent organization any longer, and the ramifications of that).

As to Mr. Pence, I made Noise last January on the Vice President’s kowtowing toward the President, supposing that Mr. Pence understands that, as with any Vice President, his primary duty is to ready himself to be President, and speculating that given the hyper-partisan circumstances existing in our country today, he and his intimates had spent time calculating whether he will better be able to smoothly ascend to the presidency “if the time comes” by now adhering closely to the President or by putting some daylight between them. (He is the one member of the Administration that the President can’t fire for disloyalty.) I concluded that he had decided that if he needs to assume power, the transition will be smoother if he now clings to the President.

Mr. Will’s venting of spleen was undoubtedly emotionally satisfying, and to a certain extent aligns with my own sentiments; however, neither of us has the responsibility of being one step away from the Presidency. Here’s hoping that Mr. Pence and his team have indeed carefully considered the factors involved if he has to assume the presidency, and have chosen the wisest course by having him so fawningly support the President. As time passes, I confess that I’m giving less credence to the approach he’s adopted. Americans like a President to be strong. Nobody of any political stripe will follow a bootlicker [perhaps the only word of the type that Mr. Will didn’t use ;)].