All the interrupting, all the shouting, all the impugning of the integrity of a man who presents himself as a thoroughly good person....
Senate Democrats tore into President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee on Tuesday, painting Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh as a narrow-minded partisan as the opening day of his confirmation hearings verged on pandemonium. Dozens of screaming protesters were hauled out of the hearing room in handcuffs.That's Sheryl Gail Stolberg and Adam Liptak in the NYT.
The verbal brawl began moments after the hearings began.... [T]he hearings were dominated by Democratic theatrics and crackling protests. For more than an hour at the outset, irate Democrats and a frustrated Mr. Grassley parried back and forth.... Protesters, most of them women, shouted down senators; by day’s end, Capitol Police said a total of 70 people had been arrested, including nine outside the room....Stolberg and Liptak do reference the calls for civility at the McCain events:
The session... gave Americans their first extended glimpse of Judge Kavanaugh, 53, who... talked about going to ball games with his father and coaching his daughter in basketball, drawing bipartisan smiles when he gave a shoutout to each member of the team.A show of civility. That's all it was. Nice to have the truth smack us in the face so abruptly, lest we get starry eyed. I wonder if the Senate Democrats debated about whether jettisoning civility so soon after conspicuously bullshitting about it would be too egregiously hypocritical. Whatever. If they did, they decided it was worth the risk.
But that was about the extent of the comity; just days after members of the Senate had gathered together in a bipartisan show of civility at the funeral of Senator John McCain, the crowded hearing room in the Hart Senate Office Building seethed with antipathy....
The first person to interrupt and breach decorum was Kamala Harris. And:
Republicans countered that Democrats were harping on access to documents because they could not quibble with Judge Kavanaugh’s qualifications. And they took digs at their Democratic colleagues on the judiciary panel, several of whom — Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Cory Booker of New Jersey and Kamala D. Harris of California — are weighing presidential runs.Plainly, Harris, Klobuchar, and Booker don't think civility is how you get elected. And that's my "civility bullshit" theory: "civility" is what you say to con your opponents into standing down. Not something you impose on yourself.
This makes me think of the old feminist slogan, "Well-behaved women seldom make history." Here's the original context for that saying, from a scholarly article by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich:
Cotton Mather called them “The Hidden Ones.” They never preached or sat in a deacon’s bench. Nor did they vote or attend Harvard. Neither, because they were virtuous women, did they question God or the magistrates. They prayed secretly, read the Bible through at least once a year, and went to hear the minister preach even when it snowed. Hoping for an eternal crown, they never asked to be remembered on earth. And they haven’t been. Well-behaved women seldom make history; against Antinomians and witches, these pious matrons have had little chance at all.I'm not a proponent of civility. I'm a proponent of calling bullshit on calls for civility, which intimidate and inhibit some but not all of us. And that's not because I like rudeness. It's because I like fairness.
***
Interesting correction at the bottom of the article:
An earlier version of this article misstated the proportion of documents from Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s time in the White House Counsel’s Office that have been made available to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The committee was given 445,000 of 663,000 total documents, which is a portion but not a small portion of the total.
পোস্টগুলি
১৩০টি মন্তব্য:
McCain was civil? In what world? He was only civil to his friends, the Democrats, and Lindsey Graham,BIRM.
Well-behaved women seldom make history
Men seldom make passes at girls who wear glasses.
It's actually a large portion -about 66%. Guess good old Sheryl and Adam were unable to figure that out.
If a thoroughly decent and civil person advocates for civility, is it still bullshit?
I assume W had to agree to release the documents from his WH counsel's office. I'm surprised so many were turned over.
Do not level the playing field. Rise above it.
An unexpectedly fun aspect of Trump being President is that he is testing his opponents' civility constantly, and they are failing his test constantly.
It's hilarious.
If a thoroughly decent and civil person advocates for civility, is it still bullshit?
He lost his place in line.
Well-behaved women seldom make history
History begs to differ. Asshole ladies might be remembered but they are seldom historical.
Now that Mother Teresa...
A call for civility is a command to shut up. They don't really care about Kavanaugh, they've already announced their intention not to vote for him, and they know he is going to be confirmed. This is all theater for the base, especially, as you note, from the ones that aspire to run for POTUS in 2020.
Us regular folks - whether Trump supporters or not - know this.
-sw
Cavility.
The pride feminist women take in being assholes... well, you lost me there, prof.
Yeah, they've been consummate assholes.
Feminism is all about being an asshole. And being proud of it.
"I wonder if the Senate Democrats debated about whether jettisoning civility so soon after conspicuously bullshitting about it would be too egregiously hypocritical."
There was no debate. There is no downside to hypocrisy for Democrats. It is their modus operandi and is carefully ignored by the media.
Historical women skate to where the puck is going to be.
Althouse, "And that's my "civility bullshit" theory: "civility" is what you say to con your opponents into standing down. Not something you impose on yourself."
Trump figured that out with "low energy Jeb." He won.
The media line is all about what a train wreck yesterday. None of the media, that includes FOX are reporting that all of the disruption by the protesters and the Senators on the committee was planned and scripted.
FOX does mention it, but only for a few seconds and then obediently goes on to say how chaotic things are. The chaos is scripted. Stop missrepresenting the facts. Please?
The difference between a 400k page haystack and a 600k haystack....
"If a thoroughly decent and civil person advocates for civility, is it still bullshit?"
If a person isn't bullshitting, he isn't bullshitting, but show me the person. I speak based on observation. I'm trying to help the thoroughly decent person not lose his chance in life by believing something is important that is in fact being used to get him (or her) to stand down.
"The pride feminist women take in being assholes... well, you lost me there, prof."
Sometimes when people lose you, they're trying to lose you.
Let's lose that guy. We don't like him.
"It's actually a large portion -about 66%. Guess good old Sheryl and Adam were unable to figure that out."
Math is hard, for some.
-sw
But the Democrats assured me no more than 4% of the necessary documents had been produced. I wonder what else was untrue about their act yesterday!
"Feminism is all about being an asshole. And being proud of it."
"all about" is hyperbole, but it is important to be able to be thought of as an asshole. I have dissipated a lot of my life's energy trying to maintain the good opinion of others, not wanting anyone to think ill of me. It doesn't work! It's not even the best way to be a good person. It's too cowardly. You have to be willing to take risks, and those who don't like where you're trying to go will think you are an asshole. Women are especially vulnerable to the passivity and cowardice that's entailed in maintaining niceness and likability. That's why feminism comes with some lessons in asshole pride.
And, by the way, you yourself are a big asshole and you're proud of it, so your desire for women to stand down is bullshit. It's such obvious bullshit that no one is fooled, so I'll give you that.
Oddly, I do like you, Althouse.
I just find your asshole ideology ludicrous and detestable.
You're never had a complaint. You've been lying now for 50 years that you do.
Maybe you should stop lying. It's worth a try.
1 sigma, enough to make a statistical conclusion.
And, no, you're not trying to lose me.
Like all women, you're waiting for men like me to finally tell you to stop the lying asshole act.
The toady feminist men don't know this. I do.
"too egregiously hypocritical" --is that even possible?
Wow, I'll give credit to NYT for at least pointing out the contrast. I'm sure they are doing it, because they recognize the voters can't be too stupid to miss it. Still, it is at least a recognition of the bullshit.
The show yesterday, and continuing today, is just a reminder that for Democrats, the only good conservative is a dead one.
I'm trying to figure out that paragraph with the bolded quote. It seems to be saying that it's better to be "well behaved" and forgotten by history, because the women who get historical attention aren't usually virtuous. That is, from a Christian perspective, being prayerful, obedient, and full of hidden good works is more important than being known. Am I reading that correctly? Because I could see it also meaning the reverse - these women were too passive and spiritual to make significant changes to society. I think the former interpretation is more likely. But nowadays, I hear versions of that quote used to justify in-your-face feminism and social justice activism.
@ST
Examine your own psychology and explain it. I am not catering to you, but apparently you just can't get enough. Therefore being an asshole is working, which is my point. I just had to get to be 53 years old to realize it myself, but I'm doing okay now.
“If a person isn't bullshitting, he isn't bullshitting, but show me the person. I speak based on observation. I'm trying to help the thoroughly decent person not lose his chance in life by believing something is important that is in fact being used to get him (or her) to stand down.”
Very cynical, and I would say it’s an argument for both the Trumpist and #Resistance styles in our politics. I agree that many or even most who talk about civility in politics are full of shit and trying to score points. So what does that mean? Do you consider etiquette and decorum to be distinct from civility? Can we at least have some basic respect for each other’s right to speak?
It is a mystery to me to try to understand why Democrats think this sort of disruption and mass hysteria is going to get people to vote for them.
I understand there is a leftist base of perhaps 20% of the population that is insanely opposed to Trump and anything he does.
Some of that is manipulation by deep state actors who are threatened by the populist wave we are seeing with Trump voters and supporters. They have had things their way since Reagan and are deeply dug in to the administrative state.
Today we see one consequence as FINALLY (!) we have 12 Appropriations bills moving through Congress instead of another obscene "Continuing Resolution" filled with lots of little gimmicks,
And while Congress has taken the votes, many on Capitol Hill are giving Trump and his team the credit for breaking the 20-year log jam. They cite his refusal to sign another massive “omnibus” spending bill that ignored his priorities, even if it means shutting down the government.
“This is all driven by the president,” said a key congressional insider. “It’s a win for the president. For 20 years this system has been busted.”
That is probably breaking some rice bowls, which is the only explanation I can see for the hysteria.
Will this insanity theater really work in the 80% of the population that is not crazy ? I sure hope not.
If the Republican candidates have a lick of sense between them, they'll use video clips of the hearing (and some Antifa) in their ads this fall. 89% of voters will forget or never hear about it otherwise. They don't need to call for civility, they can just show the lack of it.
@Andrew
Read more at the link to understand the whole context.
Cotton Mather was praising women who remained invisible and unknown. Theirs is the kingdom of heaven. It's a powerful message to women throughout history and throughout the world. There is much there to be cherished and it is something that individual women can take to heart and choose.
Laurel Thatcher Ulrich had some other things to say about it. It is also used to get women to shut up and endure oppression.
That is, from a Christian perspective, being prayerful, obedient, and full of hidden good works is more important than being known
Haven't you seen the old aphorism, "Good girls go to Heaven: bad girls go everywhere?"
the women who get historical attention aren't usually virtuous
Also true for men.
I've raised daughters and granddaughters, Althouse.
The common theme is that female children get over praised and loved up and they become haughty and emotionally abusive as a result. They learn to be contemptuous of all the love showered on them.
Look at your own psychology. You're an old woman and you've been showered with blessings, and you're still bitching about some fantasized injustice.
In other words, like a female child, you're measuring the men constantly to see how much you can get away with.
"Fairness, not civility" -- this is something that Ace of Spades has been harping on for quite some time now, and it's something I definitely agree with, Professor. The problem isn't civility itself; the problem is the deployment of one set of rules for Group A, and a different set of rules for Group B.
It's also maddening to see the rules that Group A deploys in 2011 change for Group B in 2015.
"We Have Always Been At War With Eastasia"
... [T]he hearings were dominated by Democratic theatrics and cackling protests.
fixed it for you!
If he wasn’t a narrow-minded partisan before the Dem’s shit-fit, he’s certainly been encouraged to be one in the future.
These demonstrations are just payback for the hysterical NRA and Tea Party protests during the RBG hearings. She, too, was blatantly ideological, so of course the right did everything they could to disrupt her hearing, and demand two billion pages of documents.
And, of course, all the R's announced well in advance they would be voting against here.
So, fair is fair, right? The R's are to blame for starting all of this, of course.
I watched the first about 45 minutes. Harris jumped in first, interrupting Chairman Grassley the moment he started to speak. It was obviously planned. The Dems tag-teamed Grassley so he couldn't respond to the any one of them in particular as being out of order. It seemed to me the plan was to, in effect, "filibuster" the hearing.
Grassley was smart. He maintained his own civility, speaking calmly and reasonably, countering their specific objections, about documents that had not been provided, with a sensible explanation for why they had been withheld and pointing out that more documents had been provided than for any previous nominee.
Grassley was also smart, I thought, in not trying to gavel them down or shut them up. He simply explained to the committee that he would allow everyone to speak as they wished, but that the hearing would go on until they had finished interviewing the nominee, even if they had to meet through the weekend and on into next week. He knew they wouldn't want that. They have fund-raising to do.
Ann, you are comparing apples and oranges. (Actually, grapes and watermelons.) You are putting on the same plane Trump, who is the president of the United States, and some faceless, unknown protesters.
Yes, the Democratic Senators on the Judiciary Committee are being aggressive in pursuing their position. But they are doing so while maintaining civility. They are not personally attacking their fellow Republican Senators. They are not engaging in name calling. Please put up video if you think I am wrong.
Ann, I get it that you are embarrassed that you have gotten yourself so closely associated with Trump. You have spent the last three years fawning over him. That will be your small legacy preserved on the internet forever.
But you are just further embarrassing yourself with these lame attempts at false-eqivalancy.
These demonstrations are just payback for the hysterical NRA and Tea Party protests during the RBG hearings.
I assume sarcasm here, since the TEA Party didn't exist when RBG was nominated; but did the protestors yesterday clean up the hearing room leaving it in better shape than they arrived?
Thoughts and Prayers go out to the Handmaids, who groan under the yoke of fictional oppression.
Not all calls for civility are bullshit.
Yesterday I was with a work colleague in line at a fast food joint. He was agitated and let loose the f-word. The man in front of him turned around and told him that there were children present and to please try and be civil. We all agreed with him. That was a true call for civility.
Is it possible that a scenario could exist in politics that someone calls for civility because they truly care that there be civility and not because they want to gain an edge? I think the possibility exists, I'm just trying to find an example.
Also, my colleague apologized and did calm down.
Yes, the Democratic Senators on the Judiciary Committee are being aggressive in pursuing their position. But they are doing so while maintaining civility.
Hilarious. I guess you and I saw different hearings. But then you always have your leftist lenses on.
There's a major difference between, say, Joan of Arc and a mob of puerile pussy-hat wearers.
It's the drama of impotent rage. Impotent because they lack the votes to prevent confirmation, and fear its possible consequences.
And all because of a 45-year-old judicial over-reach, wherein the Court purported to see emanations from the penumbras of its text that remain invisible to everyone else
And thus the rage, as the protesters know full well that the core Roe was and remains foundationally illegitimate, a judicial usurpation on what rightfully belongs to the people or the states respectively, as there simply is no right to abortion (or prohibition of it) to be found in the Constitution.
So, the Court created a right to abortion, but it did so at the cost of causing millions of Americans to doubt the legitimacy of the Court itself.
I”There was no debate. There is no downside to hypocrisy for Democrats. It is their modus operandi and is carefully ignored by the media.”
Funny thing to me is that esp the women here are probably sacrificing their chances at winning the Presidency for short term political gain. Few people like screaming harridans, but these Senators are now on video record of being such opposing a mild mannered Supreme Court nominee and in front of his young daughters. It is one thing for a woman to be righteously angry, but they were frothing for political advantage, and that isn’t going to play well in middle America. We are probably talking >45 state landslides if they get a Presidential nomination in the next decade. And, yes, there is a double standard there, with males getting away with feigning anger more than females can. But there a lot of real psychological reasons behind that double standard, including that males can turn anger on and off more easily - it is part of our male defense mechanisms, since males who can’t turn it off are considered dangerous to society (and typically end up in prison or dead).
“Yes, the Democratic Senators on the Judiciary Committee are being aggressive in pursuing their position. But they are doing so while maintaining civility. ”
Lol what? Yes very civil with all the interrupting, speaking out of order and lying ...
The hidden presumption, which is not provably true, is that making history is somehow some big prize with some intrinsic and annualized payment and reward.
If you believe in God and an afterlife, it isn't really clear that God does (or you will) care if you made history. The last shall be first.
If you don't believe in an afterlife, you're not exactly going to be decomposing with the thought on your mind, "Well, at least I made history."
Isn't the real prize being happy and living in love and peace with those around you?
Politics is the pursuit of war by other means.
This is the corrollary of Clausowitz's famous dictum.
Civility is often called for as a bullshit tactical move, but people forget that when civility is abandoned violence becomes a tactical alternative.
The next lefty retard who tries to interupt with autistic screeching should be on the receiving end of some nightstick blows to the skull from police. That goes both for the idiot protestors and lefty cunts like Kamala who happen to have Senate Seats.
So, the Court created a right to abortion, but it did so at the cost of causing millions of Americans to doubt the legitimacy of the Court itself.
I think this is an important point. Abortion was legal in California in 1969, three years before the Supremes made a catastrophic error and bypassed legislatures. Had they simply allowed the political trends already underway t progress, we would have 30 states with legal abortion and 20 without.
Instead, we have this increasingly hostile cold civil war that touches every aspect of our lives.
@Michael K
"It is a mystery to me to try to understand why Democrats think this sort of disruption and mass hysteria is going to get people to vote for them."
The base is going to vote for a Democrat, of course, this behavior is deployed as a way to differentiate the individuals from their Democrat competitors. The possibility that the behavior alienates the middle of the road voters is a risk they are willing to take at this point.
-sw
The possibility that the behavior alienates the middle of the road voters is a risk they are willing to take at this point.
That's why this next election is a watershed.
@Quayle
Yes. While I may be an asshole, my spiritual and ideological outlook is Christian.
At least I aspire to and preach something better than being the biggest possible asshole, contra feminists.
I don’t recall Bush ever calling for civility, but he certainly practiced it and led by example. I think he was too humble and polite to reprimand others.
Probably the worst example of civility bullshit from the Obama years was the attempt to pin blame for the Gabby Giffords shooting on the “uncivil” Tea Party and Sarah Palin. I remember well the piles of bullshit being flung by Democrats and media people for weeks or months. I assume that’s where Althouse’s “civility bullshit” thing all started.
They should stick to a time allotment. Say we've set aside X hours to review the nominee. If you interrupt and waste that time, that's on you, but we're holding a vote on it barring extreme circumstances at Y hour. So, if you have legitimate questions, don't waste time.
The well meaning liberals (not leftists) that I know take a sort of moral equivalency position on the Kavanaugh hearings.
They believe that Republicans act the same way when a liberal is nominated to the SCOTUS. They have absolutely no evidence, but then they are adhering to religious beliefs that require ignorance and blind faith.
They believe that they are being reasonably moderate.
Interesting correction at the bottom of the article:
An earlier version of this article misstated the proportion of documents from Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s time in the White House Counsel’s Office that have been made available to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The committee was given 445,000 of 663,000 total documents, which is a portion but not a small portion of the total.
Quite. The characterization of "a small part" comes from Kamala Harris' repeated assertion the administration only provided 4% of the requested documents.
So dual NYT reporters on a high profile article printed Democratic talking points as fact without checking them. Surely this surprises no one. It should surprise roughly two thirds of the country but half of that group doesn't care about politics and the other half simply ignores facts which conflict with their narrative.
"layers and layers of fact-checkers"
The mainstream democrat party has a streak of anarchy as wide as a ten lane freeway in LA.
“Is it possible that a scenario could exist in politics that someone calls for civility because they truly care that there be civility and not because they want to gain an edge? I think the possibility exists, I'm just trying to find an example.”
Yes, it does exist. The Senate, in particular, is historically famous for this, and it’s heightened civility was one of the places where they contrasted with the much mour raucous House. For example, my memory was that the Senate had rules against personal attacks there, and they are probably still in effect. The problem is that civility is really more of a middle class, and esp upper middle class virtue, which ultimately meant more of a Republican, than Democratic value. No surprise then that the traditional party of the very rich and the working and welfare class yesterday was the one that kept interrupting, and had imported a crowd of screaming emotional infants that needed to be removed by the Capital Police.
@Ann, thank you. That makes sense. Will read the article when I can.
Here's a "well behaved woman" in my sense of the word from Cotton Mather's era. She accused two men at the Salem witch trials in order to save her own life. Then, horrified at herself, she took back her confession although she knew that taking back a confession meant death. Her explanation was that she was overwhelmed by the atmosphere at her hearing which seems to have resembled a confirmation hearing at the Senate ""[at] my examination,... persons at the sight of me fell down, which did very much startle and affright me. The Lord above knows I knew nothing, in the least measure, how or who afflicted them; they told me, without doubt I did, or else they would not fall down at me;" She made false accusations but could not bear herself afterward. "they told me, if I would not confess I should be put down into the dungeon and would be hanged. I could not contain myself before I had denied my confession, which I did though I saw nothing but death before me, chusing rather death with a quiet conscience, than to live in such horror." She was awaiting death when a revulsion in public opinion led to an end to the trials and set all the prisoners free. She was seventeen. Her whole statement is below as recorded in Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Province.
Margaret Jacobs had been brought to accuse herself, and then to charge Burroughs, the minister, and her own grandfather; but, struck with horror, chose to lose her own life, rather than persist in her confession; and begged forgiveness of Burroughs before his execution, who is said to have freely forgiven her; and recanted all she had said against her grandfather, but in vain as to his life. Her own life was saved by a disorder in her head, which prevented her trial at the first court; but before the next court, she made a formal recantation of all she had confessed, and delivered it to the judges.
“The humble declaration of Margaret Jacobs unto. the honoured court now sitting at Salem, sheweth,
That whereas your poor and humble declarant being closely confined here in Salem goal for the crime of witchcraft, which crime thanks be to the Lord I am altogether ignorant of, as will appear at the great day of judgment:
May it please the honoured court,
I was cried out upon by some of the possessed persons, as afflicting them; whereupon I was brought to my examination, which persons at the sight of me fell down, which did very much startle and affright me. The Lord above knows I knew nothing, in the least measure, how or who afflicted them; they told me, without doubt I did, or else they would not fall down at me; they told me, if I would not confess I should be put down into the dungeon and would be hanged, but if I would confess I should have my life; the which did so affright me, with my own vile wicked heart, to save my life; made me make the like confession I did, which confession, may it please the honoured court, is altogether false and untrue. The very first night after I had made confession, I was in such horror of conscience that I could not sleep for fear the devil should carry me away for telling such horrid lies. I was, may it please the honoured court, sworn to my confession, as I understand since, but then, at that time, was ignorant of it, not knowing what an oath did mean. The Lord, I hope, in whom I trust, out of the abundance of his mercy, will forgive me my false forswearing myself. What I said, was altogether false against my grandfather, and Mr. Burroughs, which I did to save my life and to have my liberty; but the Lord, charging it to my conscience, made me in so much horror, that I could not contain myself before I had denied my confession, which I did though I saw nothing but death before me, chusing rather death with a quiet conscience, than to live in such horror, which I could not suffer. Where, upon my denying my confession, I was committed to close prison, where I have enjoyed more felicity in spirit, a thousand times, than I did before in my enlargement.
And now, may it please your honours,
your declarant, having, in part, given your honours a description of my condition, do leave it to your honours pious and judicious discretions, to take pity and compassion on my young and tender years, to act and do with me, as the Lord above and your honours shall see good, having no friend, but the Lord, to plead my cause for me; not being guilty in the least measure of the crime of witchcraft, nor any other sin that deserves death from man; and your poor and humble declarant shall for ever pray, as she is bound in duty, for your honours’ happiness in this life and eternal felicity in the world to come, So prays your honours’ declarant.
Margaret Jacobs.”
Civility is like good manners in that it is a social lubricant preventing combustion from excessive friction. But there are times when both must be laid aside. The problem with the Progs is that they've worn out that option.
The hidden presumption, which is not provably true, is that making history is somehow some big prize with some intrinsic and annualized payment and reward.
Indeed. Most boys recognize this as fantasy by high school. So congratulations feminists you've trained a generation of acolytes to co-opt the mindset of 13 year old boys and consider it "progress". No wonder your games resemble juvenile hysteria to reasonable people.
I'm not a proponent of civility. I'm a proponent of calling bullshit on calls for civility, which intimidate and inhibit some but not all of us. And that's not because I like rudeness. It's because I like fairness.
I like civility and generally prefer it to incivility when possible. But I certainly agree with the notion that in a majority of cases most people who call for it aren't doing so in good faith.
That said, I remain unconvinced that blatant incivility (specifically the loud disruptive, protesting kind) is usually a persuasive tactic. I don't believe it often accomplishes the oestensible goals of the protester. In fact it may do the opposite by turning off some people who may be willing to be persuaded.
Civility is important, in and of itself, as well as a tool for achieving an end.
The present lack of genuine civility just means that it will be more valuable.
As an example, the Democrats passed up a valuable chance to be civil in these hearings. The stakes are low (Kavanaugh will be most likely be confirmed no matter how ugly or respectful the hearings are), so there is little downside to taking the loss with grace.
Cruz was civil, but to the point, following Churchill's philosophy that "When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite".
There was room on the high ground for Democrats as well, if only they would be civil.
Blogger Michael K said...
It is a mystery to me to try to understand why Democrats think this sort of disruption and mass hysteria is going to get people to vote for them.
The Democrats recognize that they're not going to be winning any elections for a while. What is happening is a fight for control of the Party. It is better to be a big fish in a little pond.
"Well-behaved women seldom make history." I'm guessing that most of those pious women would have thought that the ambition to "make history" was a little bit pathetic. They wanted to live virtuous lives and go to heaven, and I expect they were successful.
"Making history" is one of these tournament type goals where almost everyone fails. And if you are successful what did you really gain? Those ladies quite likely did more good in their lives than some loud successful politician who may actually have done more harm than good.
Genghis Khan made a lot of history.
But the picture you posted last night--the picture the Dems & Media are pushing to "prove" that Kavannaugh was rude to a grieving father--that isn't civility bullshit Professor?? It's plainly propaganda and is premised on civility bullshit.
The serial disruption technique really is shitty and harmful to actual functioning of government. The people who coordinated the serial interruptions were all invited guests...of Democrat politicians. On the one hand I'm glad Grassley had the patience to ride out they hysterics. On the other hand it's a shame he didn't just say "if you're all going to make this open hearing impossible we'll move to an immediate vote" and be done with it.
When populist Trump supporters say "the spineless GOP doesn't fight!" they mean in part that "we" don't engage in these kinds of tactics. "We" certainly would not get the kind of laudatory/fawning Media coverage the Left gets, but it's nonetheless an instructive contrast: when Repubs are out of power they usually sit quietly while the Dems run over them (and it's considered rude or gauche for Repub-affiliated groups to protest or interrupt) but when Dems are out of power they organize intrusive protests/interruptions, shut down streets, engage in often-violent protests/riots, etc...and are praised for it! The brave #Resistance!
Cackling! Hysterics!
Loving the sexism dripping from the news--tasty.
The Democrats recognize that they're not going to be winning any elections for a while.
Again, this is why the next election is a watershed. If hysteria and disruption loses an election, we may see a return to sanity.
If the Democrats win the House, all things stop for two years.
Then I will be even happier that I live in Arizona.
""It is a mystery to me to try to understand why Democrats think this sort of disruption and mass hysteria is going to get people to vote for them."
The strategy is not changing minds, it is encouraging turnout. Republicans have become complacent, and it's likely to cost them.
The strategy is not changing minds, it is encouraging turnout. Republicans have become complacent, and it's likely to cost them.
I understand but it is encouraging crazies, not serious people. Are 100% of Democrats crazy ? I hope not.
GOP turnout will be determined by local factors. And aided by the ads that are created from these scenes of hysteria. Traditionally, GOP turnout was higher than D.
I tuned in for a little while, and got to listen to Democrats speak movingly about only receiving __ hundred thousand documents, instead of the __ hundred thousand documents they had requested. Coverup!
Like the Administration is going to provide complete information on what they do internally, so that you can decide on this judge. Absolutely unreasonable request.
Caligula said...
""It is a mystery to me to try to understand why Democrats think this sort of disruption and mass hysteria is going to get people to vote for them."
The strategy is not changing minds, it is encouraging turnout. Republicans have become complacent, and it's likely to cost them.
Exactly. The complacency will be very, very costly. Not a blue wave, not a red wave, but a muddled mess that could have been prevented.
Republicans are going to lose a lot of seats in the House in November. Some of that is because of Trump in particular, and some of that is because historically the president's party tends to lose seats in the midterms. To say the Democrats are merely fighting for control of a shrinking party is nonsense, in my opinion. The Democrats expect to flip the House, or at least see a realistic opportunity to do so, and their theatrics are intended, I believe, to agitate and/or frighten Democrat and Democrat-leaning voters.
Booker, Harris, etc., also want to be seen as leaders of the incoming "blue wave" because 2020 is just around the corner.
The strategy is not changing minds, it is encouraging turnout.
I mean, clearly we're not the audience for these goofy protests. I assume that the organizers of all this have some sort of evidence to suggest that these antics are effective at encouraging voter turnout. There's some weird demographic that responds positively too yahoos disrupting and yelling brainless slogans. There's someone thinking "Look at that passion! I gotta remember to vote in November!". Rousing the rabble has never had anything to do with making well reasoned arguments. It's about appealing to emotions. The Dems know their loony base I guess.
The left has changed to a scorched earth strategy.
After they lose the midterms they will say democracy has failed to deliver justice.
They will point to the garbage polls they use claiming they have a majority.
They will point to overall vote totals that include half of Mexico voting in California.
They will go straight to the foundations of the republic they obviously hate so much.
The true goal of the Russian witch hunt is to undermine faith in our elections that they know they can’t win legally.
In the end we should thank Obama for being more honest about what the left is than other Democrats were.
“Kamala Harris is still the dumbest lawyer I ever dealt with in court.” - Attorney Robert Barnes
This is what happened to the Soviet Union. Nobody believed in anything anymore. Nobody was willing to work, the whole thing collapsed. The only major group in the market with a system that takes human nature into account and which seems survivable long term is Islam, that I can see.
wildswan, I enjoyed reading your comments about the Salem witch trials.
Because of the current RussiaGate hoax, I recently read a couple of books about those trials.
Andrew at 8:44 I'm trying to figure out that paragraph with the bolded quote. It seems to be saying that it's better to be "well behaved" and forgotten by history, because the women who get historical attention aren't usually virtuous
"Well behaved" in Cotton Mather's time probably carries a different and much more religious connotation than we would think today.
He called them the Hidden Ones. And I think this applies to both women and men. Hidden Ones, those who don't "make waves". Play by the rules. Follow the social conventions. Who just put their heads down and plow on. This does not mean that they were or are powerless or ineffective. They just didn't become individually famous or infamous, as the case may be.
One common saying is that behind every powerful successful man, there is a woman. A woman who also is powerful in her own way.
Much of the American public consists of the Hidden Ones. Who behave well and don't get the historical accolades yet keep the country going. Put their heads down and plow on. Today we call them The Deplorables. May not be individually famous or powerful, but together....they are.
The true goal of the Russian witch hunt is to undermine faith in our elections that they know they can’t win legally.
I am starting to wonder if it is cover for the takeover of the Democrats by China.
It began with Bill Clinton and Loral. It all went down the memory hole .
With all this talk of Russians allegedly interfering in U.S. elections, it is worth recalling that it wasn’t too long ago that the previous Democrat in the White House betrayed America by working hand in hand with our Communist enemies in mainland China.
As president, Bill Clinton essentially wiped out any strategic advantage the U.S. had by selling advanced U.S. missile technology to our enemy, the People’s Republic of China.
That “administration’s voluntary release of all the secrets of America’s nuclear tests, combined with the systematic theft of the secrets that were left as a result of its lax security controls, effectively wiped out America’s technological edge,” David Horowitz writes in the recently published, The Black Book of the American Left Volume 7: The Left in Power: Clinton to Obama.
Horowitz keeps looking wiser and wiser as the years go by.
The Democrats expect to flip the House, or at least see a realistic opportunity to do so, and their theatrics are intended, I believe, to agitate and/or frighten Democrat and Democrat-leaning voters.
Yeah. This is true. I can’t imagine being loyal to a political party that would find it in their best interest to get me so upset that I would turn on my friends and family, and have trouble sleeping, spending waking hours in worry and despair, but there you have it. Today’s Democrats.
You’re wasting your time Michael K. Once the Democrats memory hole something, their adherents are forbidden to even think about it on pain of shunning by their friends. As far as they are concerned the whole Clinton scandal boils down to a consensual blowjob and some lying right-wing whores.
The strategy is not changing minds, it is encouraging turnout.
IMO, it serves to encourage turnout from the Right. It certainly encourages me to go out and vote against these nitwits.
Ms. Althouse wrote:
"A show of civility. That's all it was. Nice to have the truth smack us in the face so abruptly, lest we get starry eyed. I wonder if the Senate Democrats debated about whether jettisoning civility so soon after conspicuously bullshitting about it would be too egregiously hypocritical. Whatever. If they did, they decided it was worth the risk."
I don't think they made any calculation at all in the matter, and thus had no internal debate about it either. Indeed, if you go back and reread that section of the NYTimes report, you can basically tell that Stolberg and Liptak didn't see the McCain funeral activities as a facade- they saw it as the real thing. In other words, they weren't using the word "show" in the way Ms. Althouse did in her reply to it.
More information on the domination by China.
A recent New Republic article describing self-censorship by America's elite universities on China illustrates the difficulty.
This epidemic stems less from the hundreds of millions of dollars Chinese individuals and the Chinese Communist Party spend in U.S. universities, or the influx of students from mainland China—roughly 350,000 in the United States, up more than fivefold from a decade ago. Rather, it is that some people in American academia, too eager to please Beijing or too fearful of offending China and the Chinese people, have submitted to a sophisticated global censorship regime.
Would you trust a library whose narrative is managed in China or will you try something else?
McCain would have defended the lefty protestors and perhaps even praise them for their passion and commitment to their cause.
Further, McCain would have made note that he, McCain, had fought for and suffered to protect that precious right of the freedom to protest.
McCain would have maintained this public position up to the moment when a single conservative somewhere, for some reason, stood up in protest against the left.
At that point, McCain would have immediately reversed course and lamented the loss of public civility while calling conservatives and the republican base voters every insult in the book all the while directing his staff to work with democrat administrative agencies to target and abuse those conservatives with the power of the federal govt.
How do we know McCain would do that?
Because that is exactly something McCain actually did do. Repeatedly.
All the while being cheered on by the dem allied LLR's.
Blogger tim in vermont said...
You’re wasting your time Michael K. Once the Democrats memory hole something, their adherents are forbidden to even think about it on pain of shunning by their friends.
I think of myself as an Irish monk scratching away with my quill pen in a monastery far away lit by candles.
Just as in the French Revolution, the hysteria grows, the fanaticism blossoms and the leadership reflects it, becoming more and more unhinged and ruthless.
In a later update to the article, you can expect the NYTimes to state that the proportion of material turned over was 445,000/663,000ths just to obscure the ratio itself.
Michael K muses: I think of myself as an Irish monk scratching away with my quill pen in a monastery far away lit by candles.
Fortunately for you, there's plenty of sunlight in Tucson. ;-)
I think the French Revolution is a fair comparison. It is worthwhile to read about it and how it went so badly wrong and gave us the world we live in.
I have made a study of it. We are not yet at the Terror stage.
Amen! Amen! Amen!
So, Kamala and Corey and Amy want to run for president, and this is how they think they can improve their chances. So run with that idea for a minute, and imagine their screechy ranting (racist! sexist! evil!) going national. How do you sell that to the non-screechies that inhabit, say, Wisconsin or Iowa? The Dems won with Obama when he presented himself as mister above-the-fray cool dude, the no-drama-Obama guy who wasn't looking to scare anyone -- and wasn't going to go national with an openly uber-lefty agenda. No way -- he played at being all so moderate and middling because he knew the audience he needed to reach, and had no issue jettisoning all that God-Damn-America and Weatherman-friendly stuff in which he was previously immersed.
If Kamala and Corey and Amy want to have any chance at going national, they would do well to pay attention to what worked in 2008 and 2012. Hint -- you're all doing the opposite now. Their problem is that what will work nationally won't work with the 'progressives' (weird term for that crowd, don't you think?) who seem in control of Dem-land.
If you hav watched Kamala in action at all, you know she is no Obama.
She is Hillary without the charm.
I rather think the closest thing to "revolution" going on is actually most related to the MAGA meme...a significant net positive if it continues. Eg, the current Kavanaugh circus is just that - but he is going to get confirmed over the dead-faintbodies of frustrated Libs.
The apparent Dem shifting to the extreme Left is not revolution, it is Degradation. Carry on! I say to them.
I don't think it's too much to ask that the Senators on the Committee not conspire with activists to intentionally disrupt the proceedings or to continually interrupt for no good reason. Call it civility. Call it manners. Call it whatever you like, but there's no heckler's veto. That's NOT free speech, but it is the Democrats' strategy here because they don't want the American people to hear what's going on. They can't win on Kavanaugh's record, which is why they lie about and distort it. They can't even win on votes - the Senate will confirm Kavanaugh without them. The GOP obviously has an interest in handing the Democrats more shovels while they're digging themselves into a hole. These Democrats embarrass themselves. What a disgrace!
Dr Mike said: I have made a study of it. We are not yet at the Terror stage.
Yet. As the song says: This may not be the end of the World, but you can sure see it from here.
>>She is Hillary without the charm.
Hillary - zero = Hillary.
Althouse said, "And that's not because I like rudeness. It's because I like fairness."
Thank you for that. I've been trying to articulate why I tolerate Trump, and I think this is it. He plays the game the same way the Progressives do.
She is Hillary without the charm.
If’s funny, to me at least, that she seems to be named after a character in Siddhartha who made her living as a prostitute to wealthy and powerful men.
I had read rumors that the Democrats had held an internal debate about walking out of the hearings as soon as they started yesterday.
Democrats know he is qualified and, ultimately, it’s not even his partisanship they fear. They fear the Constitution and the rule of law.
Michael K: “Will this insanity theater really work in the 80% of the population that is not crazy ? I sure hope not.”
You’re the doctor, but I think your diagnosis is off here - by about 15-20%.
You’re the doctor, but I think your diagnosis is off here - by about 15-20%.
Which way ? I can't believe that 40% of the country is crazy. There are lots of Democrats, some in my family, who are trying not to pay attention.
“Wonderful bipartisanship” = losing gracefully while denouncing your own side for ever having doubted the Democrats’ natural right to rule.
Bruce Hayden said...
“The Senate, in particular, is historically famous for this, and it’s heightened civility was one of the places where they contrasted with the much mour raucous House. For example, my memory was that the Senate had rules against personal attacks there, and they are probably still in effect."
Yep. If you remember the incident that led to "Nevertheless She Persisted" bumper stickers, it was all about that rule.
During Jeff Sessions's confirmation battle, Democrats kept violating the rules against defaming a fellow Senator on the floor of the Senate. McConnell kept scolding them for it, and Warren went on breaking the rules through warning after warning, forcing McConnell to finally cut her off.
HoodlumDoodlum said...
"The serial disruption technique really is shitty and harmful to actual functioning of government. The people who coordinated the serial interruptions were all invited guests...of Democrat politicians."
Is that true? I'd assumed there was a portion of the audience that were "general admission" in a way. If the disrupters were invited, I'd really like to see the Senators who invited them named and shamed for it.
Same with the conspiracy to disrupt the hearings.
Guillotine! Guillotine! Guillotine!
Small wonder the lefties have erased history from curriculums.
These hearings are typical of San Francisco.
If the disrupters were invited, I'd really like to see the Senators who invited them named and shamed for it.
I think those are the ones invited to the State of the Union speech.
No shame.
Hombre asserts: Democrats know he is qualified and, ultimately, it’s not even his partisanship they fear. They fear the Constitution and the rule of law.
But what they fear most is Trump winning!
Kavanaugh gave documents more easily than the FBI.
they never asked to be remembered on earth. And they haven’t been
Whether it is men or women, this assertion is a bald-faced lie. There is a way to secure your legacy. #HateLovesAbortion
Yes, the Democratic Senators on the Judiciary Committee are being aggressive in pursuing their position. But they are doing so while maintaining civility.
Dumbest thing I'll read all day.
Appreciated.
Are these the same Democrat senators who didn't think it was necessary to read the Obamacare bill before dramatical altering 1/6 of the American economy?
Agree, as usual, with President Mom Jeans @9:25 Long for the days of hardhats and cops smashing the fucking skulls of antiAmerican protestors. Way beyond time to put on the knucks and take back America.
"Today we see one consequence as FINALLY (!) we have 12 Appropriations bills moving through Congress instead of another obscene "Continuing Resolution" filled with lots of little gimmicks"
Waiting for LLRs to tell us Trump had nothing to do with it. Cuz he is a liar and he is rude and -- well, something.
Of course, I am not vouching for the absence of gimmicks in proper appropriations bills.
But any actual LLR would appreciate the advancement of actual Republican policies under Trump.
There was NOTHING about McCain that was civil. And you put your pic of Capt. Queeg in the wrong post.
I buy the civility bullshit tag.
But there are some proceedings that should be civilized: church, weddings, funerals, nicely structured debates.
That leftwing Democrat idiots protest and disrupt their perceived opponents from speaking is becoming the new normal.
That's how they role.
Susan Collins has had several strokes, right? That's why she talks that way, right?
Althouse wrote: “And, by the way, you yourself are a big asshole and you're proud of it, so your desire for women to stand down is bullshit. It's such obvious bullshit that no one is fooled, so I'll give you that.”
“Asshole” is an important pejorative word for men and women to use against either in verbal argument. It lacks the gendered nuance and insult that other words like dick, pussy, cunt, etc. “Asshole” is pretty non-sexist. Aside from the filth connotations, it’s no worse than calling each other “belly button” Maybe that’s why it’s so seldom used between men and women — at least to my ear.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন