No PAC Money: Republicans Cutting Loose Vulnerable GOP Congressional Candidates

This was at NYT yesterday, "Republicans Abandon Vulnerable Lawmakers, Striving to Keep House."

And then this today at LAT, discussing my district and Huntington Beach, "Top GOP funding group snubs incumbents Rohrabacher and Walters 3 weeks before midterm election":

A top GOP funding group snubbed two Orange County incumbents three weeks before the midterm election https://t.co/dV2UkbXiuk

— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) October 13, 2018

In a worrisome sign for two endangered Orange County lawmakers, a major Republican Party funding group has passed over the pair in its opening round of broadcast television advertising across Southern California.

The omission of Reps. Dana Rohrabacher and Mimi Walters by the Congressional Leadership Fund, a political action committee closely aligned with House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), comes at a crucial inflection point in the midterm election when the two parties begin assessing their likely winners and losers.

The decisions are particularly acute for the GOP, which is facing a tsunami of Democratic campaign cash ahead of a feared blue wave on Nov. 6.

“Republicans are taking a cold-blooded look at races to decide where to put resources and where to withdraw resources to put somewhere else,” said Stuart Rothenberg, a nonpartisan election analyst who has spent decades sizing up campaigns.

The GOP has already cut loose several incumbents, including Reps. Mike Coffman in the Denver suburbs and Mike Bishop in southern Michigan.

Democrats need a gain of 23 seats nationwide to take control of the House, which they surrendered after a blowout loss in the 2010 midterm election.

Candidates in California, where more than half a dozen seats are being seriously contested, are at particular risk of being cut off financially because of the state’s exorbitant advertising costs. Money saved in the costly Los Angeles media market can be spread over several contests in other states that may be considered more winnable.

The Congressional Leadership Fund, which collects multi-million-dollar checks from the Republican Party’s biggest donors, says it is spending nearly $12 million on cable television ads in four House contests in Southern California

On Friday, the super PAC launched an additional $5-million ad campaign on the main broadcast stations in Los Angeles, the nation’s second most expensive media market after New York.

But the fund’s opening broadcast ads support only two of the four Republican candidates in the Southland’s hardest-fought races: Rep. Steve Knight of Palmdale and Young Kim of Fullerton, relegating its Rohrabacher and Walters ads tocable channels with fewer viewers.

Courtney Alexander, the super PAC’s communications director, declined to comment on its advertising maneuvers.

“If the election were held today, we believe that both Mimi Walters and Dana Rohrabacher would win their reelection,” she said.

The fund is free to add Walters and Rohrabacher to its broadcast lineup later. But millions of Californians have already received their ballots by mail, so immediate advertising is crucial to the fate of the two lawmakers, who are each facing their most serious challenges ever.

Rohrabacher has served 15 terms in Congress and Walters is bidding to win her third term.

Their Democratic challengers are already spending heavily on broadcast television ads. Walters has aired some broadcast commercials too, but Rohrabacher has not.

Nationwide, Democratic candidates have raised far more money than Republicans. As a result, GOP candidates are counting on outside groups like the Congressional Leadership Fund to come to the rescue.

But those groups must pay as much as quadruple the rates that television stations are required by law to offer to candidates, so the Democratic dollars are buying far more ad time. And those dollars are expanding the political battlefield, pressuring Republican strategists to make hard decisions on where to commit precious resources and which candidates to let go.

“While most people talk constantly about whether [Democratic enthusiasm] will translate into turnout, it’s definitely translating into dollars,” said Rob Stutzman, a veteran Republican strategist in Sacramento. “Dollars aren’t decisive always, but it’s always a big advantage.

“When you’re these national committees and you’ve got problems in the suburbs of Dallas, Kansas City, Chicago, Philadelphia, you’ve got to start making decisions on where you can most effectively spend,” Stutzman said...

Still more.

Pregnant Kate Upton

Maybe Ms. Kate will be at the ALCS game today in Boston.

But see Drunken Stepfather in the meantime, "KATE UPTON PREGNANT NIPPLES OF THE DAY.

Rita Ora in Clash Magazine

Fantastic!

See, "Rita Ora Is The Fourth Face of Issue 109."

FLASHBACK: "Rita Ora for 'Lui' Magazine."

Chrissy Teigen Big Fat of the Day

At Drunken Stepfather, "Chrissy Teigen Big Fat Hard Nippled Tits of the Day."

Emily DiDonato in White Pant Suit

At Taxi Driver, "Emily DiDonato Areola Peek in White Pant Suit."

There's No Such Thing as a Moderate Democrat in 2018

From Mollie Hemingway, at the Federalist, "Tennessee Senate Race Shows There's No Such Thing as a Moderate Democrat in 2018":

In 2018, There Is No Such Thing As A Moderate Democrat - The Federalist https://t.co/STEYIgNPPS

— The Federalist (@FDRLST) October 12, 2018

While the national media encourage the radicalization of the Democratic Party and highlight how that radicalization excites its base in liberal states, the result is the crushing of moderate Democratic pols.

Donald Trump was elected president despite low popularity ratings in 2016. While both Hillary Clinton and Trump were viewed unfavorably by a majority of Americans polled, Trump set the record, with 61 percent viewing him in a negative light, according to Gallup.

For millions of Americans, disliking Trump was not a barrier to voting for him. In some cases people voted for him enthusiastically despite not particularly liking him.

Tennessee has a smaller version of the opposite issue. Volunteer State voters like the Democratic candidate Phil Bredesen. A popular former governor and mayor of Nashville, his entrance into the race made the open seat competitive despite the state’s Republican leanings. Cook Political report rates it as a toss-up. The Real Clear Politics average has Republican candidate Marsha Blackburn up by less than three points.

Bredesen is certainly a standard Democrat in his politics, but he’s downplaying that fact and is willing to buck his party. He opposed the manner in which Obamacare was implemented and occasionally criticizes his party for its extremism.His approach is persuasive to some, including the Washington Post opinion journalist Radley Balko.

He notes that Blackburn’s approach is more politically savvy. But it’s worth thinking about why. As the recent Kavanaugh debacle showed, at best the Senate has a grand total of one Democrat who can be labeled moderate: Joe Manchin. Even Democratic senators from all the other states that desired a Kavanaugh confirmation voted against him.

More important than the ultimate vote, though, were the Democratic leaders responsible for the debacle. Senate Judiciary Committee’s top Democrat Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) stage-managed the accusations against Kavanaugh for maximum political effect. After hearings were reopened, she read the outlandish Michael Avenatti gang rape cartel allegations into the record. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-New York) kept Democratic votes in line and told them to disregard the principle of presumed innocence.

Looked at this way, Blackburn’s focus isn’t just a cynical ploy but an understanding of how the current Senate’s party control has a far greater effect on the average voter than any individual senator does. Blackburn likely emphasized it because it’s a message that resonates with voters more than the one where a politician claims he or she will be one way when they frequently abandon their commitments when in Washington.

How many times have politicians claimed they wouldn’t vote for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) or Schumer only to do just that or otherwise fail to put other Democrats in power? Bredesen claimed he wouldn’t vote for Schumer for leader, but voters likely understand that his no vote would have no effect on Schumer’s success. It is perhaps worth noting that new undercover video from James O’Keefe casts Bredesen’s moderation pledges in a questionable new light.

A new National Republican Senatorial Committee ad dealing with the race understands this issue well...

There's still more, including all the linked tweets and embedded videos at the piece.

Asian-Americans and the Secrets of Getting Into Harvard

This is really interesting.

At WSJ, "The Secrets of Getting Into Harvard Were Once Closely Guarded. That’s About to Change" (and see this alternative link):

Harvard's secretive admissions practices are going on trial on Boston https://t.co/askp9RnnrR

— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) October 11, 2018

This year, 42,749 students applied to Harvard College, and only 1,962 were admitted. How Harvard decides who makes the cut has long been a mystery.

That’s about to change. A trial beginning Monday in Boston federal court will examine how the elite institution uses race to shape its student body. It will force Harvard to spill details about its admissions practices.

The case has transfixed the world of higher education—both for the peek it provides into a process cloaked in secrecy, and the prospect that the court decision will upend the admissions practices of other colleges as well.

A lawsuit accuses Harvard University of illegally discriminating against Asian-American applicants by holding them to a higher standard than students of other races. Harvard denies the accusation, saying race is just one of a complex matrix of factors it considers before handing out its coveted acceptances.

Harvard uses what it calls a holistic approach to admissions, considering not only an applicant’s academic record and test scores but also activities, formative experiences and personal attributes. The model is widely used by other top colleges.

Elite colleges, 60% of which consider race in admissions, say the trial’s outcome could threaten their autonomy to craft undergraduate classes. If forced to exclude race from admissions considerations, many schools say, their student demographics would change significantly.

For years, Harvard has fought against the public release of documents showing the inner workings of its admissions office. Court filings in advance of the trial offer tantalizing details about how Harvard rates prospective students and how it considers race. The trial is expected to shed light on the magnitude of admission preferences for athletes, children of alumni and applicants with connections to major donors.

Among the more controversial aspects of the admissions process: Each applicant receives a “personal rating” reflecting, in part, an analysis of personality traits such as humor, courage and kindness.

The plaintiffs claim that Harvard’s own data show Asian-Americans received the highest academic and extracurricular ratings of any racial group, but the lowest personal ratings. In court filings, Harvard has attributed lower Asian-American personal scores to “unobservable factors” that come through in teacher recommendations, applicants’ essays and interviews, which are also factored into the rating.

The lawsuit seeks to ban Harvard from considering race in future admissions decisions. It was brought by a nonprofit group, led by a conservative legal strategist, whose members include Asian-Americans rejected by Harvard.

Over the past 40 years, the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that universities can consider an applicant’s race to promote the educational benefits that flow from diverse campuses, including better preparing students for the workforce.

The presidents of Yale University, Stanford University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, among others, have filed a brief in support of Harvard, arguing that prohibiting colleges from weighing race in admissions would represent an “extraordinary infringement on universities’ academic freedom.”

The Justice Department has weighed in on the other side, filing a “statement of interest” supporting the plaintiffs. It launched its own civil-rights investigation last year into whether Harvard discriminates against Asian-American applicants. The Education and Justice Departments also recently opened a similar investigation into Yale.

A senior Justice Department official said the investigations are a priority for its Civil Rights Division. Harvard’s lawyers have called the government’s actions a “thinly veiled attack” on Supreme Court precedent and “so outside ordinary practices.”

California banned its public universities from considering race in admissions two decades ago. Since then, University of California, Berkeley has grown by roughly 8,800 undergraduates but has about 275 fewer black students. At the private California Institute of Technology, which says academics are the most important admissions criterion, 43% of the undergraduate population last year was Asian-American.

Harvard said in a court filing that eliminating affirmative action would give the biggest boost to white students, increasing their share in a recent admitted class to 48%, from 40%. The share of Asian-Americans would rise to 27%, from 24%, while African-Americans would drop to 6%, from 14%, and Hispanics to 9%, from 14%.

The lawsuit was brought in 2014 by Students for Fair Admissions, a nonprofit run by Edward Blum. Mr. Blum has funded other challenges to affirmative action, including a Supreme Court case involving Abigail Fisher, a white applicant rejected from the University of Texas...

Wow, this is major.

RTWT.

I'm voting with the plaintiffs. Discrimination is wrong. The Asian students are being punished for being successful. Next to blacks and Native Americans, Asian-Americans have faced some of the worst racial discrimination in American history. It's reprehensible that they're being made to pay for the radical left's policies of diversity and "affirmative action," which benefit those who're less well prepared for the rigors of elite higher educaion.

Poor, Rural Communities Stuck in Hurricane Michael

This is really interesting.

At the New York Times, "‘I Got Stuck’: In Poor, Rural Communities, Fleeing Hurricane Michael Was Tough":

The town's called Panacea, but when Hurricane Michael hit, the name seemed overly optimistic. Gene Bearden, who's been trying to leave for 4 years, doesn't have much left now. https://t.co/gaNMx0f52O

— NYT National News (@NYTNational) October 11, 2018

PANACEA, Fla. — The orders came down to mobile home residents as the menace of Hurricane Michael approached in the Gulf of Mexico: Get out. Get out now.

The evacuation mandate reached Gene Bearden, 76, in this blink-and-you-miss-it town with an aspirational name south of Tallahassee and in an area where a storm surge of up to 13 feet had been forecast.

Mr. Bearden wanted to leave. He had been wanting to leave Panacea, in fact, for four years, but had not mustered the financial wherewithal to do it, and the arrival of a Category 4 hurricane did nothing to change that.

Versions of his story played out across the eastern edge of the Florida Panhandle, home to modest coastal communities where people already hard on their luck had little means to escape the storm’s wrath.

Mr. Bearden had not planned to stay in Panacea when he visited his aunt in 2014. But when he tried to renew his driver’s license, he ran into a problem with his birth certificate, which he couldn’t fix unless he went to Atlanta — he was born in Georgia. He couldn’t make it there. So he stayed, without a license, in an RV park here.

“I got stuck,” he said.

With the storm looming this week, sheriff’s deputies showed up on Wednesday to get residents out. Mr. Bearden explained why he could not just drive away. A kind deputy found a solution, Mr. Bearden said: He wrote him a letter authorizing him to drive, with no license and no current vehicle registration, to a place far enough north to be safe. Mr. Bearden packed up a white pickup and drove — but only to the next town, Medart, where he rode out the storm inside his parked truck.

“It wasn’t fun,” he said on Thursday, back at the RV camp, now almost entirely empty. “Everybody left. They had to.”

More at that top link.

'Jeremy'

From Tuesday morning's drive-time, at 93.1 Jack FM Los Angeles, Pearl Jam's, "Jeremy."

(A lyrics video is here.)

Lyin' Eyes
Eagles
6:53am

Rebel Yell
Billy Idol
6:48am

Semi-Charmed Life
Third Eye Blind
6:44am

Welcome To The Jungle
Guns N' Roses
6:39am

Our House
Madness
6:36am

In The Air Tonight
Phil Collins
6:23am

Feel It Still
Portugal. The Man
6:20am

Back In Black
AC/DC
6:16am

Our Lips Are Sealed
The Go-Go's
6:13am

Jeremy
Pearl Jam
6:08am

Democrats Continue Their Campaign of Chaos (VIDEO)

It's Ms. Laura Ingraham:

Today's Deal

Thanks for your support everybody! It means a lot.

At Amazon, Today's Deals. New deals. Every day. Shop our Deal of the Day, Lightning Deals and more daily deals and limited-time sales.

And, Smith & Wesson SWA24S 7.1in Stainless Steel Folding Knife with 3.1in Clip Point Serrated Blade and Aluminum Handle for Outdoor Tactical Survival and Everyday Carry.

More, CLIF BAR - Energy Bar - Blueberry Crisp - (2.4 Ounce Protein Bar, 12 Count).

Plus, Pendleton Men's Long Sleeve Board Shirt.

Also, Carhartt Men's Quilted Flannel Lined Sandstone Active Jacket J130.

Still more, Mountain House Just in Case Essential Bucket.

And here, Honeywell HHF360V 360 Degree Surround Fan Forced Heater with Surround Heat Output, Charcoal Grey.

And, Samsung 75NU7100 75" NU7100 Smart 4K UHD TV 2018 with Wall Mount + Cleaning Kit (UN75NU7100).

BONUS: John Sides, Michael Tesler, and Lynn Vavreck, Identity Crisis: The 2016 Presidential Campaign and the Battle for the Meaning of America.

Could Election Day Disaster Strike the Democrats Again?

Well, I sure hope so, lol.

At McClatchy, "Nervous Democrats ask: Could Election Day disaster strike again?":

Nervous Democrats ask: Could Election Day disaster strike again? My story on the gnawing concern some party operatives feel that recent history might repeat itself in November https://t.co/Vci8tRaTzA

— Alex Roarty (@Alex_Roarty) October 10, 2018

It was this week two years ago that Hillary Clinton’s victory looked assured, when the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape of Donald Trump bragging about sexual assault appeared all but certain to end his campaign.

Jesse Ferguson remembers it well. The deputy press secretary for Clinton’s campaign also remembers what happened a month later.

It’s why this veteran Democratic operative can’t shake the feeling that, as promising as the next election looks for his party, it might still all turn out wrong.

“Election Day will either prove to me I have PTSD or show I’ve been living déjà vu,” Ferguson said. “I just don’t know which yet.”

Ferguson is one of many Democrats who felt the string of unexpected defeat in 2016 and are now closely — and nervously — watching the current election near its end, wondering if history will repeat itself. This year, instead of trying to win the presidency, Democrats have placed an onus on trying to gain 23 House seats and win a majority.

The anxiety isn’t universal, with many party leaders professing confidently and repeatedly that this year really is different.

But even some of them acknowledge the similarities between the current and previous election: Trump is unpopular and beset by scandal, Democrats hold leads in the polls, and some Republicans are openly pessimistic.

FiveThirtyEight gives Democrats a 76.9 percent chance of winning the House one month before Election Day. Their odds for Clinton’s victory two years ago? 71.4 percent.

The abundance of optimism brings back queasy memories for Jesse Lehrich, who worked on the Clinton campaign and remembers watching the returns come in from the Javits Center in New York.

“I was getting texts after the result was clear – including even from some political reporters and operatives – texting me, you know, ‘Are you guys starting to get nervous?’ or ‘What’s her most likely path?’” he said. “I was like, ‘What do you mean, starting to get nervous? What path? They just called Wisconsin. We lost.’”

“People were so slow to process that reality because they just hadn’t considered the possibility that Donald Trump was going to be the next president,” he continued.

Lehrich said he sees similarities between 2016 and 2018. But he said he thought Democrats were cognizant of the parallels and determined not to let up a month before the election, as many voters might have two years ago.

Other Democratic leaders aren’t so sure. Asked if he thought his party was overconfident, Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton responded flatly, “Yes.”

Democrats could win a lot of House seats, he said, or could still fall short of capturing a majority.

“The point is that we’ve got to realize that this not just some unstoppable blue wave but rather a lot of tough races that will be hard-fought victories,” Moulton said.

If Democrats are universally nervous about anything after 2016, it’s polling. The polls weren’t actually as favorable to Clinton and the Democrats as some remember, something 538’s Nate Silver and some other journalists pointed out at the time.

But Clinton’s decision not to campaign in a state she’d lose, Wisconsin, and the failure of pollsters everywhere to miss a wave of Trump supporters in red areas are mistakes Democrats are still grappling with today.

“Clearly last cycle, polling was off,” Ben Ray Lujan, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told reporters last month. “There were a lot of predictions that were made last cycle that didn’t come to fruition.”

Lujan emphasized in particular how pollsters missed the rural vote, calling it a “devastating mistake.” He said the DCCC has taken deliberate steps since 2016 to get it right this time around, but underscored a congressional majority still required a tooth-and-nail fight.

“So I’m confident with the team that’s been assembled, but I’m definitely cognizant of the fact we need to understand these models and understand the data for what it is,” he said...

Democrats are down dramatically on the "generic ballot" for the midterms (compared to weeks ago), but I'm not relying on polls. I'm simply going to wait until election night. I'll be thrilled to be pleasantly surprised if Republicans keep majority control, especially in the House.

But I'm not banking on anything and not getting emotional. Things are frankly unpredictable in American politics these days.

More.

Julia Majewska Photos

At Drunken Stepfather, "JULIA MAJEWSKA EROTIC NUDE PHOTOSHOOT OF THE DAY."

Alexis Ren Has Some Tough Preparation (VIDEO)

I didn't know, but Ms. Alexis has been on "Dancing With the Stars." She's something else.

See also, "Who is Alexis on Dancing with the Stars? Model brought DWTS viewers to tears with emotional dance."

And at Sports Illustrated Swimsuit:

Scott Greer, No Campus for White Men

Robert Stacy McCain posts on Professor Christine Fair, of Georgetown University.

See, "Anti-Male Georgetown Professor Uses Tumblr Blog to ‘Dox’ Her Critics."

And linked at the post is Scott Greer's appropriate book, No Campus for White Men.

Hillary Clinton Incites Violence Against Republicans (VIDEO)

I just wish this woman would go away and retire from public life. And I mean permanent retirement. Not even those twilight years interviews with Barbara Walters (or whoever's taken Ms. Barbara's place; Elizabeth Vargas? Who knows?)

In any case, she's detestable. I dislike her more every time she opens her yap.

At Twitchy, "‘AntiFa Gam Gam’? Nothing to see here, just Hillary Clinton inciting violence against Republicans [video]."

And watch:

Eugenia Cheng, The Art of Logic in an Illogical World

I started reading this, and it's good.

At Amazon, Eugenia Cheng, The Art of Logic in an Illogical World.

My Mom's Going to Be Okay

Here's some photos from the trip to Santa Rosa to visit my mom.

She's in pain from her broken sternum and she can't move around by herself. On Sunday, she was taken by ambulance over to an assisted nursery rehab facility, for about a week of physical therapy. After that, she should be back home in Yucca Valley. I'm praying for her. She was so happy that I made the trip up there to visit her.

And thanks for the support of my blog readers. I wish I could've posted updates while I was up there, but it wasn't convenient and I wanted to just enjoy being with my mom.

The top photo below is the view from the front drive at the hospital. The second photo down is the view of the nearby foothills from the fourth floor looking south. (It's really beautiful up there; I had no idea.) The third photo shows the roof of the emergency room trauma center helicopter landing pad, which is really cool. (I didn't see any copters land, but it's a wicked setup.) And at bottom is a selfie of yours truly. I don't post these to Twitter. I save them for the blog here, lol.

Thanks again for your support. It's much appreciated.

Happy Columbus Day

Here's the hilarious Steven Crowder, for Prager University:

It's Time to End Identity Politics

At the National Interest, "It Is Time to Debate — and End — Identity Politics":

It Is Time to Debate—and End—Identity Politics https://t.co/7cHwsBqMwr

— Mike Gonzalez (@Gundisalvus) October 8, 2018

America’s partition into mutually antagonistic identity groups has reached every nook and cranny of society, from sports to education , the corporate world and politics . It has never been openly debated or voted on by the American people, however.

Identity politics sparks emotional reactions both among its supporters and its detractors because it deals with the larger issues of our day. It is about what convinces people to band together in society and to agree to a common project.

Academics on both sides have spoken past each other, but Americans have never had a political debate on it. For that to happen, politicians on opposing sides would have to debate each other with specifics.

Yes, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton presented broad opposing views on identity politics in 2016—she for it, he against it—but there was no discussion of what it is, how it came about, whether it is a good or bad thing and, if the latter, how to end it.

It’s time to correct this oversight and have that political debate now. Identity politics is a new animal. It is very different from Martin Van Buren knowing how to secure the Dutch vote in the Hudson Valley, or Boss Tweed getting the Irish to vote Democrat.

It instead looks at America through a post–modernist lens of power struggles among groups based on race, ethnicity or sex, but where the individual loses agency. It resegregates America into subnational “protected” groupings whose members receive benefits simply as a consequence of group membership and in whose name self-appointed leaders demand unequal treatment. How this backdoor return to Plessy era distinctions has gone without argument is a major victory of the left that often goes unrecognized.

This is a view of America that diametrically opposes the “We Are All Created Equal” position. The two may be irreconcilable. It may very well be that, just as the country was not large enough in 1860 to encompass the master blueprints of slavery and abolition, America today cannot house these two opposing blueprints. One or the other must win in the (peaceful) marketplace of ideas.

John Locke and those he influenced —which includes the Founding Fathers of America and, two-and-a-half centuries later, the enemies of identity politics—are convinced to leave the state of nature and create a society by their mutual need to secure natural rights. One of the most basic of those rights is that we’re all “born free and equal,” in the words of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights.

Around these principles there emerged in the United States a creed and a culture which formed “One People.” Immigrants were expected to assimilate into such an overall national culture (which had geographic pockets to be sure), accept the creed and adapt to civic life.

To the supporters of identity politics, what causes Americans today to band into subnational clans is the need to tear down “structural racism” and the hegemony of white, male, able-bodied heterosexuals. And to advocates of identity politics, it was Lockean thought and the Founding Fathers’ creed and culture that produced white dominion.

As Courtney Jung, one of the leading thinkers of identity politics, once said, “One’s ability to get oneself heard in a democratic system crucially depends on whether one can claim membership in a group with a preexisting political weight, or forge a group identity with new political weight. In contemporary politics, race, gender and ethnicity have developed such a weight.”

Moreover, according to Stanford’s Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s entry on equality, “There is a danger of (strict) equality leading to uniformity, rather than to a respect for pluralism and democracy. In the contemporary debate, this complaint has been mainly articulated in feminist and multiculturalist theory.” Citing various studies, the entry says, “‘Equality’ can often mean the assimilation to a pre-existing and problematic ‘male’ or ‘white’ or ‘middle class’ norm. In short, domination and a fortiori inequality often arises [sic] out of an inability to appreciate and nurture differences—not out of a failure to see everyone as the same.”

Some Americans believe that the current division of their country into ethnic, racial and sexual groups (Hispanics, Asians, gender) responds to a grassroots desire to seek dignity and that such a dispensation was arrived at after transparent and political debate.

They would be very wrong on both counts...

Still more.

Michelle Malkin Shreds Christine Blasey Ford (VIDEO)

I'm really shaken by the events of the last few weeks, to the point of disgust. Extreme disgust.

The only silver lining is, of course, Kavanaugh's ultimate confirmation. I'm so pleased. The winning is so much sweet schadenfreude.

In any case, this video's great, from the ineffable Michelle Malkin:

Brett Kavanaugh Will Bring Change to the Supreme Court

Here's Glenn Reynolds, at USA Today, in an excellent piece based on reason not emotion, thank goodness.

MY USA TODAY COLUMN: Brett Kavanaugh will bring change to the Supreme Court, but maybe not what you think https://t.co/Uyur75HASF via @usatoday

— Instapundit.com (@instapundit) October 8, 2018

Mitch McConnell: I Never Thought of Quitting (VIDEO)

I've gained a lot of respect for Mitch McConnell. I wish I was as unflappable, but I'm not. At all. I get too emotional, or "passionate," as some might say.

But McConnell just stays the course, makes minimalist statements, and stays classy.

At Fox News:

Crux of a Cold Civil War

This piece needed some good editing (there's terrible punctuation, for example), but it otherwise expresses exceptionally well the nature of the "cold" civil war we're in.

At American Greatness, "Kavanaugh and the Crux of a Cold Civil War":

Kavanaugh and the Crux of a Cold Civil War https://t.co/9eyII4P8YF pic.twitter.com/7rhgtA8F8l

— American Greatness (@theamgreatness) October 7, 2018

We are in the midst of a cold civil war. The crux? Realizing politics is part of life, one side believes America is fundamentally a good country requiring some prudent improvements upon which reasonable minds may differ. On the other side, the Left, thinking politics is life, believes America is a hopelessly unjust nation requiring “fundamental transformation” and this is a point on which no reasonable minds can differ.

The Kavanaugh confirmation evinces the political abyss between us; and the bathetic depths to which this divide drives the Left to “win.”

Keep reading.

Inez

It's Inez Stepman (née Feltscher).

She's a beauty.

Guys, I also like to slay lewks. You don’t have to be a socialist in $3500 threads. pic.twitter.com/nrw4WJpN68

— Inez Stepman (@InezFeltscher) September 18, 2018

New Marisa Papen Photos

Following-up from July, "Belgian Model Marisa Papen Slammed by Religious Leaders for Posing Nude at Israel's Western Wall."

And here's some new pics, at Drunken Stepfather, "MARISA PAPEN NAKED MOTOCROSS EROTICA OF THE DAY."

At for Playboy Portugal, "New Cover: Marisa Papen."

U.S. Has Highest Share of Foreign-Born Since 1910

I'm teaching immigration in my classes this week, so I took note of this piece at the New York Times from a couple of weeks ago.

It's fascinating, especially the share of immigrants from Asia.

I'm telling you, Irvine is practically Beijing west. The city is an Asian-majority burg, and it's trippy. Lots of folks wear hospital mask all the time, even while driving their cars (remember, the air quality in China is terrible). Also, lots of folks don't speak English. The kids are bilingual, but the parents, and for sure the grandparents, don't. I can go shopping, hitting two or three different stores, including Walmart, and not hear anyone speaking English.

At some point you'd like immigration rates to slow down, and remember, this is legal immigration. The numbers are too high. Assimilation is breaking down where I live. Let's slow things down. It's a national problem, but I'm seeing things close up right here in the O.C.

In any case, see "U.S. Has Highest Share of Foreign-Born Since 1910, With More Coming From Asia":

The foreign-born population in the U.S. has reached its highest share since 1910, according to government data, and the new arrivals are more likely to come from Asia and to have college degrees than those who arrived in past decades https://t.co/mqZE2cGOZt

— The New York Times (@nytimes) September 13, 2018

WASHINGTON — The foreign-born population in the United States has reached its highest share since 1910, according to government data released Thursday, and the new arrivals are more likely to come from Asia and to have college degrees than those who arrived in past decades.

The Census Bureau’s figures for 2017 confirm a major shift in who is coming to the United States. For years newcomers tended to be from Latin America, but a Brookings Institution analysis of that data shows that 41 percent of the people who said they arrived since 2010 came from Asia. Just 39 percent were from Latin America. About 45 percent were college educated, the analysis found, compared with about 30 percent of those who came between 2000 and 2009.

“This is quite different from what we had thought,” said William H. Frey, the senior demographer at the Brookings Institution who conducted the analysis. “We think of immigrants as being low-skilled workers from Latin America, but for recent arrivals that’s much less the case. People from Asia have overtaken people from Latin America.”

The new data was released as the nation’s changing demography has become a flash point in American politics. President Trump, and many Republicans, have sounded alarms about immigration and suggested the government needs to restrict both the number and types of people coming into the country.

The foreign-born population stood at 13.7 percent in 2017, or 44.5 million people, according to the data, compared with 13.5 percent in 2016...

Still more.

Shop Today's Deals

I'll be on the road today, heading to Santa Rosa, where my mom is hospitalized.

She was involved in a head-on collision last weekend on Highway 1. Apparently, my mom's husband lost control of the Chevy pickup and crossed over the double-yellow line into oncoming traffic. The truck was totaled. My mom broke her sternum and a rib. But she's been treated for lung cancer over the last few years. Her right lung was removed a couple of years back, and this summer she had chemotherapy and radiation for a growth found in her left lung. So, she's not so strong right now to begin with. It's hard for her to breathe. I've got to get up there to visit, because she's going to stay in the hospital for a few more days while doctors monitor a blood clot in her same lung. Oh boy, that's a lot isn't it?

Anyway, thanks for your support and prayers.

I might be able to do a little blogging over the weekend, depending on if I find a motel room up there. I'm just driving up early in the morning and I've got no reservations. I'll sleep in the car for one night if I have to, and then on Saturday perhaps I'll find a Motel 6.

Here's my Amazon links:

See, Today's Deals. New deals. Every day. Shop our Deal of the Day, Lightning Deals and more daily deals and limited-time sales.

And also, KIND Bars, Dark Chocolate Nuts & Sea Salt, Gluten Free, 1.4 Ounce Bars, 12 Count.

More, Buck Knives 284 Bantam One-Hand Opening Folding Knife, and Buck Knives 110 Famous Folding Hunter Knife with Genuine Leather Sheath.

Here, Mountain House Just in Case.Essential Bucket.

Plus, Koffee Kult Dark Roast Coffee Beans - Highest Quality Gourmet - Whole Bean Coffee - Fresh Roasted Coffee Beans, 32oz.

And, Samsung 65NU7300 65" NU7300 Smart 4K UHD TV 2018 with Surge Protector + Cleaning Kit (UN65NU7300).

BONUS: David Limbaugh, Jesus Is Risen: Paul and the Early Church.

Will the Democrats Wake Up?

This is great.

It reminds me of Theodore White, The Making of the President, 1960.

From Dan Balz, at WaPo, "Will the Democrats Wake Up Before 2020?":

From the Magazine: They have no unifying leader and no clear message — yet. Will the Democrats wake up before 2020?

A definitive inquiry into the state of the party. https://t.co/yGBu7cOIUb pic.twitter.com/QpgJezNKnY

— Washington Post (@washingtonpost) October 2, 2018

The Iowa State Fair is an obligatory stop on the road to the White House, a cultural and culinary festival of heartland sensibilities, varied livestock and all manner of unhealthy food. The stands that populate the fairgrounds offer such treats as deep-fried mac and cheese, deep-fried pickles and ice cream nachos, along with the traditional favorites of pork-on-a-stick and foot-long corn dogs. In the summer of 2015, Donald Trump descended on the fair from his helicopter and was mobbed by press and public. On a recent muggy August morning, the arrival of Steve Bullock is far less dramatic.

Bullock, 52, the second-term governor of Montana, is dressed in blue jeans, a blue button-down shirt and boots. He ambles down the main street of the fairgrounds virtually undetected. Only a few heads turn as he stops to talk with his friend Tom Miller, Iowa’s long-serving attorney general. Bullock’s political calling card these days is that he is a Democrat who won reelection by four points on the day that Trump was winning his state by 20 points. That won’t get you elected president, but it’s enough to start a conversation. Which is why Bullock is here in Des Moines in the summer of 2018: to start a conversation.

Next summer, the Iowa State Fair will be overrun by presidential candidates. This year, the pickings are slimmer — dark horses and lesser-knowns who might or might not eventually compete for the 2020 nomination. Among the Democrats who have decided to skip the fair are the big three: Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Among those who have decided to show up are Rep. John Delaney of Maryland, who has already visited all of Iowa’s 99 counties; Julián Castro, the former mayor of San Antonio and former HUD secretary; Tom Steyer, the billionaire Californian on a mission to force impeachment proceedings against the president; and Michael Avenatti, the combative lawyer for adult-film actress Stormy Daniels. As a sign of the times, the swaggering Avenatti, who has never run for office, creates the biggest waves in Iowa with his message that Democrats will need a real fighter — hint! — to topple the president.

Each year, the Des Moines Register sponsors what it calls the Political Soapbox for state and national politicians. The venue consists of a small stage along the fairgrounds’ main drag, a sound system, a few bales of hay and folding chairs for spectators. Politicians take the stage for a few minutes, deliver a speech, answer questions and hope the buzz lasts long enough for them to make their way to see the famous butter cow. It does not always go well: In 2011, Mitt Romney, in a testy exchange with a fairgoer, uttered the famous line that “corporations are people, my friend,” which didn’t do much to create a regular-guy image. In 2015, Trump smartly gave helicopter rides to kids.

As Bullock takes the stage, he finds himself in competition with a children’s Big Wheel race nearby, which is another reason the Soapbox can be a humbling venue. Bullock makes a joke about the tiny three-wheelers screeching along the pavement, offers a few obligatory comments about his connections to Iowa — his mother happens to have been born in the state — and then begins to road-test a message. Trust in government has disappeared, he says. He blames it on lost faith in all institutions and the corrupting influence of money, particularly big money whose origins are hard to trace. He tells the audience, “If we want to address all of the other big issues in our electoral system, in our political system, if we really want to address income inequality, if we want to address health care, if we want to address rights, you’re not going to be able to do it until you’ve also addressed the way that money is corrupting our system.”

He talks about what he’s done in Montana, working with a Republican legislature. “If we can do this in Montana,” he says, “it underscores to me that, look, this isn’t a Democrat or Republican issue; this is an issue about the fundamental trust and faith in our government.” His short speech completed, he takes a few questions. The last person asks whether he plans to run for president. “The question is when will I decide if I’m going to do anything after I serve as governor,” he says playfully. Then more seriously he adds: “Look, I do think that I do have a story of how I’ve been able to bring people together, and I think that’s in part what our country desperately needs. … So right now, what I’m doing is listening, and that’s honestly as far as it goes.” Within 10 days, he will be in New Hampshire...

There's lots more, at the link.

Out Today: Tucker Carlson, Ship of Fools

At Amazon, Tucker Carlson, Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution.

Harvard Rated Asian-Americans Lower

I'm discussing civil rights in my American government classes this week, and I want to read and blog this blockbuster piece that was at the New York Times in June.

See, "Harvard Rated Asian-American Applicants Lower on Personality Traits, Suit Says":

Breaking News: Harvard consistently rated Asian-American applicants lower on personal traits, according to an analysis by a group suing the school for bias https://t.co/rkb3pUi3Y7

— The New York Times (@nytimes) June 15, 2018

Harvard consistently rated Asian-American applicants lower than others on traits like “positive personality,” likability, courage, kindness and being “widely respected,” according to an analysis of more than 160,000 student records filed Friday by a group representing Asian-American students in a lawsuit against the university.

Asian-Americans scored higher than applicants of any other racial or ethnic group on admissions measures like test scores, grades and extracurricular activities, according to the analysis commissioned by a group that opposes all race-based admissions criteria. But the students’ personal ratings significantly dragged down their chances of being admitted, the analysis found.

The court documents, filed in federal court in Boston, also showed that Harvard conducted an internal investigation into its admissions policies in 2013 and found a bias against Asian-American applicants. But Harvard never made the findings public or acted on them.

Harvard, one of the most sought-after and selective universities in the country, admitted only 4.6 percent of its applicants this year. That has led to intense interest in the university’s closely guarded admissions process. Harvard had fought furiously over the last few months to keep secret the documents that were unsealed Friday.

The documents came out as part of a lawsuit charging Harvard with systematically discriminating against Asian-Americans, in violation of civil rights law. The suit says that Harvard imposes what is in effect a soft quota of “racial balancing.” This keeps the numbers of Asian-Americans artificially low, while advancing less qualified white, black and Hispanic applicants, the plaintiffs contend.

The findings come at a time when issues of race, ethnicity, admission, testing and equal access to education are confronting schools across the country, from selective public high schools like Stuyvesant High School in New York to elite private colleges. Many Ivy League schools, not just Harvard, have had similar ratios of Asian-American, black, white and Hispanic students for years, despite fluctuations in application rates and qualifications, raising questions about how those numbers are arrived at and whether they represent unspoken quotas.

Harvard and the group suing it have presented sharply divergent views of what constitutes a fair admissions process.

“It turns out that the suspicions of Asian-American alumni, students and applicants were right all along,” the group, Students for Fair Admissions, said in a court document laying out the analysis. “Harvard today engages in the same kind of discrimination and stereotyping that it used to justify quotas on Jewish applicants in the 1920s and 1930s.”

Harvard vigorously disagreed on Friday, saying that its own expert analysis showed no discrimination and that seeking diversity is a valuable part of student selection. The university lashed out at the founder of Students for Fair Admissions, Edward Blum, accusing him of using Harvard to replay a previous challenge to affirmative action in college admissions, Fisher v. the University of Texas at Austin. In its 2016 decision in that case, the Supreme Court ruled that race could be used as one of many factors in admissions.

“Thorough and comprehensive analysis of the data and evidence makes clear that Harvard College does not discriminate against applicants from any group, including Asian-Americans, whose rate of admission has grown 29 percent over the last decade,” Harvard said in a statement. “Mr. Blum and his organization’s incomplete and misleading data analysis paint a dangerously inaccurate picture of Harvard College’s whole-person admissions process by omitting critical data and information factors.”

In court papers, Harvard said that a statistical analysis could not capture the many intangible factors that go into Harvard admissions. Harvard said that the plaintiffs’ expert, Peter Arcidiacono, a Duke University economist, had mined the data to his advantage by taking out applicants who were favored because they were legacies, athletes, the children of staff and the like, including Asian-Americans. In response, the plaintiffs said their expert had factored out these applicants because he wanted to look at the pure effect of race on admissions, unclouded by other factors.

Both sides filed papers Friday asking for summary judgment, an immediate ruling in their favor. If the judge denies those requests, as is likely, a trial has been scheduled for October. If it goes on to the Supreme Court, it could upend decades of affirmative action policies at colleges and universities across the country.

Harvard is not the only Ivy League school facing pressure to admit more Asian-American students. Princeton and Cornell and others also have high numbers of Asian-American applicants. Yet their share of Asian-Americans students is comparable with Harvard’s.

In Friday’s court papers, the plaintiffs describe a shaping process that begins before students even apply, when Harvard buys data about PSAT scores and G.P.A.s, according to the plaintiffs’ motion. It is well documented that these scores vary by race.

The plaintiffs’ analysis was based on data extracted from the records of more than 160,000 applicants who applied for admission over six cycles from 2000 to 2015...

Keep reading.

Decent Democrats?

Following-up from last night, "Have Democrats Any Decency?"

Here's the astounding Derek Hunter, at Town Hall, "Is There a Decent Democrat Left in America?":

Derek Hunter - Is There A Decent Democrat Left In America? https://t.co/Lrjs3bFLfX

— Derek Hunter (@derekahunter) September 27, 2018

The attempted character assassination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh has brought out the worst in Democrats, every Democrat, everywhere. They’ve convicted a good and decent man of things he wasn’t even falsely accused of, so desperate are progressives to stop someone who believes the Constitution means what it says from sitting on the Supreme Court. From elected officials to unelected Democrats with media credentials, the last two weeks have exposed the Democratic Party as a gaggle of guttersnipes willing to destroy a man for the “crime” of disagreeing with them politically. After watching this unfold, you really have to wonder one thing: Is there a single decent, honest Democrat left in the United States?

The circus Democratic Senators created surrounding the Kavanaugh nomination should serve as a scarlet letter on every single one of them for the rest of their lives and should stain the buildings they’ll fund in their states with our tax dollars with will bare their names. It’s a disgrace...

Keep reading.

Barbara Palvin Rocks (VIDEO)

At Sports Illustrated Swimsuit.

Wages Are Rising in Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic

Well, you don't say?

At WSJ, "Labor Shortage Lifts Wages on Europe’s Eastern Flank":

Unlike in some Western economies, wages are rising fast as workers grow scarce in Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic https://t.co/kX0itdZkNo

— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) September 29, 2018

Unlike in some Western economies, wages are rising fast as workers grow scarce in Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic.

BUDAPEST, Hungary—Akos Niklai says he has increased wages at his historic restaurant in downtown Budapest by around 20% in each of the past three years. He still struggles to retain staff.

The Hungarian businessman was recently forced to stop serving lunch on Sundays due to a worker shortage. Unemployment in this nation of 10 million people is at an all-time low of 3.6%, down from 10% five years ago.

“It is very hard to find labor in Budapest,” said Mr. Niklai. “Wages are still not high enough.”

In a half-dozen countries across Central and Eastern Europe, hourly labor costs are shooting up by 9% or more a year, defying a trend of weak wage growth that has bedeviled many advanced economies for years.

The increases seem to answer a question economists have been puzzling over for several years: Does low unemployment still cause wages to rise?

In many Western economies, that notion has been tested by slow wage growth despite falling jobless rates. But in places such as Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic, supply and demand appear to be pushing up wages as labor becomes scarce.

“These fundamental economic mechanisms are still working,” said Nigel Pain, an economist in Paris with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. “If labor markets tighten we will see some pick up in price pressures.”

The wage increases are also putting pressure on Eastern European leaders—many of whom have called for stricter limits on immigration—to allow in more workers or risk lower future economic growth.

In Poland, for example, job vacancies are at a record high, and more than 40% of manufacturing firms say labor shortages are limiting production, according to a March OECD report. Poland’s ruling party has opposed immigration from Muslim countries, and the European Union has sued Poland and other countries for refusing to accept refugees under an EU-wide relocation plan.

“Wage pressure is rising,” said Andrzej Malinowski, the president of Employers of Poland, a business federation. Around 40% of large Polish companies employ workers from neighboring Ukraine, and 30% intend to hire Ukrainians in the near future, said Mr. Malinowski.

Migration patterns have been a major factor behind the wage boom. Labor is particularly scarce in the former communist states because workers have been migrating to Western Europe, where they can earn more. And limits on immigration from outside the EU add to the labor squeeze.

Low unemployment has also given workers more bargaining power. In the Czech Republic—where unemployment is 2.3%, the lowest in the EU—average wages grew by around 6% year-over-year in the three months through June, after adjusting for inflation, close to a 15-year high. Workers at Skoda Auto, the Czech unit of Volkswagen AG , recently got a pay raise of 12% and bigger bonuses.

Amazon.com Inc. announced in early August that it would sharply increase hourly wages for its workers across the region—by between 5% and 11% for staff in the Czech Republic, by up to 17% in Poland and by as much as 20% in Slovakia, a spokeswoman said.

“Eastern European countries are trying to persuade workers not to leave,” said Dan Bucsa, an economist with Italian bank UniCredit who focuses on the region...

Keep reading.

BBC's Africa Cameroon Investigation on Twitter

This is mind-boggling.

Click through and read the whole thing:

Wow. https://t.co/VaCVHAPUw0

— Hadas Gold (@Hadas_Gold) September 24, 2018

HOONIGAN Mazda Miata Long Jump (VIDEO)

I went down to the Hoonigan shop yesterday afternoon to pick up some t-shirts. I wear Hoonigan gear all the time nowadays. I first picked up a Hoonigan shirt at Tilly's sportswear last year. I didn't know what it was. The shirt was cool, though, and it indicated that Hoonigan's was located in Long Beach, so I checked 'em out and the rest is history.

Here's the homepage, and check this background briefing, "Understanding Hoonigan."


More later.

Nice Gals Enjoying the End of Summer

It's Rhian Sugden and friends.

Hairy Mary’s 💚 pic.twitter.com/cNixgow7js

— Rhian Sugden (@Rhianmarie) September 26, 2018

Have Democrats Any Decency?

No. They have none. Absolutely none.

And it didn't just take the diabolical anti-Kavanaugh smear campaign for people to take notice. The left's never had any decency. I just takes some occasionally earth-shattering political events to hit you upside the head and remind you. This last few weeks has been one of those events, but again, this stuff ain't new.

See Molly Hemingway, "Media Sink to New Lows in Their Anti-Kavanaugh Smear Campaign."

“Have they no decency?” is the right question. https://t.co/LaxISWxuqK

— Brit Hume (@brithume) September 30, 2018

And also, see Michelle Malkin on Chris Britt of the Seattle Times:

I worked with Chris Britt at the Seattle Times in the mid-1990s. He was a genuinely nice guy.

I don't know what happened to him.

Damn. https://t.co/FnnINYw1pU

— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) October 1, 2018

The F.B.I. Must Investigate Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's Credibility

A must-read post from Ace, "If The FBI Is Investigating These Allegations, They Absolutely Must Investigate Ford's Credibility":

3. Obviously, any time she claims she doesn't know and that only her lawyers would know, her lawyers must be asked under oath.

Her lawyers, by the way, cannot invoke lawyer-client privilege regarding notes they gave to a third party. Information given to a third party is not a confidential lawyer-client communication and not shielded by privilege.

There is no such thing as "Lawyer-Feinstein privilege," and Ford's political operators with legal licenses should not be permitted to invent one...

There's 10 questions altogether, so read the whole thing.

Yasmin Brunet Caught on a Beach

At Taxi Driver, "Yasmin Brunet Caught Topless on a Beach."

Brigitte Gabriel, Rise

At Amazon, Brigitte Gabriel, Rise: In Defense of Judeo-Christian Values and Freedom.

David Horowitz, The Politics of Bad Faith

Following-up from my previous entry, "Never Negotiate With Democrats."

I'm reminded of David Horowitz's book, The Politics of Bad Faith: The Radical Assault on America's Future.

Never Negotiate With Democrats

This is a must read essay, from the Other McCain, "Never Negotiate With Sociopaths: Liars, Democrats and the #Kavanaugh Smear":

There was a moment during Thursday’s hearing when Christine Blasey Ford was asked, “Was it communicated to you by your counsel or someone else, that the committee had asked to interview you and that — that they offered to come out to California to do so?”

At which point, her lawyer Michael Bromwich grabbed the microphone to interrupt: “We’re going to object, Mr. Chairman, to any call for privileged conversations between counsel and Dr. Ford.”

A poker player would call that a “tell.” Among the many things we learned from Thursday’s hearing was that the excuse given for delaying Professor Ford’s testimony was a lie. She wasn’t afraid of flying. She was a frequent flyer, traveling to vacations around the world and, in point of fact, at the time the Senate Judiciary Committee was offering to fly to California to interview her, Professor Ford was not in California. She was already in the D.C. area, having flown there to strategize with her lawyers, who were recommended to her by Sen. Dianne Feinstein. She had also flown to the D.C. area in August, when she took a polygraph test at the Hilton Hotel near Baltimore-Washington International Airport.

This was all a set-up, a carefully planned ambush by Democrats, calculated either to force Judge Kavanaugh to withdraw his name for the Supreme Court nomination, or else to delay the process past the midterm elections, turning the nomination into a campaign issue.

Once you understand this, the coordination between Senate Democrats and Professor Ford’s lawyers appears highly significant. Anyone could look at the calendar and see how long Feinstein, her Democrat colleagues and the media prepared this ambush. On June 27, Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement and, within a few days, Professor Ford contacted the Washiington Post to share her 1982 tale about Judge Kavanaugh, who was widely reported to be on President Trump’s short list of candidates to replace Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh’s name was announced July 9, and days later, Profesor Ford met with her Democrat congresswoman, Rep. Anna Eshoo, who recommended that Professor Ford detail her accusations in a letter to Feinstein. That letter was hand-delivered to Feinstein on July 30. The next day, Aug. 1, in an interview on the Hugh Hewitt radio program, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley said:

“If we could get this all done by October 1st when the Supreme Court starts its new fall session, [that] would be ideal. But I think we can get it done soon after that if we don’t get it done by October 1st.”

Grassley explained in that interview that the hearing would likely be delayed until after Labor Day, because August was already booked up with the Senate committee scheduled to consider a series of votes on President Trump’s lower-court appointees. The clock was ticking, however, and Professor Ford’s lawyers wasted no time getting to work. By Aug. 7, Professor Ford was being polygraphed — and Feinstein didn’t say a word about this accusation to her Republican colleagues on the committee. That’s a crucial fact to keep in mind, now that the vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation has been delayed because Jeff Flake got harassed in an elevator by Soros-funded protesters.

The confirmation hearings for Judge Kavanaugh began Sept. 4. Feinstein had been in possession of Professor Ford’s letter for 36 days, and the accuser had been a client of the lawyers recommended by Feinstein for five weeks. Yet while Judge Kavanaugh sat for more than 30 hours of hearings in the Judiciary Committee, where Feinstein was the ranking Democrat member, she never asked a single question about this accusation and, most importantly, nobody on the Republican side of the aisle had any clue that Christine Blasey Ford existed, and was working with a team of lawyers hand-picked for her by Feinstein.

Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony ended Friday, Sept. 7, and the Judiciary Committee vote was already scheduled for Thursday, Sept. 20, allowing another week for the full Senate to debate the nomination and vote, thus to have the new appointed confirmed by the time the Supreme Court convened on Oct. 1. Feinstein, who had been holding onto Professor Ford’s letter since late July, waited until Thursday, Sept. 13, to go public with it, pretending that this delay was about protecting the accuser’s anonymity...

Still more.

David M. O'Brien, Storm Center

At Amazon, David M. O'Brien, Storm Center: The Supreme Court in American Politics.

Senate Judiciary Committee Testimonies Personified the Nation's Bitter Political Divisions

This is good, at LAT, "Emotionally wrenching testimony leaves the Senate, and the nation, bitterly divided":

The two parties could not have come up with witnesses who more perfectly embodied the nation’s bitter partisan divide — or could more effectively widen them— than Ford & Kavanaugh. https://t.co/NUEneVGja1

— David Lauter (@DavidLauter) September 28, 2018

If each side had set out to design witnesses who more perfectly embodied the nation’s bitter partisan divide — or could more effectively widen it — they scarcely could have done better than the two who faced off Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Frequently fighting back tears, Christine Blasey Ford described the sexual assault she says she suffered during the summer of 1982, when she was 15, at the hands of a man now nominated to the nation’s highest court. Her anguished testimony made her an Everywoman stand-in for victims of sexual violence. And as a white, female university professor from California, she virtually personified the Democrats’ resistance to President Trump.

In the afternoon, the man she has accused, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, channeled the president who nominated him, delivering a blistering, angry denial in which he repeatedly declared his innocence and portrayed himself as a victim of “a frenzy on the left” born of “pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election” and “revenge on behalf of the Clintons.”

At the risk of torching any image of judicial temperament, Kavanaugh interrupted Democratic senators and glared at them, once sitting mutely rather than answer a question. He cast the fight mostly not as one of credibility — his word against Ford’s — but as raw partisan battle. He portrayed himself as the victim of “a calculated and orchestrated political hit” and “grotesque and coordinated character assassination.”

His tight-lipped fury marked a dramatic shift from a genteel performance at his earlier confirmation hearing. But it drew deeply from the well of grievance toward Washington and liberal politicians that has cemented conservative loyalty behind Trump through repeated crises in the three years since he opened his presidential campaign.

Underscoring the implicit demand for tribal unity — and its intended audience — Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of Kavanaugh’s strongest supporters on the committee, nearly shouted at the Senate’s remaining undecided Republicans when his turn came to speak.

“To my Republican colleagues, if you vote no, you’re legitimizing the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in politics,” Graham declared.

Whether the hearing changed any senator’s vote is yet unknown. The committee’s 11 Republicans and 10 Democrats are expected to vote Friday, and the full Senate could begin preliminary votes Saturday.

Only a handful of votes remain uncertain — perhaps three Republicans and a couple of Democrats. But much like the confrontation between professor Anita Hill and Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas before the same committee 27 years ago, the day’s drama seemed all but certain to become a national touchstone.

“This kind of mass national exposure is really unusual,” said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.

“Think of the very few moments in which a large part of the nation pauses to consume something in common,” she said. “People assume if you were alive and above 15 when the Anita Hill hearing happened, you will remember it, and there is no need to explain what it is. This will also be one of those moments.”

Ford’s testimony revealed her as a naif in the world of politics. From her opening declaration about how terrified she felt at the witness table to her description of trying to interview prospective lawyers from her car parked outside a Walgreen’s drugstore, she appeared as an innocent suddenly parachuted, against her better judgment, into a Washington maelstrom.

“She came across as exactly the kind of witness one would hope she would be,” said Deborah Tuerkheimer, a professor at the Northwestern University School of Law and a former sex-crimes prosecutor. “Helpful, interested in providing the truth, willing to qualify the testimony where she needed to and very much a person doing her duty rather than grinding any ax.

“For survivors of any kind of assault or misconduct there was catharsis in this,” she added. “As difficult and excruciating as it was to see her relive the trauma, she held up incredibly well.”

Indeed, Ford’s soft-stated testimony elicited praise even from many Republican senators.

“I found no reason to find her not credible,” said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the Senate’s second-ranking Republican.

Kavanaugh, by contrast, made no effort to portray himself as outside the political realm, and he drew a polarized response. Democrats, as well as some nonpartisan observers, took note of the partisan framing of his anger and predicted his comments could leave permanent doubt about his impartiality if he does win confirmation.

“I think he has really raised serious questions about his temperament,” said Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. “He has raised threats of conspiracy and shown himself to be hot-headed in a way which really makes it questionable that he can be a fair judge.”

But Kavanaugh’s testimony drew support where it counted most — from the inveterate television watcher in the Oval Office, who cleared much of his calendar to watch the nearly nine-hour proceedings, a day after he seemed to hint that he might be wavering on the nomination.

“Judge Kavanaugh showed America exactly why I nominated him. His testimony was powerful, honest, and riveting,” Trump declared in a tweet shortly after Kavanaugh finished.

Conservative defenders of Kavanaugh’s were equally cheered by his partisan fire.

“Kavanaugh is not being withdrawn after this. The Republicans are going to have to confirm him or watch Trump and the GOP voters burn down the remains of the party, deservedly so,” declared Erick Erickson, the conservative commentator.

Before Thursday, many had predicted the hearing would replay the bitter 1991 clash between Hill and Thomas after she had accused him of sexual harassment...

More.

Brett Kavanaugh's Opening Statement at His Confirmation Sexual Assault Hearing Before the Senate Judiciary Committee (VIDEO)

I taught today, and only saw snippets of today's hearing while checking Twitter periodically. Even in those few minutes in which I caught snippets I became extremely sad. I saw and retweeted tweeps' comments. In the afternoon I saw Sen. Lindsey Graham's blistering condemnation of reprehensible Democrat Party behavior, circus antics, and demonic machinations. And I saw some awful, horrible, even diabolical comments leftists have made today, including top Democrats. I'm disgusted by all of it, all the left's evil deeds.

Democrats make me sick.

I just watched this 45 minute opening statement right now and I'm flabbergasted. I'm a nothing of a man compared to Brett Kavanaugh --- and I'm a very successful man. He's a fundamentally good person. He's even a genuinely great human being. I can't think of someone who's more qualified to be on the Supreme Court and I'll be heartbroken if he's not confirmed in the upcoming Senate roll call vote. '

This moment in public life is a turning point.

I've felt lately that I wished I wasn't a professor of political science any more. But I don't know what else I'd do --- I trained for over a decade in political science and it's been the passion of my professional life. But that was then. I don't think American politics has ever been so hateful. No, we're not about to have another Civil War, but we're living at a time when politics defines who we are, our very identities, and people are sized up and placed into pigeonholes of good and evil. Others define us as on their side or not and treat us accordingly. People have tried to destroy my life with false allegations (Scott Eric Kaufman and Carl Salonen, if long-time readers will recall).

At my college I'm surrounded by radical leftists. Unless you've been in a similar situation you can't know what it's like. You're literally behind enemy lines. And reinforcements aren't coming. You're on you're own, and those who want to help you are too scared to come out, lest they be targeted for destruction. Targeted with lies and scurrilous allegations. I know how Brett Kavanaugh must feel, but only a little bit. I've not been in the national media spotlight. Talk about having a target on your back.

In any case, I'll watch Dr. Ford's testimony tomorrow and I'll have more comments. For now just know I'm sick to my stomach and I'm heartbroken at our brokenness as a society. And this brokenness is the result of radical leftist ideology and the breakdown of decency all around.

Democrats Poised for Major Gains in Midterm Elections?

As I've noted, the president's party usually loses seats in Congress in midterm elections, and I don't expect this year to be much different.

Most of the polls you'll be seeing in the weeks ahead with be those measuring the "generic ballot," where respondents are asked their party preference for Congress, basically. Congressional elections aren't normally nationalized, however. It was the case in 1994 that Newt Gingrich, with his "Contract for America," turned the midterms on a referendum against the Democrats, with a mandate for ambitious policy-driven G.O.P government.

The Democrats don't have anything like that going this year, except anti-Trump hysteria.

My guess is the Dems will flip the House, probably by 20 seats or more. I'm skeptical they'll take the Senate, though, and I think Senate races will better reflect national trends, especially things like the politics of the Supreme Court (and the stupid allegations against Brett Kavanaugh).

In any case, at the Los Angeles Times, "With growing support from women, Democrats poised for major gains in midterm, new poll shows":

Latest USC-LATimes Poll shows Ds with a 14 point lead on congressional ballot. Widening support from women has driven D margin, especially suburban women, white married women & white, non-college women. https://t.co/CCQHLgWBKj

— David Lauter (@DavidLauter) September 26, 2018

Boosted by growing support among suburban women and widespread antipathy toward President Trump, Democrats approach the midterm election poised to make major gains nationwide, a new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll shows.

Democrats had a 14-point margin, 55% to 41%, when likely voters were asked which party’s candidate they would cast a ballot for if the election were held now. If that advantage holds up until election day, just less than six weeks away, it would almost surely be large enough to sweep a Democratic majority into the House.

Voters also oppose Republicans on a number of major issues. But overriding all of them is the president, whose outsized personality has dominated the nation’s news since he declared his candidacy more than three years ago.

Roughly 3 out of 4 likely voters said they saw their vote this fall as an opportunity to express a view of Trump. For many, that view is negative: Those saying they planned to register opposition outnumbered Trump supporters, 45% to 29%.

Likely voters disapprove of Trump’s overall performance in office by 57% to 39%, the poll found. Almost half of likely voters, 49%, said they “strongly” disapprove, while just under one-quarter, 24%, strongly approve.

Especially notable are the views of women, whose preferences have expanded the Democratic edge since a USC Dornsife poll surveyed most of the same voters this summer.

In the summer, men were closely divided between the two parties; they remain so now. But women, who already leaned significantly toward the Democrats, have shifted further in their direction, widening a large gender gap. The poll found women now favor the Democrats by 28 percentage points, 62% to 34%, among likely voters.

Three overlapping groups of female voters who have long been important for Republicans have moved away from the party: suburban residents, married white women and white women without college degrees.

Democrats enjoy a 61%-35% edge among suburban women, the poll found — a margin that has grown by 9 points since the summer. Democrats have narrowed the gap with Republicans among married white women, long a mainstay of the GOP, who now favor Republicans by a narrow 51% to 46%.

Those numbers help explain why suburban congressional districts long held by Republicans — from Orange County and Santa Clarita to the suburbs of Dallas and Houston and east to suburban Philadelphia — have become key targets in Democrats’ effort to retake control of the House.

A similar pattern holds among white women who did not graduate from college. Blue-collar white women gave Trump a crucial margin of support in 2016. A majority continues to support Republicans — by 56% to 39% — but since the summer, Democrats have cut their deficit with that group by a third.

The poll was largely completed before accusations of sexual misconduct against Judge Brent Kavanaugh, Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, began dominating the news. Many political professionals in both parties think that controversy could further alienate women from the GOP...

Oh, the allegations against Kavanaugh are going to have an effect, I think, although it remains to be seen in which directions. Some "Never Trump" types on Twitter are apparently revolted by this radical leftist anti-Kavanaugh circus, and if that's true, normal antipathy to Trump among moderates might be outweighed by disgust with the evil Democrats.

We'll see, in any case.

Still more at the link.