The full Kavanaugh interview will air at 7 Eastern on Fox News.
And, I'm listening to Fox News now and hearing Brit Hume saying something very close to what I said this morning. I said:
There's a real contrast to the carefully built up Blasey incident, and while the conflict with Blasey seemed to be too much of an unresolvable he said/she said, to say he said/she said was to elevate Blasey to equal status: her word against his. There was dignity in that, and Kavanaugh supporters were being circumspect and allowing that dramatic confrontation to unfold. Now, Kavanaugh antagonists have escalated the attack and seem willing — some of them, anyway — to use anything. I think more sober Kavanaugh antagonists — such as the NYT — rue this development.
ADDED: If the allegations are not true, Kavanaugh must stand his ground. If this effort to take him down works — if the allegations are not true — the same strategy will be used against the next nominee and the one after that. It will never end. If the allegations are true, he should have done something long ago. Either he should have have withdrawn, or he should have conceded his past wrongdoing, apologized sincerely, and said tactfully what he could to minimize the relevance of the incident to the question of his qualification to serve on the Court.
And, I'm listening to Fox News now and hearing Brit Hume saying something very close to what I said this morning. I said:
The new allegations — from Avenatti and The New Yorker — are, I think, helping Kavanaugh's case.... After all the careful work creating credence and empathy for Christine Blasey Ford, we now have an onslaught, a piling on, and it's making Kavanaugh into a sort of hero, who must stand his ground.There was a problem when there was only Blasey's accusation, and it did seem that you'd need multiple accusations to take down Kavanaugh. Multiple accusations were needed to take down Weinstein, Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, Alex Kozinski, etc. But this new material doesn't seem like more Blasey-like allegations, but something different and much more questionable and more noticeably unfair.
There's a real contrast to the carefully built up Blasey incident, and while the conflict with Blasey seemed to be too much of an unresolvable he said/she said, to say he said/she said was to elevate Blasey to equal status: her word against his. There was dignity in that, and Kavanaugh supporters were being circumspect and allowing that dramatic confrontation to unfold. Now, Kavanaugh antagonists have escalated the attack and seem willing — some of them, anyway — to use anything. I think more sober Kavanaugh antagonists — such as the NYT — rue this development.
ADDED: If the allegations are not true, Kavanaugh must stand his ground. If this effort to take him down works — if the allegations are not true — the same strategy will be used against the next nominee and the one after that. It will never end. If the allegations are true, he should have done something long ago. Either he should have have withdrawn, or he should have conceded his past wrongdoing, apologized sincerely, and said tactfully what he could to minimize the relevance of the incident to the question of his qualification to serve on the Court.
