Feinstein: The Greater of Two Evils

In recent days, the nation has witnessed an unseemly display of political gamesmanship, one that has served as a testimonial to just how low the Democrats have sunk.  In a ploy to regain the power she believes to rightfully belong to the Democrats, Senator Dianne Feinstein trotted out a 36-year-old "he said, she said" story regarding drunken teenagers.

In recent years, the party, once on the ascendency, has declined in power, prestige, and popularity.  Now, with the Ford-Kavanaugh accusations, it has lost all semblance of integrity.

Observers of Supreme Court hearings ranging from those of Robert Bork to Clarence Thomas were expecting something like this.  What should be surprising is that the accusation against Brett Kavanaugh came from the longtime senator from California, Dianne Feinstein.  Her career has endured based, to a large extent, on an undeserved reputation for integrity and principles.  Her fabulously wealthy husband's millions have also helped.

Her release of the Christine Ford allegations against Judge Kavanaugh should forever put to rest any idea that this woman has any level of ethics or respect for our constitutional system.  The senator's actions are worthy of being censured for withholding information from the committee.  Unfortunately, the Republicans lack the requisite spherical objects to do so.

The incident was known to DiFi back in July, but she kept quiet, holding it like an ace up her sleeve.  We can only guess her reasons for this.  Two possibilities spring to mind.

First, she was holding on to it for the purpose of throwing a monkey wrench into the system to either destroy Kavanaugh or delay the process.  The former would be her ideal; the latter would serve a similar purpose, though not as direct.

The second possibility, and the one that bears closer scrutiny, is that she did not believe the story, or felt it was a gambit that had no credibility, due to a lack of witnesses and the passage of time.

Looking back at SCOTUS hearings, the Democrats have long played hardball, while the Republicans play slo pitch.  Two presidential aspirants on the Democratic side garnered a great deal of attention.

Senator Kamala Harris, the junior senator from California, cross-examined Kavanaugh like a prosecutor trying to break a defendant.  Kavanaugh held strong, and when push came to shove, Harris showed she had nothing and gamely tried to save what dignity she had left.

From New Jersey came the oft-angry Cory Booker.  His feigned outrage was a performance worthy of Oscar consideration.  Not a win, mind you, but the Oscars have a low threshold for quality acting when it comes to throwing out undeserved nominations.

When Booker's "I am Spartacus" moment turned into an "I am Dukakis in a tank" moment, his time in the sun was over, and Kavanaugh looked like a shoe-in.

Desperation causes people to act in ways counter to their original thinking.  The greater the desperation, the lower the bar of integrity sinks.  That brings us back to DiFi.

Regarding conservatives on the bench, the only thing Democrats fear more than a strong, intellectually brilliant, and influential conservative (Bork, Gorsuch) would be if that conservative were a minority (Thomas).  Better to destroy these people at any price than to have their ideology influence others.

Kavanaugh is the intellectual they fear.  For the Democrats, still smarting from the loss of Merrick Garland, the level of desperation was high, and integrity, never their strong suit to begin with, had sunk even lower.

Since Kavanaugh's adult life was unblemished, the 36-year-old allegation against a 17-year-old boy suddenly became worthy of a second look.

At some point in time, Feinstein came to the conclusion that putting a flimsy allegation forward was worth the risk.  It would also play well to the folks back home who have abandoned her as not being liberal enough.  We all have seen the results: her decision has taken political theater to new levels.

The outcome regarding Kavanaugh is pending as this is written.  But a conclusion that many have come to is that the action taken by Feinstein was both reprehensible and not worthy of a person of her position.

This woman needs to fade into the sunset, to spend her remaining days living off her husband's wealth.  But she has not taken the hint sent her way when the Democrats refused her an endorsement.

Due to California's unusual primary system, the voters have two choices for the Senate seat currently occupied by octogenarian Feinstein.  Both are Democrats.  DiFi is one, while the other is Kevin de León, a man who is to the left of DiFi, dwelling in the Bernie Sanders and Occasional Cortex wing of the party.

Feinstein, with a comfortable 20-point lead, is sailing toward an easy win.  The Republican voters will reluctantly either cast their vote for her or sit that one out, letting the chips fall where they may.

Doing so would not send any messages or accomplish any worthy goal.

A proposal that does might be worth considering: vote for Kevin de León.

I know there are a thousand reasons to not like his politics, but that is not what this is about.

Let's not kid ourselves: the voting record of a Senator de León will match the votes cast by Feinstein.  That being the case, they are in essence a distinction without a difference.

De León will also have the benefit of demonstrating to the nation just how far left the Democrats have gone.  Far-left extremists like Pelosi and Waters have been a recruiting gold mine for conservatives.  De León has the potential to carry that red banner into the future, one that will soon be devoid of the current occupants of the rest-home wing of the party.

How can one justify voting for a man whose politics are an anathema to all ideals of conservatism?

Answer: Dianne Feinstein's recent actions have now made her the greater of the two evils.

In recent days, the nation has witnessed an unseemly display of political gamesmanship, one that has served as a testimonial to just how low the Democrats have sunk.  In a ploy to regain the power she believes to rightfully belong to the Democrats, Senator Dianne Feinstein trotted out a 36-year-old "he said, she said" story regarding drunken teenagers.

In recent years, the party, once on the ascendency, has declined in power, prestige, and popularity.  Now, with the Ford-Kavanaugh accusations, it has lost all semblance of integrity.

Observers of Supreme Court hearings ranging from those of Robert Bork to Clarence Thomas were expecting something like this.  What should be surprising is that the accusation against Brett Kavanaugh came from the longtime senator from California, Dianne Feinstein.  Her career has endured based, to a large extent, on an undeserved reputation for integrity and principles.  Her fabulously wealthy husband's millions have also helped.

Her release of the Christine Ford allegations against Judge Kavanaugh should forever put to rest any idea that this woman has any level of ethics or respect for our constitutional system.  The senator's actions are worthy of being censured for withholding information from the committee.  Unfortunately, the Republicans lack the requisite spherical objects to do so.

The incident was known to DiFi back in July, but she kept quiet, holding it like an ace up her sleeve.  We can only guess her reasons for this.  Two possibilities spring to mind.

First, she was holding on to it for the purpose of throwing a monkey wrench into the system to either destroy Kavanaugh or delay the process.  The former would be her ideal; the latter would serve a similar purpose, though not as direct.

The second possibility, and the one that bears closer scrutiny, is that she did not believe the story, or felt it was a gambit that had no credibility, due to a lack of witnesses and the passage of time.

Looking back at SCOTUS hearings, the Democrats have long played hardball, while the Republicans play slo pitch.  Two presidential aspirants on the Democratic side garnered a great deal of attention.

Senator Kamala Harris, the junior senator from California, cross-examined Kavanaugh like a prosecutor trying to break a defendant.  Kavanaugh held strong, and when push came to shove, Harris showed she had nothing and gamely tried to save what dignity she had left.

From New Jersey came the oft-angry Cory Booker.  His feigned outrage was a performance worthy of Oscar consideration.  Not a win, mind you, but the Oscars have a low threshold for quality acting when it comes to throwing out undeserved nominations.

When Booker's "I am Spartacus" moment turned into an "I am Dukakis in a tank" moment, his time in the sun was over, and Kavanaugh looked like a shoe-in.

Desperation causes people to act in ways counter to their original thinking.  The greater the desperation, the lower the bar of integrity sinks.  That brings us back to DiFi.

Regarding conservatives on the bench, the only thing Democrats fear more than a strong, intellectually brilliant, and influential conservative (Bork, Gorsuch) would be if that conservative were a minority (Thomas).  Better to destroy these people at any price than to have their ideology influence others.

Kavanaugh is the intellectual they fear.  For the Democrats, still smarting from the loss of Merrick Garland, the level of desperation was high, and integrity, never their strong suit to begin with, had sunk even lower.

Since Kavanaugh's adult life was unblemished, the 36-year-old allegation against a 17-year-old boy suddenly became worthy of a second look.

At some point in time, Feinstein came to the conclusion that putting a flimsy allegation forward was worth the risk.  It would also play well to the folks back home who have abandoned her as not being liberal enough.  We all have seen the results: her decision has taken political theater to new levels.

The outcome regarding Kavanaugh is pending as this is written.  But a conclusion that many have come to is that the action taken by Feinstein was both reprehensible and not worthy of a person of her position.

This woman needs to fade into the sunset, to spend her remaining days living off her husband's wealth.  But she has not taken the hint sent her way when the Democrats refused her an endorsement.

Due to California's unusual primary system, the voters have two choices for the Senate seat currently occupied by octogenarian Feinstein.  Both are Democrats.  DiFi is one, while the other is Kevin de León, a man who is to the left of DiFi, dwelling in the Bernie Sanders and Occasional Cortex wing of the party.

Feinstein, with a comfortable 20-point lead, is sailing toward an easy win.  The Republican voters will reluctantly either cast their vote for her or sit that one out, letting the chips fall where they may.

Doing so would not send any messages or accomplish any worthy goal.

A proposal that does might be worth considering: vote for Kevin de León.

I know there are a thousand reasons to not like his politics, but that is not what this is about.

Let's not kid ourselves: the voting record of a Senator de León will match the votes cast by Feinstein.  That being the case, they are in essence a distinction without a difference.

De León will also have the benefit of demonstrating to the nation just how far left the Democrats have gone.  Far-left extremists like Pelosi and Waters have been a recruiting gold mine for conservatives.  De León has the potential to carry that red banner into the future, one that will soon be devoid of the current occupants of the rest-home wing of the party.

How can one justify voting for a man whose politics are an anathema to all ideals of conservatism?

Answer: Dianne Feinstein's recent actions have now made her the greater of the two evils.