Trump profits from misogyny.

"It used to be a pretty good deal to be a white, Christian male in America, but things have changed and I think they do feel threatened.” 

                              Diana C. Mutz, professor at University of Pennsylvania.

Backlash.

Republicans are losing the culture war. That is why they just won another battle in the political war. 

Click: fivethirtyeight

Lindsey Graham framed the issue cleverly to save the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh. It wasn't about a sexual assault. The conflict was about the culture war:

“I’m a single white male from South Carolina, and I’m told I should just shut up, but I will not shut up.”

Republicans succeeded because they made the Kavanaugh nomination about #MeToo. Republicans circled the wagons and energized their base.  Republican voters don't trust #MeToo. 

A close look at a Huffington Post/YouGov poll in August of this year shows an odd split in how voters think about sexual harassment. Click Here. 

In general, voters agree that women have a grievance. Majorities of both parties agree that women who bring sexual harassments complaints public are doing a positive thing.

But when the issue gets specific to #MeToo as a movement, one which directly challenges white male privilege, everything changes. Only 26% of Republicans think favorably of #MeToo and 54% think it has gone "too far." This compares with 71% of Democrats who think favorably of it and 9% who think it has gone "too far."

Click: Fear of cultural displacement

Notice that opinion divides by party, not gender. Some 32% of men think #MeToo has gone too far vs. 25% of women. Some 37% of men have an unfavorable view of #MeToo vs. 26% of women. 

#MeToo is a movement of liberal women, not of women. 

The #MeToo movement loses popularity with Republicans because it goes beyond passive and patient grievance. #MeToo contains a weapon to make change by bringing to light misbehavior by entitled and powerful people, usually male. 

Lindsey Graham protested being treated like a woman or a person of color, i.e silenced and disempowered. That reverses the social order, and it has embedded in it an implied accusation: men aren't woke and cannot be.

Many in my acquaintance think the idea of a white men feeling themselves to be the aggrieved and put-upon group is absurd and laughable on its face. Democratic messaging assumes that of course white men should understand they have a tailwind of privilege.

Republican messaging understands something very different. It understands that a great many men feel that they are the ones under attack. 

Can white men really, actually think themselves to be the primary victim of profiling and status discrimination? Yes, apparently they do. Lots of them. Click. NPR poll: Majority of white men think they are the primary victim of discrimination.

Trump channeled their fear and resentment.“It’s a very scary time for young men in America,” arguing that men who face accusations of sexual misconduct are “truly guilty until proven innocent.”

Many Democratic women scoff in disbelief. How ludicrous. And yet Americans wake up this morning to watch videos of the crowd cheering Trump when he said this, and to recognize that Kavanaugh just received a majority vote in the United States Senate.

Trump divides and inflames the culture war because he has figured out a way to profit from it.

Kate Brown, Democrat. Knute Buehler, Republican.

The talk radio host assures his listeners Buehler is just pandering.

"Listening to Knute Buehler. . .  I was ready to throw up.  He's not a super conservative guy.  He's trying to pander. He has to get a whole lot of libs to cross the aisle, and it isn't always pretty."

                                             Bill Meyer, AM talk radio host, describing the debate

Debate setup: Kate Brown, KOBI General Manager, Knute Buehler

Readers can watch the debate for themselves: Click Here.

In the TV debate Kate Brown confirmed what we already knew. She is a Democrat.

The debate gave us insight into the more complicated case of Knute Buehler. He has to perform a tricky act: sound like a Democrat and vote like a Republican, and keep everyone happy.


Kate Brown's answers were predictable to people who follow progressive politics. She is a liberal, progressive, pro-reproductive rights, pro-immigrant Democrat, who supports education as a transformational elevator out of poverty, and access to health care as a human right which should be extended broadly. Her answers to questions reflected this. 

Knute Buehler's situation required careful listening. From time to time he sounded something like Kate Brown. That is what dismayed the conservative talk-radio host.

 Democrat

Buehler sounds moderate and independent-minded. 

One way to do this is by taking visible progressive stances on issues that you cannot change. A panelist asked: How do you feel about the Judge Kavanaugh nomination? Kate Brown's answer was predictable: she opposed it. So did Knute Buehler and sounded like a US Senate Democrat. In answer to another question he said he wished Congressional Republicans had passed an immigration bill. 

This is cost-free signaling--striking a progressive tone in places where you have no vote and little influence.

On state issues he talks progressive, but is voting with the Republican team. He does this by explaining his vote as motivated by progressive values and goals. He voted against the bipartisan transportation package, money for infrastructure. "It was too small," he said. 

He criticized the cost of PERS obligations of the state employees and says he will lower them somehow--but voices that his motivation is to pay state employees more. 

Republican

He says he is pro-choice, but supports Ballot Measure 106 which disallows abortion as a service in any Oregon's various health plan, involving about a quarter of Oregon's population. 

He said he is pro-immigrant, but voted against in-state tuition for DACA youth and supports Measure 105 which reverses the long-standing Oregon policy of not turning non-violent undocumented offenders over to federal immigration authorities. He describes himself this way: "I'm going to vote for Measure 105, but its not a priority for me." 

Knute Buehler presents a balancing act. There is a bit of something for everyone in his positions, and voters can hear what they want to hear. Many people find him personally appealing--Rhodes Scholar doctor from Bend--so they may want to give him the benefit of the doubt. Kate Brown's task in the debate was to pin him down and reveal his votes and note the Republican buried within the progressive message. She, aided by the debate format of detailed questions, succeeded.

Coming from the opposite direction was the talk show host, saying Buehler and Brown presented a binary choice., Brown wanted people to see Buehler as--at bottom--the Republican alternative in a binary choice.   Click: minute 2:39

Jordan Cove. There was one controversial issue in which Buehler is forthright, the Jordan Cove pipeline project. Buehler supports it, saying it would "transform [for the better] not only Coos County but most of Southern Oregon, not only economically but socially. He said "I will be the governor who will beat down the barriers, [and] sign the permits." Meanwhile, Kate Brown is non-committal, pulled one way by union groups who support it, and the other way by environmental groups, in opposition.

In the debate Buehler brought it up on his own. Brown was silent about the project.

Demonstrators outside the debate

The Jordan Cove LNG pipeline project owners have begun significant advertising locally. Click: Here's an example   For two years all the visible agitation on the project came from the opponents, people who filled Town Hall meetings with anti-pipeline signs, and the weight of public opinion appeared to be in opposition. Support was vague and unmotivated. Opposition was adamant. 

The issue is a risk for each candidate. Brown may lose Democratic votes from both sides, union and environmentalist. Those demonstrators aren't trying to influence Buehler, a lost cause. They are pressuring Brown, and they show up repeatedly at her events. However, Buehler may be giving environmentalists a reason to vote for Brown.

The debate clarified the difference between the candidates: Democrat vs. Republican. Knute Buehler's messaging is moderate in comparison with his Republican primary opponents, but when it comes down to votes, the distinction evaporates. He is part of a larger team of Republican officeholders and activists who reflect the new, conservative populist tone of the GOP in this Trump era. That political environment pushes Buehler to the right in places where it matters, votes.

Medford's KOBI-TV Hosts Governor Debate

Kate Brown and Knute Buehler make their case in Medford TV debate.

KOBI-TV did it right.

The KOBI format was brisk. The questions were pointed. The candidates talked about substantial things.

KOBI did the debate the way national presidential debates should do it, but don't.

The KOBI format.  Click to watch: 57 minutes.

Tomorrow's blog post will look closely at the content of the candidates' messages. I will summarize here by saying that Kate Brown repeatedly claimed bi-partisanship, working with Republicans, collaboration and progress on issues. Knute Buehler repeatedly claimed Oregon had multiple problems which Brown failed to address.  Brown defended paying teachers and firefighters the retirements they had contacted for. Buehler said he would "take on powerful entrenched interests in this state to come up with a lasting solution" to the costs of public retirements. 

More about this tomorrow.

Today, let's take a close look at why the debate was a success. It furthered the Democratic process. We actually saw and heard from candidates answering questions. It was a debate, not a a cage fight.

Outside the studio

1.  KOBI kept debate about the debate, not the stuff outside. Just outside the studio groups of supporters came to cheer their side. People with signs are more interesting visually than are people standing at lecterns, talking about the serious business of self government. 

Prior to the debate partisans on both sides showed up to "show support." This group of opponents of the LNG pipeline were chanting rhymes and slogans in the minutes before the debate. KOBI had every opportunity to "spice up" the debate coverage by alluding to the events outside, but to their credit, they did not.

2. It was a debate, not a sporting event. No cheering. An audience of about 75 were invited guests from a variety of political backgrounds. They were cautioned to listen quietly and not applaud or otherwise react except at the beginning and end of the debate. They obeyed. It meant that the focus was on what the candidates said, not on what response it elicited.

3. It wasn't about the panelists. A debate gives news people an opportunity to showcase themselves to a wider audience. Look at me! Look what a clever bold question I asked!  See how my question flummoxes or angers a candidate!  See how great KOBI is!

KOBI's people did the opposite. 

The panel of three asked brief, specific questions, with little introductory buildup. The questions seemed designed to force the candidates actually to reveal points of policy, not simply boilerplate platitudes. Example, question one: "We begin with a viewer question tonight. They ask what issue gives you the highest opportunity to cooperate with the opposing party to pass legislation?"

That is it. Start to finish, just under 9 seconds. The anchor had completed the brief explanation of the format, then immediately turned to the questioner, who immediately asked that question.

Panel of questioners

Question two was the same thing. Anchor Craig Smullen simply said that Patsy Smullen had the next question, and without further delay she began speaking, "Governor Brown, Oregon has one of the lowest graduations rates in the country. Our viewers ask, how will you fix that?"

The question was seven seconds, start to finish.

No showing off. No hogging the TV time. 

The candidates took the cue from this. They themselves each began speaking immediately and on topic.

4. Specific questions encouraged specific answers. This generally worked as intended, and answers candidates gave seemed specific to the question and essentially extemporaneous, not canned. Not always. The question "will you pledge to go to every count in the state at least once a year" could have been answered with a yes or no answer. It wasn't. Governor Brown said she will immediately go to where she is needed, to Roseburg after a shooting, to the Medford viaduct to inspect the cracks, to the scene of fires. Knute Buehler didn't explain how he was going to solve the PERS problem. Still, the KOBI format was disciplined enough that the candidate responses were entirely different from presidential debates, where candidates take a key word from a long question to justify re-delivering that paragraph from their stump speeches. That is the standard. Not here.

5. The format let us see each candidate's personality. Brown spoke quickly, and generally used precise, formal language. She said "infrastructure failure in a seismic event" rather than "bridge fall down" and it projected experience and self confidence.  Knute Buehler wore an open shirt and no tie, he spoke more slowly and conversationally than did Brown, and he opposed nearly everything Brown did, but in the genial tone of an explainer. 

She came across as the knowledgable pro. He came across as the nice guy who disagrees on everything with the incumbent. That positioning was obviously intentional on both parts, and the format allowed them to present themselves as they chose to.

6. No bickering. The format allowed one candidate to talk, the other to respond, then the first candidate to respond back--then stop. No more back and forth. The format avoided comments on the comments on the comments. The questioners immediately moved to a new topic.The net effect was for the discussion to be about the issues brought up by the new question rather than the comments made by the opposing candidate.

This helped the overall tone of the debate.

Summary:

This may have worked out better for democracy in Oregon than it worked out for KOBI. This was an opportunity to be in the center of an exciting visual brawl: KOBI as breaking news. Instead, they hosted a genuine debate. Debates are more important than brawls, but may not draw as large an audience. No good deed goes unpunished.

It is nice to see our news media do the right thing.

A woman speaks: Guest Post by Penny Flenniken

Penny Flenniken

"I am angry because I, too, have felt lesser than, unimportant, not listened to--just like Dr. Ford."

                    Penny Flenniken. retired teacher, writer, in Portland, Oregon

Americans are experiencing a multi-dimensional drama in the controversy over the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh.

The Senate has reduced it to loyalty to the Republican or Democratic team, and the drama is over whether their gender and support for reproductive rights will cause Senator Susan Collins and Senator Lisa Murkowski to peel off the team.  Perhaps Jeff Flake, who has been excluded from the team for his apostasy on Trump, will join them.  That is the drama. Do they have 50 votes plus the Vice President.

There is another drama, the divide between men and women. In particular this is a divide between men without college degrees, the men who voted overwhelmingly for Trump in 2016, presumably out of recognition and unease that their role was eroding in the economy and that their place as the "head of the family" was shifting into something more egalitarian. 

This week the Washington Post reported a poll: Click: "War on Men."

65 percent of non-college-educated white men support confirming Kavanaugh
66 percent of them believe Kavanaugh over Ford
65 percent of them believe Kavanaugh has been treated unfairly
72 percent of them believe Kavanaugh has been the target of a smear campaign

This poll will take many people by surprise.  What could possibly be going on in some men's minds?

"A man's life is shattered."

The fears and resentments of those men polled, plus their spokespersons on Fox News, and the people in the crowd at the Trump rally in Mississippi, all reflect an entirely different view of the world from the view of today's Guest Post writer. Trump voiced their fears. A woman's allegation, from 35 years before and out of the blue, can destroy any man. The phrase "Believe the Woman" means no man has safe harbor, not for his career, his freedom, his property, his family. There is no statute of limitations.

His guilt is assumed to be probable. She is to be described as a "survivor," not an "accuser."

Men perceive themselves as vulnerable, and don't like it. They identify with the man accused. They need not have a guilty conscience. They are in the vulnerable position of being guilty of having the wrong status--a position well known to black and brown people, to immigrants, to women. Only now it is the men's turn.

So that's how it feels to be in the weak position.  Oh.

Some see this state of affairs as overdue. Today's guest post shares one woman's view.

Guest Post, by Penny Flenniken

"My rant on whats happening now."

The beach at Seaside, Oregon was warm. The ocean water frothy from waves that sparked in the sunlight. 

The arts and craft home where we stayed included a gas fireplace and a sun porch. Perfect, but no WiFi . 

Flenniken: A career among school children

So much drama was occurring on Thursday. I watched it on my phone. The woman, the scientist, the soft spoken presence that was 100% certain that an attempted rape had occurred was speaking. She had almost been accidentally killed her by a seventeen year old drunken boy. 

The lunch break was three hours away on the east coast, I told my husband we had to leave. Our joint cell phone plan was out of data. Twenty million people were watching, what was one more? Why the need to watch? 

We packed up hurriedly. We turned on the car radio. More reactions from commentators. They found her believable.  She told her story before she knew Kavanaugh would be the chosen one.  She told it years before.  She told it with pain in her voice . She wanted to be helpful. We drove over roads that were thick with trees and hills that blocked out radio waves.  We reached an open vista where we could hear again. This time it was the man who held the room hostage to his voice, his yells, his sobs of outrage. He was hurt.  His good name was besmirched. 

More yelling by Linsey Graham. More older white men joined him in angry protests calling Dr .Ford's interview unfair and without merit, Democratic dirty tricks. How had those minutes we were out of contact with the story  caused this reversal? Why was Kavanaugh now the victim and not Dr. Ford? How could this man who had attended elite private schools, with plenty of friends, with athletic ability and scholastic  privilege be the one aggrieved? She had not wanted to tell her story to the cameras. She thought it was her duty as a citizen to come forward with her truth. 

Shut up!  Shut up! Old news, not important disqualifying information even if true, say 54% of republicans, who control  levers of power. Don’t talk, don’t say what you think, you do not have the floor, nor the walls, nor the ceiling. 

The old white men are still in charge. So yes I am angry. Not angry at men in general, not at men as a group, but at particular men who think it is their right to the best job, the most money, the best place in line and men who do not listen to the softer voices of women who share the planet with them. Men exactly like Brett Kavanaugh. I am angry because I too have felt lesser than, unimportant, not listened to, just like Dr. Ford. 

When women are praised and held in high esteem it is mostly for their beauty. We know we are most particularly beloved when we make a man feel he is the important one. 

. 

. 

Golden and Gomez on smoke, fire, and climate change.

Jeff Golden: "The smoke was caused by climate chaos."

Jessica Gomez: "Don't let my opponent's language scare you."

The Candidates Forum sponsored by Southern Oregon Climate Action showed that voters in Senate District 3 have policy choices. 

Jeff Golden has long staked out a definable political brand and reputation. He is a progressive, environmentalist Democratic dove, skeptical of the political influence of interest groups, particularly fossil fuel and other business interests. The issue at the Forum was climate change and what to do about it. He said miserable smoke and forest fires are just the latest symptom of a problem that has been growing for decades. He wants to take steps now to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, because the problem has grown urgent. 

Golden yes.  Gomez sort-of maybe.

Jessica Gomez is new to being a Republican and she is fleshing out her political reputation now.  Hers is more complicated. Her campaign signs avoid the word "Republican" but she is running as a Republican. She is Latina in a party whose voters chose a president with an ethno-nationalist message of protecting the US from the demographic and cultural changes brought by immigrants from Latin America. She says she generally agrees with environmentalist goals, but supports Republican positions on how to reach them, which often means opposing Democratic initiatives. She supports reproductive rights but also supports the ballot measure that forbids state funded health programs from paying for abortions. She opposes the construction of the Jordan Cove pipeline, but said she would not want to put pressure on regulators to stop it, which is why she held up both Yes and No signs in response to a question on it. 

Her "yes" and "no" is emblematic of the problem she faces attempting to be a Republican moderate expressing views that reflect her own beliefs. Some will call her "wishy-washy," and some Republicans say she is not really a Republican at all. She nearly lost her primary election. But she may please others who think the GOP has lost the support of the new generation of young, female, environmentally-concerned, pro-choice, business-oriented Republicans, and for them Gomez could be that new, better future.

At the Forum Jeff Golden had a clear message of purpose and urgency. Gomez's message was one of caution.

Golden said we have already delayed too long. "I think a rational society would have started pricing carbon emissions about thirty years ago, about the time Exxon was sending memos describing climate change. . . . The western states have been on fire for months. Australia is on fire." Golden said climate change is causing the hot dry summers that cause our forests to burn up. "We can't take forever to find the perfectly outlined detailed plan."  

Climate and forest policy, both.

At the Forum Gomez called Golden's words "scary language."  She said she agreed with the audience that the environment "is precious and we need to protect it." She recognizes that many Republicans deny that humans are affecting the climate, but that she "doesn't follow the Party line" on this. She said she wants to support programs when they are "practical and pragmatic," and that she didn't want to see solutions designed to solve problems in a big city but which don't work well when applied to the rural parts of Oregon. 

Following the Monday night Forum, I asked both Golden and Gomez what they thought the differences between them boiled down to.

Golden said the biggest difference was urgency.  He said, "I believe Jessica’s concerned about the smoke, too—she lived in it this summer, she has children she loves.  What I don’t believe is that she would stand up to the fossil fuel industry with legislation that might trim their profits, or by clearly and strongly opposing the Jordan Cove pipeline. What I heard last night was something like 'Yes, I’m concerned, but let’s not rush into legislation that might have flaws...let’s take our time to be sure it’s just right.'"  Golden noted that she received campaign contributions from Chevron, BP, and Tesoro, the very companies in the fossil fuel industry who use their political clout to "crush efforts to make them pay for the impacts" their industry creates on climate.

Gomez said to me that the issue was one of practicality. "Jeff is in favor of cap and trade policies. I am not. Cap and trade is really complex and I 'm not confident Oregon can administer this. Moreover, I don't believe it actually accomplishes the goal of meaningful carbon reduction in a national or worldwide scale. It's a lot of bother for not much real benefit. It's a raindrop in an ocean." 

Jessica Gomez and Jeff Golden

The campaign is starting to clarify that voters are not simply choosing between a Democrat and a Republican. There are actual policy choices at stake.

   ***Golden and Gomez differ on the abortion ban initiative, Measure 106. Gomez supports it; Golden opposes it.

   ***Golden and Gomez differ on what to do about the Jordan Cove pipeline through Jackson County. They both oppose it but Golden wants to pursue the opposition with more vigor; she is yes and no.

   ***Golden and Gomez differ on whether to support an Oregon cap and trade measure intended to reduce greenhouse gases. Golden says yes, we need to get moving on this. Gomez says not-so-fast.

Steve Dickson, candidate for Medford City Council.

Steve Dickson

"I believe in this community and want to be part of something worthwhile."

Steve Dickson, candidate for Medford City Council

Voters in Medford's Ward One have a confusing problem. 

The best known of the four candidates is familiar for all the wrong reasons: tax evasion, angry and vulgar comments and threats in emails, Facebook, and comments on social media. That is Curt Ankerberg.

My purpose is to help voters clarify who is who.

Ankerberg is the nasty one, but these other names are the alternatives: Steve Dickson, Alex Poythress, and David Dobrin.

I start with a premise: nearly all voters who are paying attention will want someone other than Ankerberg. Even if one agreed with Ankerberg's general policies in his attacks on the nearly every Democrat and Republican officeholder, the Chamber of Commerce, Medford businesses, and Medford government generally, the newspaper, and the IRS that found him guilty of fraud, my assumption is that voters would surely agree that his temperament of furious and obscene rants would make him dangerous and ineffective as a spokesman for those views. It just isn't effective to call opponents "whore," "slovenly pig," "sick motherfucker," and "sex deviant."  Curt does it intentionally and for publication.

Click: The Mail Tribune also described his rants

Curt Ankerberg is is own worst enemy politically. See for yourself from two blog posts drawn from just a small sample of screen prints I have preserved of Ankerberg's own words:

Click: September 15.   
Click: September 16 

Steve Dickson would be a solid choice as an alternative.

In the interview with me and in his Voters Pamphlet he presents himself as someone with a genial public spiritedness.  I offered each candidate an opportunity to present themselves in their own words. 

Today is Dickson's turn.

Dickson wrote: 

"Thank you for your kindness and willingness to speak with the candidates. I believe in this community and want to be part of something worthwhile. I want to be part of the future of this community. If you vote for me I will serve to the best of my abilities in alignment with the values of caring, trust, integrity, goodwill, and service."

He then asked me present his Voters Pamphlet statement, saying he wanted to reaffirm his positions as stated there.

Guest Post by Steve Dickson

Occupation:   Human Resource Specialist

Dickson

Occupational background: Human Resources and Medical Laboratory Science

Education:

B.S. (University of Utah)

Master’s in Business Administration (Southern Oregon University)

Doctoral Candidate in Business Administration (Grand Canyon University)

Government Experience:

Medford City Budget Committee 2011 to Present

MURA Budget Committee 2011 to Present

General Fund Grants Sub Committee 2015 to Present

Mission

To be part of creating a bright future for the community I serve

Vision

A productive and sustainable community

Values

Care Trust Integrity Goodwill Service

If you choose to vote for me, I will strive to serve you and our community to the best of my ability. I will engage with you, government and community partners to create a bright future that is fiscally responsible, productive and sustainable. As your representative on the City Council, I will advocate for you and the future of our community.

Community Opportunities

Affordable Housing for Medford is a critical issue in Southern Oregon. I believe the city can do more to help facilitate viable solutions. Continuous and solution-based engagement with community partners can increase affordable housing opportunities.

Economic vitality for Medford is essential to the creation of a productive and sustainable community. Medford has many opportunities for growth. Expansion of the Parks and Recreation can increase regional visibility and produce a family-friendly environment. Also, solution-based conversations with business partners can increase economic vitality. 

Safety and security for Medford is a fundamental component to enable the growth of a dynamic community. Care for the community is integral to the generation of goodwill, safety, and security. To enhance service outcomes, I will engage with government and community partners to facilitate a productive and sustainable community.

Thank you for this opportunity to run for Medford City Council Ward One. I believe in this community.

Kavanaugh perjury.

Karma is a bitch. Also a boomerang.

Twenty years ago Brett Kavanaugh was part of the Kenneth Starr team that put Bill Clinton into the perjury trap. 

He laid another perjury trap this month. This time he laid it for himself.

Let me remind my young readers. Bill Clinton was president. Republicans said there was--maybe--something wrong with a real estate deal that Bill and Hillary Clinton were involved with back before he was elected, the Whitewater development. Kenneth Starr was appointed special counsel. He investigated for years and the investigation migrated from the real estate deal to allegations that Bill Clinton had sex with people prior to his election, which led to information from Linda Tripp, a false-friend of Monica Lewinsky, that Lewinsky had secret oral sex with Bill Clinton in an anteroom of the Oval Office. The Starr investigation focused on that.

Brett Kavanaugh was part of the Starr team, and his job was to lay the perjury trap by creating some of the most embarrassing possible questions for Bill Clinton to answer in front of a video camera in a deposition. Kavanaugh drafted several, including this one: "If Monica Lewinsky says that you ejaculated in her mouth on two occasions in the Oval Office area, would she be lying?"

Bill Clinton didn't want to say "yes" to questions like that on camera, so he dissembled, doing some mental gymnastics about the verb tense to justify himself, and answered falsely. Perjury.

Now it is Kavanaugh's turn.

We got conflicting and uncorroborated stories about whether there was a sexual assault back when Kavanaugh was 17 and Dr. Ford was 15. But Kavanaugh required the foundation that he was in full control of his faculties to say he remembered clearly that he did not assault anyone, he was sure of it.

So Kavanaugh denied drinking to excess, adamantly, under oath.

Yale Classmate

His problem is that there are eye-witnesses to his college drinking, college classmates, Republicans, credible people. They said he frequently drank to excess and was a "sloppy drunk" who stumbled, had slurred speech, and confusion. Whatever his guilt might be regarding a sexual assault, there is good evidence that he drank to incoherence. He lied under oath about this.

Back in 1998 a great many Democrats thought Bill Clinton's crime was hardly grounds for impeachment. The sex activities with Lewinsky were an issue between Bill and Hillary Clinton, not a matter of state. It was a "low crime" and a moral failing to minimize his sexual behavior. 

Republicans said that the sex isn't the issue. The high crime was the perjury, and absolutely grounds for impeachment.

Kavanaugh is a very high functioning person, so brilliant and capable that he can operate at the highest levels, notwithstanding possible heavy drinking. He wants the job of Supreme Court Justice, not airline pilot. So what if he drinks too much. 

The issue isn't the vice of drinking to excess, or even the unprovable assault. It is the perjury.

To have been honest he needed to have said that back in college he used to get wasted on weekends and God knows what he did in an alcohol haze. Having confessed the provable truth, he could add he is sorry if he misbehaved with women or anyone else. 

Click: Some say drunk. Other say incoherent drunk.

With TV cameras on him, he didn't want to say something that embarrassing and risky to the credibility of his denial of any sexual assault done while drunk. Maybe, like Bill Clinton, he thought maybe he had wiggle room, that he drank beer, sure, but not too much, so he minimized.

Perjury.

Who now cares about this perjury about a private vice? Democrats: the people who didn't care 20 years ago about Bill Clinton's perjury about sex. Perjury is perjury, a crime against the justice system.  

Who now defends Kavanaugh and ignores the perjury? The very people who pursued the impeachment of Bill Clinton over perjury.  So much hypocrisy, everywhere.

But now it's Kavanaugh's turn to sweat.