They just ate too much spicy spaghetti, poor things.
Review your posts and tell me you are not predictable.
Remember Bart O’kavanaugh, the fictional character?
Bretts nickname was actually Bart, and he signed letters that way, complete with FFFF before it. Whoops… (I thought FFFF was about some stuttering classmate).
Why didn’t he just tell Senator Whitehouse that?
Possibly then you should not speak so authoritatively of them.
That’s horseshit. They did the only thing they could do which was complain bitterly about it. Ask someone who does know about congressional procedures what else they as the minority party could have done. Better yet, since you’re so authoritative about this thing you concede you don’t really know, spell out what they should have done. Hold their breath? Storm out of congress? Threaten to shut down the government? None of that would have done squat since the Republicans could give two whits about any of that including shutting down the government.
Nice strawman. Never said I was satisfied. I just put the blame where it belongs using actual knowledge of congressional procedure rather than put everyone on blast because I am too lazy to look up congressional procedures and desire to make false equivalencies based on comforting falsehoods and ignorance. YMMV.
Without false equivalences they would have none.
In fairness a person who argues that “I know him personally” should be interpreted to mean “I don’t know him personally” is fairly unpredictable.
I’m taking the author at face value with the assumption that The Atlantic has done some vetting and cross checking. Same as I would for any op-ed written by someone claiming knowledge on a certain subject.
Did you forget to provide a cite to support this belief?
It doesn’t work like that. The evidence is provided in the article. The onus is on you to show Wittes doesn’t really know the guy, if that is your position.
But why act as this matters to your opinion? If it was revealed that Witttes and Kavanaugh knew each other as intimately as two heterosexual men could, it ain’t like his negative assessment of Kav as a potential justice would suddenly make you see him as a poor nominee, would it?
Do you think you could accurately predict what I’m going to post next, or the arguments I’m going to make with any precision or detail? If so, let’s play a game. You can PM some neutral third party your guess, and after I post, we can ask that person to reveal your guess and we can see if it was close or not.
Yes, you may be fond of this person but you made a comment on their job worthiness. Wittes should be granted the same privilege. I personally would rather hear a recommendation for a person seeking employment from a work relation. A person in a intimate relationship with said person is not trustworthy. Of course they will vouch for them.
Just like when people say, “He’s a really good friend of mine,” they mean they rode up in an elevator with him one time.
I know a bit about Congressional procedures. I think they should have all resigned their seats in protest. That would have been a powerful, united statement. It would have really shown the strength of their convictions. 
My “position” was spelled out in post #5657:
It was asking you for a cite, because the one we had on offer did not support your claim that they knew each other “on both a personal and professional level”.
Are you sure you understand how this works? The claim in question is yours. The onus to provide evidence is on you.
No, it would not. Beckdawrek said “A person in a intimate relationship with said person is not trustworthy.” You’re probably not going to convince me on the broader matter of Kavanaugh’s fitness for SCOTUS because your arguments aren’t very good and the evidence to support your position is weak, BUT if you could show that they actually did know each other “on both a personal and professional level”, then you could claim a win for being correct on that point, as opposed to the loss you’re currently facing for being incorrect. But I don’t know, perhaps being correct / accurate in what you post is not really important to you.
Wittes didn’t say “he’s a really good friend of mine”. Evil Economist imagined something along those lines, but has since retracted the claim.
If he’s such a bad judge and a bad person, why was he confirmed 12 years ago? Did YOU complain at that time?
The exchange went like this (according to WaPo):
Earlier in this thread, I believe it was John Mace that shared the story about a lawyer prepping a client for trial. He’d ask them “what time is it?” and when they’d look at their watch, he would correct them that the answer is “I don’t know”. This exchange reminded me of that.
*Asked about McConnell pledge to move forward with the vote, Murkowski told The Associated Press that McConnell “talked about a vote a last week, too.”
Maine Sen. Susan Collins, another undecided Republican, was riding with Murkowski on an underground Senate train. Collins smiled and told her colleague, “Good answer.”*
I never did speak about congressional procedures. I spoke about Democrats and their willingness to play coy, smug games while being played for fools.
You’re focused on minutiae that you admit is inconsequential to your opinion about the man. Im not interested in going down rabbit holes with you.
However I stand by the remainder of my position that:
[ul]
[li]Wittes has known Kavenaugh for decades, and knows Kavenaugh better than you do[/li][li]And is better equipped to judge his fitness for office than you are[/li][li]And previously wrote extensively supporting Kavenaugh [/li][li]And has withdrawn his support based on Kavenaugh’s lies, poor behavior, and unacceptable demeanor[/li][/ul]
If your only counterargument is that they didn’t spend the Autumn spooning in a bed and breakfast in Virginia, then you got nothing but bluster and nitpicking.
The best part of that exchange was Kav being asked about Mark Judge, responding “you’d have to ask [Mark Judge].” When I heard it live, it kind of summed up for me why we needed an FBI investigation. Guess Kav didn’t take prep well because you say anything but that.