The tweet doesn’t make the claim that ANY of the 65 women have changed their position of support. That’s why it’s such shitty spin: the underlying facts don’t support the narrative they’re trying to create. I see though that they managed to confuse BPC.
If the truth were that a dozen or more women they called said something along the lines of “I don’t support Kavanaugh anymore”, they should have (and probably would have) led with that. They didn’t because that’s not what happened, so they had to opt for their “only TWO” formulation.
Look, if they aren’t willing to comment either way at this point, then that’s a change. They were willing to defend him affirmatively just a few days ago (or so the timeframe is claimed to be).
If they’re not willing to reaffirm their support now when a reporter contacts them, then it’s not reasonable for anyone to claim that they still stand behind their signature of that letter.
who are the 65 women? We know they are not school classmates since he was at an all boys school. Did he know them from church? His neighborhood? Some other group like charity work?
Had Ford been drinking at the party? In one interview she claims that Kavanaugh was too inebriated to complete the rape, and in another interview she claims that Kavanaugh only had one beer.
People’s memories of accounts a week later are sketchy at best, much less over 30 years ago.
If Anita Hill couldn’t derail, Clarence Thomas’ confirmation, then I highly doubt this will derail Kavanaugh’s confirmation. I don’t know what happened at the pool party in the early 80’s at some house near Maryland where no adults were present…but it seems unclear if Ford is that certain either.
You, and a few others, are trying to interpret “didn’t respond” (which, in the context of “called” sounds to me like they didn’t answer the phone) as a “change” in their support for Kavanaugh (or in the case of BPC “no longer supported him”). I don’t think that’s a fair or accurate interpretation of an unanswered phone call.
There was only one interview, given to the Washington Post, and cited here a few times. In it, she claimed she had one beer and that Kavanaugh was “heavily intoxicated”.
If a letter I signed had such major national importance, and was being mischaracterized by the press, I would personally put a statement out that I stand by my signature. I think a simple Tweet or Facebook post would be sufficient.
Maybe the 65 women do stand by their view of the nominee; I don’t know. But it isn’t like the press can simply fabricate a story without the signatories having any opportunity to respond and set the record straight.
Not a chance. Besides the fact that the iDJiT is too stoopid to know when to fold 'em, he wants someone who is disinclined to apply the rule of law firmly against the President.
No, I don’t think that. I was trying to explain a position other than the twin mistakes of “he was accused, he must be guilty” and “he has denied it, he must be innocent”. AFAICT the accusation and the denial, taken in themselves, are roughly equal.
Correct - it’s not a trial, in the legal sense. Kavanaugh isn’t entitled to the presumption of innocence. Nor is the accuser IMO entitled to be believed automatically. Evidence is useful in establishing the truth or otherwise of propositions outside the courtroom - did you know that?
I try to figure if it is true or not. This may not be possible, but it is still a good way to proceed.
It doesn’t tell me anything about his character unless and until I can determine if it is true or not. Being the subject of unproven allegations is not a mark of bad character.
Unless he or she is not of my party, of course, but that goes without saying.
I’m not. If you read back, I was addressing a point in a comparison between Kavanaugh’s case and Franken’s. (There are still many on the left who insist Franken was railroaded, btw.)
adaher was making the point that because Franken represented a deep blue state, he was expendable, so it was really no big deal for Dems to dump him. I was just saying that Kavanaugh was totally expendable as well, and tossing in some sarcasm.
Yeah, who among us wouldn’t have a woman come forward to accuse us of attempted rape, with solid evidence that she’d discussed the incident with others years earlier? :rolleyes:
Why, even now, I bet the Dems are cranking up the time machine to be able to plant such evidence in the pasts of all the Federalist Society-approved candidates.
That’s the whole point of the tweet though. The press didn’t “fabricate a story” - they implied it, hoping that the gullible people would infer that it meant that many of the women had renounced their support. If they get called out for it, they can say “I never said that” (and they’ll be correct, they never did say that). That’s why I called it “spin”.
At any rate, it hardly matters. Over the next day or so, women will either reaffirm their support or they won’t. Any that haven’t by COB tomorrow probably aren’t gonna, unless they’re out of contact with civilization.
