Also, keep in mind that “the wrong women” here means “anyone who cares more about sexual assault being taken seriously and their own well-being than republicans being able to put exactly Brett Kavanaugh on the supreme court”. Which seems like a lot of people.
Seriously, this is the kind of thing that would convince me that it’s time to abandon my party. But nobody seems to be acting as though it’s actually true. Because it isn’t.
Heck, I’ve wondered if, in a multiple accuser situation, one (or more) of the accusers might recant and say that that is exactly what happened. That would neatly discredit the truthful accusers and cast doubt in all cases going forward.
Yes, that is worrying, the poisoning the well for this type of allegation in general as just one more “dirty politics as usual” tactic.
But even more pernicious is what Exapno Mapcase foresees, in embracing it as a strategy about when the wheel turns, being able to back the other side into the corner of: “We’re going to make it so NOBODY you run or nominate will do so without allegations of heinous offenses, we’re going to force you to elect/confirm someone who has been so accused, and there will be no proof to the contrary we accept.” Because a lot of the public will not draw from that the simple “I say you lied about me so now I’ll lie about you, we’re even”, but instead will conclude that it means *everyone *in the career track to high office *did *do or enable something that opens them to accusation: more erosion of the necessary confidence in the institutions and processes.
It’s important as well to remind readers that Dr. Ford began searching for someone in Government to hear her story when she first learned that Kavanaugh had been shortlisted for the SC position, not when he had been formally nominated. In other words, she had no declared objections to other potential nominees on the list, just this one, on the basis of her described history with him.
If Republicans really believe that their nominees will be met with an endless parade of sexual assault allegations, show the math. Do a deep dive investigation on a candidate until you know that man is as pure as the driven snow. Nominate him. Watch the false allegations pour in, have those allegations investigated, there you go.
Find the recruiting process for these women who will lie. Are the Democrats approaching them? “Hey lady, free Kenyan passport and lifetime membership to Hillary’s Ice Cream and Sex Club if you lie about getting raped on national TV!” This seems risky because any women who say no would have to be Vince Fostered and that carries its own risks but anything for the cause one must suppose.
Or do these women approach the Democrats, offering to lie? If so, that’s easy. Find some doe-eyed beauty, have her go to the Democrats offering to make up sexual assault allegations and record what they say. If you get back “if it is what you say it is, I love it!” congratulations, you’ve got conspiracy!
Recall that during the Roy Moore controversy O’Keefe and his crew tried to fake a Moore accuser to the Post and fell flat on their face. Just grabbing a rando and having them make an accusation will far apart real fast.
Aside: How is O’Keefe not currently in prison for his numerous felonies?
Well-funded and white, same as Brock Turner.
Let’s pretend that somehow, despite the Democrats not doing this to Neil Gorsuch or Ben Carson or Rex Tillerson, henceforth this kind of hardball will be nonstop.
First flaw in that plan is that if it’s all a baseless ploy by the party, some Democrat will break. The Democrats have terrible party discipline and include many moderates.
Second flaw is that you don’t have to fall for it every time. The second time they pull this, maybe you can laugh at them and ram someone through. But this is the first time, maybe the only one. Right now, this candidate and this process look like an aberration.
Third flaw: All the GOP have to do is nominate a woman. Amy Coney Barrett was on the shortlist. Amazingly pro-life, but hardly the walking manifestation of male privilege. Why wouldn’t the “culture of life” prefer her to an unsympathetic, angry, alcoholic brute like Kavanaugh?
Kavanaugh has been an unprinicipled judicial activist, and after he’s shot down the next severely conservative candidate can look sane and moderate by comparison. You want this. This is what a Brett Kavanaugh is for; what he is not for is being an embarrassment on the Supreme Court.
Both sides would do well to target 100 of the opposition’s best political & judicial candidates with sexual smears and allegations. It’s not beyond possibility that numerous politically motivated women are now telling their therapists about an assault on them by some young congressman from Michigan or Florida. Best also to email the allegation to a friend too. That recorded info will be important in 5 to 10 years time.
The problem with being sarcastic about this is that I can seriously believe that this is what Flyer, Shodan, or Ultravires believes.
So we’d essentially be deploying hundreds of sleeper agents on possible Supreme Court picks, who make up false allegations years in advance just to potentially torpedo nominations if the DNC deems it important enough.
Well, look, I can give you an entirely cynical explanation for why the GOP decided that Clarence Thomas should be tapped to replace Thurgood Marshall; and I can give you an entirely cynical explanation for why they’d want to tap Amy Coney Barrett to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Which would you like first?
From a cynical, realpolitik perspective, Amy Coney Barrett would be a better pick. It’s pretty bad optics to have an all male majority destroy a woman’s right to choose. The conservatives could use her as a cover, “Oh, so you’re saying Amy Barrett is sexist against women huh?”
More gibberish from the right designed to discredit the accusers and the accusation.
In their world, everything is a plot, everything is a conspiracy, nobody genuinely believes what they say. It’s all just smoke and mirrors and influence peddling.
It’s disgusting.
It is not raised as a serious point. It it just part of the endless whataboutism the right embraces.
-Trump has groped 22 women.
–Bengazi! Emails! Democratic conspiracy!
Nobody with more than two brain cells to rub together actually believes any of that shit.
It is just a effective method of changing the subject.
Hence the overwhelming sound of crickets in regard to serious rebuttal of the OP.
I even PM’d the two members I quoted in the OP. I’ll see if they get back to me. 
Just something to clarify - if this kind of thing works, and Kavanaugh is not confirmed based on unsubstantiated allegations, it is not just the Democrats who are going to try it again. The Republicans are going to do it just as hard, the next time a liberal is nominated.
Recognizing that the sides will flip-flop instantly, and that allegations with exactly the same amount of evidence will instantly become not credible when made against a liberal judge - it will still happen.
The Democrats do not hold the moral high ground here. They have chosen to take the game to the next level. That’s where it’s going to be played. I would like to believe that Republicans are better than this, but I don’t. And all the “no fair - he hit me back” in the world will make any difference.
“I’ll take my revenge and then we both have to stop” doesn’t work.
Regards,
Shodan
This presumes that credible and damaging accusations against politicians are easy to manufacture.
I see no reason to believe this is the case.
Okay, but would you like to address the OP? Would you like to back up this theory you continue to assert as though it was plain as day? Specifically, this:
“The game”. Y’know, because clearly it’s impossible that Brett Kavanaugh is being accused of sexual assault because he sexually assaulted someone. Clearly, the only reasonable explanation is that democratic operatives are crying wolf to undermine his supreme court run.
Various people, including me in my opening post, have pointed out how this makes little to no sense whatsoever. That this is a truly bizarre thing to even allege. I’m wondering if you could, y’know, make the case for it, if that’s what you believe. Not just restate “this is a thing, here are the consequences of that”, because that does nothing to make it any less ludicrous.
Or are you making a claim more similar to Velocity’s, in which case I would refer you to my response to him in post 17, particularly the “If my side is made of absolute goddamn fucking monsters I probably shouldn’t be part of it” part.