Will Kavanaugh cost us Congress?

Trump chilled many a bone when he announced that the Kavanaugh investigation could turn out to be "a blessing in disguise."

Democrats scoffed. They pointed to polls which showed that a majority (though not an overwhelming majority) of Americans had turned against Kavanaugh -- nationwide.

Problem: Congressfolk are not elected in nationwide campaigns.

The hard truth is that the tide is turning against the Democrats.

It's looking as though North Dakota, where Kavanaugh is popular, is a lost cause. Heidi Heitkamp, the Democratic incumbent, is ten points down. Her only hope for victory is to vote yes on Kavanaugh, and even that move probably can't save her.

Should she do the right thing and give up all hope of retaining her seat, or should she do the wrong thing without any assurance that a moral compromise will win her the election? If she asked my advice, I'd tell her to vote against Kavanaugh and make plans for a new career. I might give different advice if the poll numbers were closer.

The poll also finds North Dakotans support the confirmation of Kavanaugh by a 60 percent to 27 percent margin. Furthermore, the survey found that at 21 percent, more people rated Kavanaugh as their top concern than any other single issue.

The poll was taken after sexual misconduct allegations surfaced against Kavanaugh, but before last week's hearing on the matter.

Astounding. The top issue? Putting that despicable -- and blackmailable -- perjury-loving partisan on the Supreme Court is their foremost priority?

One must never underestimate the power of right-wing propaganda.

As I've often noted in the past, a CBS poll taken just a few days after the 9/11 attacks revealed that only three percent of the population blamed Saddam Hussein. By 2003, the vast majority of Americans (including most Democrats) believed in the false theory of Iraqi responsibility.

The populace has been continually inundated with similarly false propaganda designed to convey the impression that the entire Democratic party is a ruthless, conspiratorial nightmare, and that the Clintons are in league with the devil. All you need do is invoke the Clintonian menace -- as Kavanaugh did -- and the American public will forgive your every sin.

It has been a while since we visited the 538 site. The news is not good -- in fact, the news is almost incomprehensible. The testimony of Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavnaugh has actually increased the likelihood that the Republicans will retain control of the Senate.



Moreover, the likelihood of a "blue wave" giving the House over to the Democrats has diminished.



Feel free to pooh-pooh the data, if doing so helps you get through the day. You're whistling past the graveyard. The Kavanaugh controversy is helping the Republicans keep Congress.

Perjury. I think part of the problem stems from the fact that the public is talking about sex, not perjury.

Kavanaugh lies under oath. Constantly. His penchant for prevarication was the main reason why, before Blasey Ford's claims became public, I urged readers to call their senators to urge a No vote on Kavanaugh. (I did not issue such calls in the case of Gorsuch.)

We can now add another lie to the pile: Kavanaugh claimed under oath that he learned about the Ramirez allegation from the news media. That claim is demonstrably untrue. We now know that, before the New Yorker published, Kavanaugh discovered what was about to hit him and engaged in some frantic behind-the-scenes attempts at witness tampering.

The only defense that Republicans have been able to mount is that his "Ramirez" perjury was not serious. Yet a far less serious claim of perjury was the sole basis of the impeachment case against Bill Clinton.

The hypocrisy is infuriating.

Swetnick. The following exchange with a reader may be of some interest. First, from the reader:

Why have you never suggested that Julie Swetnick is the MacAlpine Gambit? Nothing about her has been verified in terms of her employment, academic history, and people willing to vouch for her. I think Avenatti was a better lawyer for Stormy Daniels/Stephanie Clifford than her previous one who seemed to be in cahoots with Michael Cohen. Other than that, I don’t think his record has been that sterling other than his ability to get media appearances and no one has ever been able to track down who he is working for or aligned. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

My response (slightly rewritten for clarity):

I've been thinking along those lines. Swetnick does seem to have her issues. (Plus, as you know, I have other issues with Avenatti.) I was very disturbed to learn that she cited dead people as her witnesses. On the other hand, two things speak to her credit:

1. She always invited an FBI investigation.

2. Trump seems to want the current investigation to look at Blasey Ford and Ramirez, not Swetnick.

In the past, the ringer has always proven to be the one who gets the MOST attention. For example, during the heyday of the October Surprise controversy, much publicity was given to the claims made by Oswald LeWinter and Gunther Russbacher, who turned out to be a couple of phonies with spooky backgrounds.

Thus, if Swetnick were the false claimant (as in secretly working on Trump's behalf), the President and his backers would be telling the FBI to focus on her.

That said, things are not looking all that good for Swetnick and Avenatti. You should read the comments appended to that Mediaite story; they'll give you some notion of why the blue wave will soon turn red. Avenatti's twitter feed indicates that he has yet to rebut the damaging reports on MSNBC last night. Avenatti knows (but is too proud to admit) that if he has lost MSNBC, he has lost period.