Frustrated Media Stamps Tiny Feet

They never stop, they never sleep, they never quit. Exhibit A, from the partisan New Yorker, which started this round of Leftist lunacy with its thoroughly irresponsible and unsourced hit job on the judge a couple of days ago, and now wants to know why no sane person is listening:

As reporters have investigated his past, a mountain of evidence has accumulated against the claims about Kavanaugh’s character when he was a teen-ager and young man. In a high-school yearbook, the  Times discovered, Kavanaugh and seventeen other students listed themselves as Renate alumni, a reference to a young woman named Renate Schroeder. His freshman-year roommate at Yale, James Roche, who became a friend of Deborah Ramirez, told  The New Yorker that Kavanaugh was “frequently, incoherently drunk” and went on to say, “Is it believable that she was alone with a wolfy group of guys who thought it was funny to sexually torment a girl like Debbie? Yeah, definitely. Is it believable that Kavanaugh was one of them? Yes.” On Thursday, Kavanaugh will not just be asking the senators on the Judiciary Committee to accept that Ford mistook his face but also to believe that many of his contemporaries and his friends mistook his character.

That it has come to this—that a Supreme Court confirmation will hinge on whether a young man in the nineteen-eighties drunkenly degraded women or comported himself as a figure of Catholic chastity—represents a breakdown of the most successful effort of the Trump Administration, the confirmation of conservative judges. The program was simple: Trump chose judges screened by the conservative Federalist Society, the Republican Senate confirmed them, and Fox News supported them. The entire process could take place—as Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation did—within the conservative ecosystem. Democrats could oppose nominees, and the mainstream media could gripe about them, but none of it would matter. “Fake news” is, among other things, a declaration of a boundary that defines which information will and will not matter to Republicans. As late as Monday morning, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was insisting that, despite the accusations against Kavanaugh, the Senate majority would “plow right through.”

In other words, they would act just like Democrats.

One obvious question is why the Republicans don’t simply abandon Kavanaugh. There are plenty of other conservative jurists, after all, and McConnell advised Trump against picking him in the first place. The answer may not be complicated. With the midterm elections drawing close, the President under investigation, and the Senate majority dependent on the narrowest of margins, “plow right through” is not a declaration of strength. It is an effort to manage political weakness.

Thus says a small child named Benjamin Wallace-Wells.  Nice gratuitous crack about "Catholic chastity" in there, buddy.

In other news of Leftist groupthink, Politico helpfully piles on by threatening vulnerable Democrat senators up for re-election this fall to toe the party line or else read all about it in the Borg Daily News:

Red-state Democrats refuse to come out against Kavanaugh

Democratic leaders need a unified caucus to put maximum pressure on a handful of holdout Republicans.

Democrats have all the cover they need to vote in lockstep against Brett Kavanaugh. But a half-dozen of them have refused to go there, even after the pair of sexual assault allegations against the Supreme Court nominee. Democratic insiders are feeling more bullish than ever that the party’s 49 caucus members ultimately will oppose Kavanaugh. Yet the undeclared bloc of Democratic senators could be a problem for Democratic leaders, who want to put the weight of the nomination entirely on a handful of holdout Republicans.

“I’m very open. I haven’t closed any doors at all on Kavanaugh. I just want to make sure there’s a fair, open and civil hearing,” said Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, perhaps the most conservative Democrat. “The man has to have a chance to clear his name, but these ladies have the complete opportunity to tell their story.”

The Democratic Caucus’ clutch of moderate senators, who mostly hail from conservative states where voters could punish them for opposing Kavanaugh, is under more pressure than ever from a liberal base furious over the sexual assault allegations. So most of those intently watched Democrats are deferring their public stance until after Thursday’s scheduled hearing with Ford and Kavanaugh... Still, Democratic leaders are confident of a unanimous "no" vote against Kavanaugh from their caucus, especially if Ford comes off as credible, according to more than a half-dozen senators and aides.

Let's name some more names, shall we? Just so, you know, we have their attention:

Sens. Jon Tester of Montana, Doug Jones of Alabama and Bill Nelson of Florida, all publicly undecided, are expected to be firmly in the “no” column, those people said... Democrats are similarly upbeat that Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) can be persuaded to vote no, senators and aides said. She supported Justice Neil Gorsuch last year and has been intensely targeted by the GOP to back Kavanaugh.

The two biggest wild cards remain Manchin and Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.). Both are paying close attention to how GOP Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine vote, according to one person familiar with their thinking. And the duo has made clear to fellow Democrats that they're agonizing over the decision.

It's a full-court press by the Democrat/Media Complex now, with the endgame rapidly approaching. They need to be dealt a decisive blow on Friday, lest this blackmail-by-unsubstantiated-rumor continue forever.