Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Never Enough "The Young & the Kavanaugh"!

So, today as I was trawling the headlines for Today’s Exciting Memes—my daily satirical news feature, which you can only read if you pledge your deep and abiding friendship for me on Facebook—I came across two stories buried deep in alt publications.

The first was from The Federalist, which admittedly is a far-right propaganda rag, though it does fact-check. It’s from someone—name redacted—who claims to be an X-boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford. According to a letter this person sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ford’s wide-eyed assertion that she didn’t know anything about lie detector tests—oh golly! Gosh! No!—she had, in fact, prepped her best friend, one Monica L. McLean, on how to prepare for a polygraph when McLean was interviewing for a job with the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

So, a little fib! A small prevarication!

More or less serious than Kavanugh’s questionable definitions of “boof” and “devil’s triangle,” one wonders?

The second is a little more disturbing. It concerns the second front door Ford was in the process of nagging her husband about when the memory of the alleged Kavanaugh attack suddenly surfaced after having been sublimated for more than a quarter of a century.

Mr. and Mrs. Ford were in couples’ therapy; the year was 2012. Mrs. Ford told the Judiciary Committee that she wanted that second door to help alleviate the panic attacks she’d suffered from ever since the alleged attack.

I heard this portion of her testimony, and it sure sounded as though Blasey Ford was talking about installing a second front door.

But the front door had already been installed. It had been installed in 2008.

Of course, nowhere in her testimony did Ford actually say that the second door hadn’t already been installed, so Ford was not lying per se.

I can’t escape the conclusion, however, that she was somewhat deliberately misleading. That she is not quite the guileless innocent she takes pains to present herself as.

This story appears in RealClearPolitics, which is allied neither with the right nor the left.


Of course, neither of these two snippets means that Blasey Ford was not sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh when she was 15, and he was 17.

But like I say, for me at least, these two bits of data smudge the nature of the character she’s been assigned to play in the Left’s production of The Young & the Kavanaugh narrative. Blasey Ford would seem to be somewhat more calculating and less innocent than the idealization I’ve been reading about in six billion Facebook postings (since my “friends” group tilts left.)


I’m also somewhat mystified why these two data points haven’t found their way into more mainstream media.

Were they fact-checked and found to be incorrect by the research staff at The New York Times and The Washington Post?

That’s a real possibility, of course.

Do The New York Times and The Washington Post not consider this information newsworthy?

But, of course, it is newsworthy. Or at least as newsworthy as those endless debates about the real meaning of “devil’s triangle.”

The other possibility is that the mainstream media is not unbiased. That Trump is right. That far from reporting objectively on current events, the mainstream media has a political agenda. An agenda that more-or-less coordinates with the objectives of the mainstream wing Democratic Party.


Don’t get me wrong: I loathe Donald Trump. I don’t want to see Brett Kavanaugh confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice.

But I really prefer to make up my own mind on these kinds of issues.

I don’t want to be herded into some vast ideological corral and prodded into making bleating noises just so Jeff Bezos—the owner of The Washington Post—can come out on top in his feud with Donald Trump.

And when it comes to sheer hatred for abstract Weberian organizations (Weber as in Max), I have to say that the Democratic Party is right at the top of my list.

At least with the Republican Party, it’s easy to see what their agenda is. The Republican Party's agenda is transparent: Rich people are important! You’re not.

The Democratic Party has exactly the same agenda, but they cloak it behind a thin candy shell of populism

I took a lot of heat during the last election when I refused to vote for Hillary Clinton. (No worries: I didn’t vote for Trump either.) Some people stopped talking to me; those people who have affection for me wrote me off as an endearing crackpot.

But the reason I didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton is because I thought then, and I think now, that Bill Clinton is a sexual predator.

Never mind the fact that I firmly believe Hillary Clinton was well aware of her spouse’s proclivities long before they surfaced into the public purview.

People who remain married to sexual predators once the evidence of that predation is clear are enablers.

I wasn’t going to voter for a person who enabled sexual predation.

#MeToo had not even coalesced into a movement in 2016.

The sheer hypocrisy of the Democratic Party in 2018 as it flies the #MeToo flag—as fuckin’ Hillary Clinton herself has the audacity to pontificate on the topic—is just mind-boggling.

This entry was originally posted at http://mallorys-camera.dreamwidth.org. You may leave comments on either Dreamwidth or LiveJournal if you like.


( 13 comments — Leave a comment )
Oct. 3rd, 2018 05:49 pm (UTC)
I saw a blurb https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1047506184440348677 about it but I am not sure how main stream the reporting has been. I agree the media is biased but if it's for any other agenda than click bait is hard to tell. Full disclosure I didn't vote in '96 because the only thing worse than Bill Clinton was the apologists trying to explain why he wasn't gross. I benefited from some of the Clinton era policies but that didn't mean I was willing to dismiss my morals and blindly support him. I wouldn't sit out an election again but back then it seemed like the only way to oppose the message blues were sending was to stay home.
Oct. 4th, 2018 11:18 am (UTC)
In 1996, I only knew about Monica Lewinsky, and I thought—and still think—that relationship was consensual. I don't really care if the sacred bonds of Clinton matrimony were transgressed. She said "yes"; he said "yes."

It was only later that I started reading about Kathleen Wiley, Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick.

Broaddrick's story is the worse.
Oct. 4th, 2018 01:19 pm (UTC)
The end of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKi1ePbpi4c was ALL I was hearing back then and it was and is a sore spot the whole "save him from himself" BS.
Oct. 3rd, 2018 11:15 pm (UTC)
My husband saw the two news stories on Fox news today.
Oct. 4th, 2018 11:21 am (UTC)
Yeah. I read news for maybe half an hour when I first wake up, which is typically around 6am. The stories weren't in any mainstream outlets at 6am.

Of course, Fox is the Republican Party house organ. The stories still haven't found their way into any of the DNC house organs like The New York Times,The Washington Post, or MSNBC.
Oct. 3rd, 2018 11:35 pm (UTC)
Hill(Bill)ary was such a bad candidate with so much negative baggage that it took an amazing Profile in Hubris to push her forward as a candidate and then to support her so vehemently. The residual glory from eight successful years of (drumroll, please) ~The First Black President~ blinded so very many people to the fact that (her own personal foibles aside) there were many organized networks that had spent years vilifying her and demonizing her name, and the negative propaganda was done to the point that millions of people would have voted for Bozo-the-frikkin'-Clown before her, and they did.
And here we are...

Thanks, DNC.

Edited at 2018-10-03 11:39 pm (UTC)
Oct. 4th, 2018 11:22 am (UTC)
I'm in total agreement.

But there are still people who hiss venomously at me, "You're the reason Trump was elected!" because I refused to vote for HRC.
Oct. 4th, 2018 02:36 pm (UTC)
And they did lol.
Oct. 4th, 2018 04:11 am (UTC)
Paula Jones.
The democratic party didn't want to listen to her.
Monica, either...
Oct. 4th, 2018 11:23 am (UTC)
Saddest story is Juanita Broaddrick.

I note that the DNC isn't calling for an investigation into her allegations.
Oct. 4th, 2018 03:51 pm (UTC)
Yes. Sadly, I totally blanked on her name for my original comment...clearly, the DNC did as well!!!
Oct. 4th, 2018 04:08 pm (UTC)
I don't really understand the second front door thing. So they had put in a second front door and it came up in counseling years later? I could see that happening, especially if she wanted to inform her husband of the underlying reasons she insisted on it back when they did the remodel. although the details are getting really nitty-gritty here. What does it prove or mean, and why is it a talking point for either side? People are saying she is hiding something?
Oct. 5th, 2018 12:10 pm (UTC)
People are saying she is hiding something?

Not necessarily.

But for me, at least, the testimony was very confusing in a way that might be construed as intentionally misleading.
( 13 comments — Leave a comment )