A Simple Parable

Here's a simple parable:

A man is running for the city council in a small town. He has led a good and productive life. Until he decided to run for the council, he was praised by many people for his work, his temperament, and his competence.

But over the years, he sometimes took positions that angered his political opposition, a group of citizens who have become increasingly vocal in demonizing anyone who disagrees with them. In recent months, the group of citizens have become agitated because the man will very likely be elected to the council. One night, the man is walking down a street and a group of the opposing citizens see him.

One of the woman in the group tells the others that long ago the man once tried to rape her friend.

"Is that true?" asks one of the more measured people in the group. "Is there any evidence?"

"We don't need evidence!" the woman responds angrily. I believe my friend."

The hotheads in the group fly into a frenzy. They decide that enough is enough.

They approach the man and angrily accuse him of rape. Taken aback, the man responds that he did nothing of the kind. But the hotheads persist and slowly the situation escalates—first into heated accusations and then threats. The man tries to be calm, until a punch is thrown, then a kick, then a mob attack. The man fights back, punching and kicking the cowards in the mob. It's a standoff, and the mob retreats.

The next morning one of the mob appears on the local TV station.

"You know," she says, "last night we had a conversation with the man and he responded with violence."

"Violence!" exclaims the TV reporter. "Doesn't that disqualify him from public service?"

"Yes," says the member of the mob, as she nods sagely.

The bullies that use the protection of a mob to attack others don't like it one bit when the person who is attached fights back. They like it even less when their 'victim' lands punches and make them look like the bullies they are. So ... they accuse the victim of their attack of acting poorly, of not having "the temperament" to do whatever it is that they don't want the victim to do in the first place. Hypocrisy on steroids.

UPDATE-1:
---------------
After he decided to press for yet another "FBI investigation" of Kavanaugh before the Senate vote, Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) was praised by some Dems and their trained hamsters in the media as the exemplification of bipartisan action.

After the cesspool we all experienced last week, former GOP speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, asks where the bipartisan Democrats are:

The real question is: Are there any Democrats who are disgusted by this process of dishonest character assassination and manipulation? Are any upset that this is becoming their party’s operating pattern?

Are there any Democrats whose sense of decency forces them to vote “yes” for a decent man and brilliant jurist, whose entire public career has exemplified honesty, sincerity and patriotism?

Are there any Democrats who understand that a 36-year-old, unsupported allegation can’t possibly be the standard for blocking a U.S. Supreme Court nominee?

If no Democrat has the courage to vote for decency, honesty and a sense of fairness, then we are truly in deep trouble as a country.

The focus for the next few days ought to be on the Democrats.

Indeed, it should.

UPDATE-2:
---------------

Just when you think the cesspool couldn't get any deeper, the Democrats decide it isn't deep enough. Their current meme—that Judge Kavanaugh "doesn't have the judicial sentiment"—after defending himself from their vicious and repugnant politics of personal destruction increased a stink that will last for years. The Wall Street Journal comments on the Democrats' latest meme:

“His declaration was the product of his personal anger, to be sure, and the move of a nominee whose professional and personal fate was on the line. But the result—of his rhetoric and the overall tenor of the nomination—means he could forever be marked as a politician on the bench rather than a neutral jurist,” Ms. Biskupic [a CNN talking head and Democrat apologist] added.

The “overall tenor of the nomination?” Seriously? Who does the high-minded Ms. Biskupic think lowered the tone?

Mr. Kavanaugh didn’t ignore his 307 judicial opinions and hunt for dirt to destroy his reputation. Mr. Kavanaugh didn’t float charges about gang rape and ask questions about adolescent entries in a high-school yearbook. That was the “tenor” supplied by Ms. Feinstein and Democratic yearbook scholar Sheldon Whitehouse.

Mr. Kavanaugh is fighting for his professional life, has been accused of being a violent drunk and gang rapist, and he is supposed to respond like he’s at a Supreme Court oral argument on the separation of powers? Under this Feinstein-Biskupic standard, Democrats are allowed to say anything to ruin a nominee and then disqualify that nominee because he fights back rather than withdraws.

As for Judge Kavanaugh being a partisan Republican, what else is new? The four liberal Justices on the Supreme Court are partisan Democrats. The relevant standard for a judge is whether he can separate his legal analysis from his partisan affiliation. Judge Kavanaugh has a decade-long record of doing exactly that on the federal bench.

Speaking of judicial temperament, recall Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s rhetorical assault on Donald Trump in July 2016. “I can’t imagine what the country would be—with Donald Trump as our President,” the Justice averred, adding that the possibility brought to mind her late husband’s advice: “Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand.” How does that rate on partiality?

Ther Dems think that they're immune from broad condemnation by independent voters and the electoral consequences associated with their disgusting behavior and breathtaking hypocrisy during the cesspool events. Maybe they're right. I hope they're not.