ONE Swing and Miss for Four-Pinnochio Ocasio

Ocasio-Cortez Gets Slammed for Misleading Public by Liberal Media


Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the youngest new member of Congress after the recent elections, hasn't even been sworn in yet and she's already being caught - by her own loyal Democrat media, no less - for misleading statements.

Ah Ha! Moment

Ocasio-Cortez thought she had and ah ha moment when she noticed there were reports of $21 Trillion dollars in accounting errors in the Department of Defense over a 17 year period.  Ocasio-Cortez famously favors a Medicare-for-all plan that is expected to cost about $32 Trillion dollars, and she immediately did the math and noticed the errors equaled about 66% of what the MFA plan would cost.  She thought it was proof the government can find the money to pay for it. So she boldly told everyone so.

Fine Print and Cost Projections

Well, of course, she should have read the fine print.  The budget errors - big as they are and embarrassing as they should be - don't actually reflect how much money there is sitting in a pot. They were accounting errors of various types both + and -, with some perhaps reflecting real savings possible, but others reflecting underestimates of real spending.  And some may not reflect anything but real typos.

Of course, even if there really were $21T waiting to be spent, does anyone really think a government that can make $21 Trillion dollars worth of accounting errors would ever make Medicare for All cost $32T?

For her troubles she got more troubles.  One liberal watchdog cited her for "a swing and a miss."  Another liberal media outlet assigned her 4 Pinnochios for this shot from the hip. At this rate, Ocasio-Cortez might ought to cool it for a while.  There's still a whole month before she's sworn in and she can start doing some real damage.

ONE Time When Adding is Subtracting

GOP Additions Mean Subtraction for Collins and Murkowski, and that may be a Plus

Republican senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski just got a little bit weaker.  When the Republican only had a 51 seat majority in the Senate, the women senators from Maine and Alaska held a lot of power and influence.  They knew their votes were crucial for some party line votes and that allowed them a lot of bargaining power with their GOP colleagues.

In the now finally ended mid-term elections, the GOP win in Mississippi gives the Republicans and 53 seat majority.  And now Collins and Murkowski will have to get used to less bargaining power.

That will help Donald Trump and the GOP when it comes to party line votes on bills and judicial appointments.  But don't cry for Collins or Murkowski just yet.  Collins upset a lot of people on the left and in the middle when she voted for (now Justice) Kavanaugh back in October.  She upset them enough they were starting to target he for defeat in her reelection bid two years from now. And Murkowski, who faces reelection in four years, didn't endear moderates or liberals to her with her vote to bring Kavanaugh's nomination to a vote or her present vote on the final question. 

But the wins for the GOP in Florida, Indiana, Missouri, and Mississippi just might save Collins and Murkowski with moderate voters in their state.  Their loss of power could free them to vote with Democrats in a losing cause for two years.  The folks that were seething mad at them just might be placated by two years of Collins and Murkowski returning to the middle.  While the GOP needed their votes, they could only benefit by selling their support to conservatives. With that benefit gone, they can spend two years or four years of mending fences in states that aren't all that conservative. Liberals can have time to get over the heat of their anger and moderates can have time to forgive the senators' temporary insanity in not being moderate.

What do you think?  Will Collins and Murkowski be able to use the GOP's bigger margin to reclaim some middle ground and make voters in their states more likely to reelect them? Leave me a comment explaining why or why not.

ONE More Senator to Go

Tuesday is election day in Mississippi! The final senate seat to be decided is up for grabs in Mississippi's run-off election between Republican Cindy Hyde-Smith and Democrat Mike Espy.  Neither candidate got over 50% in a tight 3 person race on national election day, so the final two are at it again today.

The two were neck and neck in the three person race, but polls show the Republican a few points ahead in the two candidate run-off. If she wins, Republicans will have a 53 seat majority in the 100 seat senate.  This could be very important if another Supreme Court seat opens up in the next two years.  Should Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who recently injured her ribs in a fall, choose to retire Trump could tip the majority of the Court further to the conservative side if he can find a good nominee and protect the nominee from the Democrats' wrecking crew.  Senators Diane Feinstein, Richard Blumenthal and Kamala Harris will undoubtedly be searching for scandals on any nominee even if they have to make them up.  So Trump and the Republicans will need a clear majority and the best nominee possible.

By sometime tonight we should know whether the GOP has that margin and whether Susan Collins loses some of her power to command kingmaker status on nominations.  When the GOP had a slim 51-49 majority, Collins from Maine held significant influence over presidential nominees who need a majority of the senate to confirm them. Collins could use her vote to bargain with. But there's a big difference between 51 and 53. And Mississippians can provide that difference today.

What do you think? Will the Republicans (GOP) get to 53? Will that affect what kind of nominee we get in the event of another SCOTUS retirement? Add your comments.

ONE Suburban Problem

GOP Struggles in Affluent Suburban Neighborhoods

The Republicans now have exactly two years to figure out hoe to cut down Democrat margins in suburban America. One lesson from last night's Democrat Blue Wavelet is that the GOP hasn't figured out that cities and suburbs are growing and winning elections won't get any easier if they continue to just ignore what makes college educated suburban women happy politically.  Three losses in Virginia, two in Florida, and most likely one in Texas could all be reversed if Republicans could just stop motivating these voters for Democrats.  And there's probably several more House districts that could have been salvaged if Republicans could just figure out how not to Get-Out-The-Dems- Votes.
How in the world did Donna Shalala, a white, Midwestern octogenarian defeat Maria Elvira Salazar by multiple percentage points?  She and her party knew what would fly and what wouldn't in the Miami area district.  And the Democrats were serious about winning there.

ONE More Crazy Democrat

Country Can't Handle Handler

Chelsea Handler has now posted a nude or topless video in order to encourage Democratic voters to vote.  Handler didn't explain how seeing her display her all her talents would actually encourage voting, but I've met Democrats, and she's probably right on target.

ONE More Blooming Democrat

Michael Bloomberg Season

Billionaire Spring is upon us.  Michael Bloomberg has has begun his cyclical testing of the presidential waters.  He's spending a bunch of money running an ad for Democrats that promotes them almost as it does himself.  Will he actually get in the race after 2-3 false start flags in the past? Who knows? But one thing's certain - if he runs it will be a fun race. He's so dynamic and unpredictable and wild and crazy .... Oh wait a minute, no he isn't.  That's Trump.  Well, he probably won't run anyway.  He's already talked himself out of it twice or more.  He loves to start the rumors he's running, but doesn't love the race.

ONE More Attempt by Democrats to Fool Voters

The Democrat Supported Blog Community Says Trump is Responsible for the Bomber

The same Democrat based blog that we recently reported about Electoral-Vote.Com is now calling the bomber the MAGA Bomber and trying to convince low education voters that Trump incited the bomber to send bombs (or as some of the news media has finally correctly reported - fake bombs) to the Democrat targets.

Sanders Wins Casualty Count

They NATURALLY  deny that Bernie Sanders was behind the shooter who shot Republicans at the softball field few years ago, but they are going full crazy tilt trying to tie Trump to the bomber, despite the fact that Sanders' Shooter actually maimed people (Steve Scalese) and the crazy bomber blew up zero, zilch, nada, and nothing.

The blog claims Bernie never incited anything with his anti-GOP rhetoric but claims Trump did incite everything (even worse than what actually happened - which is zero.) And now they're trying to blame Trump for the shooting in the Synagogue and attacks on African Americans, despite the fact that Trump hasn't encouraged either.

In fact, the blog is even speculating that any violence against Muslims, LGBTQ, or Latinos will now happen BECAUSE of Trump.  So they can't even wait for something to happen to those groups of people before they start blaming it on Trump.  Their mouths are already watering for more violence against more groups.

The Democratic party - and especially Hayden Shamel, our local Democrat candidate, and nationally known Democrats like Florida candidate Donna Shalala should denounce Electoral-Vote.Com for these blatant attempts to foment anti-Trump crazies and the blatant lies that the GOP is responsible for fruitcakes that commit acts against anyone.  Trump, MAGA, and the GOP are not behind the bomber, shooters, etc.

The blog is 100% Democrat inspired and executed and it's totally politically biased. If you want real blog news keep reading my blog.  I know neither Sanders nor Trump caused these acts of violence. And I'm smart enough and decent enough to say so. It's a shame Electoral-Vote.Com is not.

ONE Crazy Democrat Website

ONE Wild Comparison

A website I visit in the weeks before each election called Electoral-Vote.Com provides a good illustration of just how wacky Democrat pundits can be.  One of the two writers for the website - named Christopher Bates - bemoaned Pres. Trump's decision to dump the intermediate range missile treaty between Russia and the United States negotiated during the Reagan administration.  In crying over the end of the treaty, the terribly blue fellow claimed that doing away with the missile treaty just because we caught the Russians cheating was a bit like "dealing with drivers who speed" by doing away with the speed limit.

That's right.  The writer believes that we're overreacting to Russian attempts to cheat on a missile treaty. Each Russian intermediate range nuclear missile would be capable of delivering multiple nuclear warheads at a distance of 3,418 miles. This is a distance that puts almost every Western European capital within range of missiles launched well inside Russia.  But to the Democratic pundits the Russians are just speeding and we're just doing away with the speed limit.

What do you think?  Are nuclear weapons aimed at our closest allies just about as bad as someone speeding on the interstate?   Let me know what you think.

ONE Democrat Gets 1 Week Suspension in Minn

He Was Just Kidding

A paid staff person for the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (hyphenated liberal party) has been suspended from his job for a whole entire week after he jokingly suggested sending Republicans to the guillotine after November 6 elections.  The "joke" wasn't taken as lightly by the Republicans when it followed on the heels of two physical assaults suffered by Republican candidates for the state legislature. One of the two GOP victims suffered a concussion after his vicious assailant sucker punched him causing him to fall to the floor in a public restaurant.  He has a four to six week recovery ahead of him.

Representative Maxine Waters Wasn't

Once can certainly understand that guilty staffer wasn't being literal when he encouraged chopping off Republican heads, but judging by the actions of many Democratic Party sycophants or henchmen or stand-ins, it's no wonder the state GOP officials were livid that a staffer was allowed to joke about executing political opponents.  When Maxine Waters recently told Democratic hit-squads to attack Trump administration officials in restaurants, gas stations, and grocery stores, her loyally allied party pressure groups followed the orders enthusiastically.

What Does the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party Really Want

It's hard to figure what the party's leaders really want.  They kept the guilty staffer on the payroll, gave him a few days off to catch his breath, and promised to hold his job for him after he did it.  Maybe they didn't send him flowers or offer him a raise, but it's not like they made an example out of him either.  Perhaps after another assault or two happens they'll suspend him for two weeks and take away his executive washroom privileges.

ONE party is responsible for inciting the storming of the Supreme Court door, the inappropriate invasion of a restaurant during Senator Ted Cruz' dinner with his wife, the attempts to force a college to rescind an honorary degree for Senator Susan Collins, and the physical attacks on two Minnesota Republicans.

And that party is not the GOP.

It's the party of Gary Hart, Bill Clinton, Maxine Waters, and a staffer in Minnesota who got suspended for a whole entire week.

ONE More Embarrassment for Leftists

Leftists of St. Lawrence University Should be GOP Campaign's Poster Children

Leftist faculty members and alumni of St. Lawrence University are making themselves look embarrassingly childish.  A group of 1500 is calling for the University to take back the honorary degree given last year to Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine.  Her recent vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court has upset the Alma Mater's children to the point of a tantrum. They consider her finding that Dr. Ford's testimony about an alleged sexual assault more than 30 years ago could not be substantiated by corroborating evidence to be an insult.  They say she is "dismantling rape culture" and that - for them - is far more important than risking relationships with the "powerful."

Collins has Credibility and Leftists Do Not

The degree is not in much jeopardy.  University officials have - thankfully - determined that their school has not rescinded an honorary degree yet, and doesn't intend to start now.  That's a good thing.  Sen. Collins has been pretty determined to fight back against leftist nonsense the last two weeks. She's labeled other cartoonish attacks by leftists attempts to bribe votes, and she's practically right.  I'd sooner call it extortion by the left than bribery, but leftist attempts to link campaign contributions to demands for a particular vote are certainly a screwed up version of one or the other.

Ford's Evidence

Dr. Ford, of course, is the college professor who has claimed that (now-Justice) Kavanaugh tried to rape or sexually assault her 36 years ago this summer at a high school party.  Although her testimony was somewhat vivid, no other witnesses have publicly claimed they remember the party or remember such a party that featured Kavanaugh as a guest. A lifelong sexual offense prosecutor has said that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute the case because of the lack of any other evidence and some questionable holes in Ford's story.

Could Ford be telling the truth?  Could Kavanaugh be guilty? Sure - it is possible.  But Ford's own witnesses don't fully back her entire story, her story is full of things she doesn't know or remember, and there are reasonable questions about the "therapist notes" Ford has mentioned but which she won't release in their entirety.

Collins came to a reasonable conclusion. Was it the right one? Yes. We don't convict people of criminal offenses or even civil liability when the evidence is not corroborated and the alleged victim won't release evidence that certainly is relevant.

Let the Leftists Fuss

If only we could have more and more leftists kicking and screaming in the waning days of October and early days of November, we might see more conservatives deciding to get up off the couch and vote.  Maybe Pres. Trump can tweet at them.  That usually gets the leftists riled and ready to show off.  And that's what we need.  Leftists showing publicly what Leftists are and what they believe. The poster children should be front and center in this mid term election.  So that moderate and conservative voters can see what's coming if a real blue wave materializes.

How You Can Help

If you wish to reply or respond to this or any other entry in my columns, please feel free to leave a comment or reaction.  Or if you like or are entertained by anything you see here consider sharing the page with others. You can also support the page by contributing to the tip jar at PayPal.Me/drspook1302.  Any contributions go to support the mobility, medical, or transportation expenses of the disabled author. 

ONE Candidate We Can Help Win

This is the first in a series of blog entries introducing candidates I support.

Maria Elvira Salazar is the Republican candidate for the House of Representatives in Florida's 27th District. She's a Hispanic woman and a lifetime native of the district she seeks to represent. The district's Republican Congresswoman is retiring and the Democrats believe that former Clinton administration official, Donna Shalala can take the district into the Democratic column. 

Shalala who is not a native of the district has been president of the University of Miami, but has little other connection with the district.  She was born in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1941 which makes her 77 years old.  She has longtime ties to the Clintons, serving as Secretary of Health and Human Services under Bill Clinton, and later serving as president of the Clinton Foundation for about two years.

Salazar, at 56, is a longtime journalist who graduated from the University of Miami with a B.A. and from Harvard with a Master's in Public Administration.  Although she has not served in any elected positions in national government, she served as White House and Pentagon correspondent for Univision, the Spanish language television network, and is the only Spanish language journalist to have interviewed Cuban leader Fidel Castro one-on-one.

Currently, Salazar and Shalala are "neck-and-neck" in their race.  I am giving my endorsement to Salazar and encourage everyone to support her candidacy. She is young, energetic, a native of her district, and a cultural native of the community she will represent. Visit her website to learn more and to contribute to her campaign at: https://mariaelvira.com/about/

ONE Way to Support and Defend Your Constitution

To Support and Defend

When soldiers enter the military they swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies...."  It's a solemn oath that they will follow those on the side of the Constitution regardless of whether the enemy is outside or inside the country.  This election is an election in which Americans have to decide whether they will support and defend the values written or implied in our Constitution or whether we will allow our federal courts to put those values aside and create a judge-made constitution.  As I write, the Supreme Court is divided 5-4 between 5 justices who support and defend our Constitution as is, and 4 justices who often see things that aren't there and just don't want to wait for the people and their representatives to rewrite things.

This Election is THE Election

This is the election that will control whether we can protect the five person majority willing to defend our Constitution, and whether we will build the future on continuing to do so.  Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 85 years old.  Stephen Breyer is 80.  These two liberal justices will be replaced in the not-too-distant future, perhaps even in the next 2 years.  Their replacements, when that happens, will have to be confirmed by the Senate, which is currently controlled by a razor-thin margin of 51-49 by the Republicans.  This election will not only determine whether margin disappears, but also whether and how much that margin changes.  We already know that one Republican senator, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, can't be counted on for crucial votes. She voted "present" on the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh last weekend.

This is the year to protect our Republican senate seats and attack the vulnerable Democrats. We need to hold the open seat being vacated by Sen. Flake in Arizona, re-elect our Republican Sen. Dean Heller in Nevada, and beat Democrats Sen. Heitkamp in North Dakota and Claire McCaskill in Missouri. Wins in all four will protect us against the shenanigans played by Diane Feinstein of California (D) and Chuck Schumer of New York (D) against our nominees.

In The House

But the Senate is not the only battlefield.  Republicans hold the majority by a small margin in the House of Representatives, and that's where we need to work even harder than in the Senate.  House Democrats have already threatened to try to impeach Justice Kavanaugh and burden the country with additional anti-Trump investigations if they take the majority.  The great danger here is not only that the Democrats might gain control of the House and Senate, but that even if they fail to control the Senate, they might tie up the nation's agenda and prevent our officials from doing their jobs.

Its time to start supporting our candidates wherever they are.  We're in a fight to support and defend the Constitution from enemies whether foreign or domestic.  Get out the vote for the GOP.  We need to maintain control of both houses of Congress and the majority of the Supreme Court.

ONE Warning

They'll Never Learn

We have ONE more hurricane headed toward the Gulf coast today with landfall likely tomorrow.And just like every time before politicians are are having to warn citizens and residents that wind, water, and lightning kill and destroy.  I'm all for allowing people a choice in what they do, and I'm all for encouraging people to provide relief and rescue for victims of disaster. But in every hurricane it seems we have a few people who can't or won't take heed and evacuate from endangered territory.  And so we will again have people risking lives to save those who wouldn't temporarily leave even when there were early warnings and multiple opportunities. Then we'll also have people sacrificing part of their wages or savings to help rebuild not only those who couldn't help themselves, but also those that could have.

Every time this happens I wonder how much smaller the damage could be if more people just listened to the warnings and did what even a reasonably careful person would do.

Neither Will We

But I guess, once again, large numbers of people will do the unreasonable thing again.  We will reach in our pockets and make another donation to another Hurricane Fill-in-the-Blank Fund. 

Because, after all, none of us are always reasonable.  We know that there will be some people who were there the last time a hurricane struck. And some of them are going to have the same needs they had the last time.  And they'll rebuild and be there the next time.  And so will we.  Because when it gets right down to it, we just can't help it.  They're still our neighbors and we'll still care next time, and the time after.

Good Luck Florida

So tonight and tomorrow I will think about Florida.  And I'll hope they're alright. Again.

ONE Letter from Feinstein's Mailbag

Has Diane Checked Her Mail Today?

After the original confirmation hearing was over and done with, Diane Feinstein (Sen. - D, CA) alerted her partisans to a letter she had possessed for weeks alleging scurrilous accusations against the Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh.  As we now know, the letter's content somehow found it's way to the media along some long and winding road that Feinstein KNOWS FOR CERTAIN didn't include her or her staff.

Now that the vote on Kavanaugh is nearly upon us, will Feinstein find another letter?  I hear that the leader of Interpol is missing.  Perhaps some pen pal of Feinstein will provide allegations that Kavanaugh is linked to the disappearance?

Regardless of whether you believe the allegations against Kavanaugh or not.  You can still wonder about Feinstein's letter holding tactic.  If she really thought the allegations were serious, why withhold them and never mention them at all when she met Kavanaugh at her office?  If she thought the allegations were serious, why did she refuse to show the FBI for weeks?  And if she held that letter for weeks, what is she holding now?

ONE Crazy Lawsuit

Atheists Who Want to Friend Jason Rapert

Today, we learned that atheists are disappointed that Arkansas State Senator Jason Rapert blocked them from his social media accounts.  Rapert is a very conservative Republican member of the state legislature and one of the key legislators behind placing a Ten Commandments monument on state capitol grounds.  Rapert, who has been a target of such groups for a while apparently blocked some atheist individuals from his social media accounts to prevent them from derailing discussions or comments on his page, and the atheist apparently don't want to be unfriended.  They're alleging that Rapert can't block them from his social media accounts because he uses those accounts to discuss the activities and business of his public office.

Goat-man Shaped Statue

These atheists are some of the same ones supporting the placement of a Satanic Baphomet statue on state capitol grounds.  The Baphomet statue is a large goat-man character beloved by atheists and Satanists everywhere.  Those groups believe that if a monument honoring the history of an early set of laws is placed on the capitol grounds, then an engraved goat-man statue is just as appropriate for display as the code of Hammurabi or the Magna Carta.

This idea of theirs is not the dumbest ONE.  In fact, one atheist group has, for several decades, had a non-profit organization that is run by members of one family.  That family (as officers of the non-profit) make over $100,000 per year in salaries and their organization sells books for atheist authors.  Those authors DO just happen to be the officers themselves, but what does that matter? They're just trying to make a decent non-profit.

If atheists can think it's a good idea letting three members of the same family serve as officers of a non-profit and then letting them use the organization to sell their own books, then does it really surprise you that they think a goat-man belongs on the public grounds?

What do you think?  Should enemies of Jason Rapert be allowed to force him to friend them? Leave me a comment or reaction here on my page.

Mark Barton

And if you like or are entertained by anything you see here consider sharing the page with others. Or you can support the page by contributing to the tip jar at PayPal.Me/drspook1302.  Any contributions go to support the mobility, medical, or transportation expenses of the disabled author.

ONE Problem with Ford's Allegations

DOESN'T REMEMBER THIS

We now know that Dr. Blasey Ford leaked her own therapist notes to the media.  News accounts have directly implicated her providing the notes from a 2012 therapist session.  She, of course, "doesn't remember" sharing them with the media, but the media outlet she shared them with sure did.

FOUR BOYS

We now know that the notes refer to four boys being present instead of two boys (Kavanaugh and Judge).  That's what's in the therapist notes. It's not what the Democrats are talking about, and Ford now claims that's the ONE thing the therapist got wrong.  According to her the rest is spot on. 

FALSE IN ONE, FALSE IN ALL

If the media knows she gave the notes to them, and the notes claim four boys were involved, does the "false in one, false in all" principle espoused by Sen. Blumenthal work here?  If it's really four and not two (or even if it's really two and not four), does her whole story ring false?  Blumenthal seems to believe that old legal principle applies when he thinks one piece of Kavanaugh's story is false. Does the same standard apply to Dr. Ford, or is it conveniently waived?

Should the media emphasize the discrepancies between Ford's known contributions to the media frenzy and her testimony under oath?  What do you think?

Mark Barton

Support the blog: Leave a comment or reaction on the page, or drop a tip in the jar at PayPal.Me/drspook1302. Contributions are not tax deductible, but all contributions go to support the mobility, medical, or transportation costs of the disabled author.

ONE poem from the Poetry Collection: Unusual Jobs

ONE poem from my Unusual Jobs collection

Our 4-Man Band

Our 4-man band played a twenty minute set
Half the crowd seemed crazy and the rest just seemed upset
As the band's lead singer, except for one duet,
I prayed this night was one that this crowd would all forget

And I thought they might just do that, they were bound to be stoned
As most were taking pills and some were laying prone
No, it's not an easy gig to be behind that microphone
When your part-time job is singing lead at the home-town old folks' home

Copyright 2018 Mark Barton

ONE Way You Can Help

Thanks for visiting my blog.

One in a Thousand is the personal blog of a disabled man sharing his view of society, news, entertainment, politics, education, inspiration, and life in the modern world.  The opinions expressed here are his alone and not an expression of the positions of his family, friends, employers, co-workers, or neighbors, and they do not represent the opinions of any web hosting entity or any internet service provider. Any advertisements that appear adjacent to this blog are the responsibility of the advertiser and this blog makes no claims about products or services except as may be expressed in the content of the blog.

The writings in this blog are copyrighted and may only be quoted, copied, or cited by express written permission except as provided by the copyright laws of the United States and/or the State of Arkansas.

You can contact the author at drspook1302@suddenlink.net.

If you want to support this blog, contributions may be made to PayPal.Me/drspook1302 and any contributions made go to support the author's physical disability needs for mobility, medical or transportation costs. One in a Thousand is not a non-profit organization and contributions are not tax deductible as charitable contributions.  One in a Thousand accepts donations, but no donations are required to view, comment on, like, critique, read, or refer to its content.

If you like, agree with, or are informed, provoked or entertained by anything in this blog please leave a reaction, comment or suggestion. And consider telling your friends about our blog. We appreciate all discussion, even disagreement.  

ONE More Circus Act - Dr. Blasey Ford WANTS to Testify So Badly She's Willing to Demand Control

Today we learn that Dr. Blasey Ford doesn't want someone experienced in prosecuting sex crimes to interview her about her experience as a sex crime victim because that would be unfair. She's demanded an FBI investigation of the whole incident, but having a sex crimes prosecutor ask questions is something (I suppose) would never be involved in an FBI investigation. At least the one she demanded.

I suppose that makes about as much sense as modern Senate Committee confirmation hearings ever do. Witnesses picking their own questioner isn't too outlandish in a place where Democratic Senator Booker gets to shame others about sexual misbehavior, one of his go to topics when he rights columns.

I think we might as well just let Dr. Blasey Ford ask and answer her own questions.  If that's ok with her lawyers.

ONE Concern, Kavanaugh or Not - Regardless of Party We Should Affirm Serious Reform Instead of Confirming Soap Operas

After reading as many news reports as I can, I've come to the conclusion that the accusations against Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, are at least credible.  I don't get any joy out of that revelation, nor do I get any feeling of confidence about it.  I think they're credible, but I can't feel good about that analysis because even though I think these kinds of accusations should be considered serious and are meaningful enough to suggest lack of character, I'm not happy that we've come to the point where any nomination can be blocked at the 11th hour by claims no one can absolutely prove.

That disturbs me. It feels like we are confirming work-arounds to the rules instead of reforming our rules to encourage real analysis and debate or real advice and consent.

Had someone raised these claims when Kavanaugh was being confirmed for the DC Circuit on which he now sits, or - better yet - had they surfaced when he was serving at the White House during the George W. Bush administration, I'd feel less like these were time-bombs set to go off for news cycle purposes. This isn't someone who suddenly skyrocketed to fame this year.  Kavanaugh has had high-level executive and judicial branch appointments before.  Were these accusations forgotten until his third appointment process?  Were they just not worth raising when he worked in the day to day circle of the president of the United States? 

Better still - were these accusations not worth sharing within a week or two after Dr. Ford reportedly hired her lawyer in August?

I'm all for a full airing of the accusations, and I am (even as a conservative who leans Republican) ready to accept that the questions leave Kavanaugh as an uncomfortable nominee at best.  I'm willing to accept he's a nominee worth being dropped.  But I am very uncomfortable as well with a system in which we hold nominees hostage to last minute made-for-TV accusations that can neither be proven nor disproved completely less than a week before the final votes on confirmation.

This is insanity, and it's not really good for our republic.

We need a system that prevents one party from dashing for confirmation, and keeps the other party from stashing accusations until the last minute in order to do an end run around hearings.  Our confirmation hearing process must work for the people and not for partisan strategy.

I propose a system for Supreme Court confirmations that prevents either side from purposely stacking the deck.

First, require that presidents fully vet Supreme Court nominees within 21 days of the president's announcement of the nominee.  Presidents should not complain that the nominee's background, papers and writing require months of review that prevent them from being turned over to the Judiciary Committee in a timely way.  The nominee is the president's role in the process.  If you can't turn over relevant documents in time for the opposing party to review them, don't name that nominee until you know you can turn over the evidence.

Second, require that Supreme Court nominees must wait no less than 75 days for their confirmation hearing, and no less than 85 days until the Senate floor vote.  If papers are turned over within 21 days, the opposing party has 54 days to pore over them.  No excuses that they didn't have time to read them.  We know that members of the committee are limited to 21 members and ten of the minority party, but they have staff members and computers that can scan documents looking for key words or phrases. If you can't find it in 54 days, you probably won't in 154.

Third, throw down a gauntlet to the public.  Anyone who has an accusation against the nominee in which they claim the nominee did something unethical or illegal prior to the date he was nominated must come forward before the next to final day of a confirmation hearing that is advertised to end on a particular day.  Any pre-nomination accusation raised for the first time after 5 pm on the next to last day of a confirmation hearing will not be heard as evidence against the nominee. Simply put, a rule such as this puts the accusers on notice that they'd better raise their issue at the hearing.  That's what hearings are for - the pros and cons of the nomination. Under my set of rules, the accuser has had 75+ days to hire lawyers, public relations experts, polygraph operators, press secretaries, private investigators, security guards, or anyone else they need before raising their issues. Our republic can withstand accusations and drama, but there is no reason we can't demand it in a timely fashion.  Allowing accusations to pop up like the last kernal of popcorn days or even weeks after the hearing invites pre-scheduled delay.  Having a deadline after which all sides agree that the evidence taking is now closed with regard to accusations that are months or years old is a reasonable way to force those who wish to delay the process to make a claim by the deadline or accept that they've missed it. At that point, any claims serious enough to get some hearing should be forced to proceed as evidence for impeachment if the nominee has been confirmed or still holds an impeachable position elsewhere.

Of course this won't ever be adopted by the politicians and the press will never accept these ideas. The politicians, interest groups and lawyers will find some reason why these rules can't be put in place because it isn't in the Constitution, it makes the process too long, or the Court can't go on without a replacement. (Of course, these melodramas we have now have the same downsides.) And the press won't like the rules because pulling a big headline out of the hat on vote day sells papers, increases TV ratings, and exaggerates the importance of the pop star press.

Certainly these suggestions would take either changes in Senate rules, amendments to the Constitution, or at least a good faith agreement of the parties to enforce the rules.  And we know there isn't enough good faith in Washington to accomplish any of that.

But if we don't adopt some sane rules our nomination process is going to further deteriorate and we won't be able to tell the difference between, on the ONE hand, our government officials and their private school or Ivy League classmates, and on the other hand, the characters on the latest soap opera.  And that is a real shame that we don't have to or need to confirm.

What's your opinion?  How would you improve our confirmation process and make it more politician proof and ambush proof?

This Week's ONE

This is the first in a series of posts I will call "This Week's ONE."

I work as an adjunct instructor at a really great community college called South Arkansas Community College.  ONE  of the things that makes it a great example of community and ONE awesome college is that it sponsors and promotes a really good Lecture Series.  In my small town of 18,000 people, I've gotten to meet Clint Hill, the Secret Service agent famous for jumping on the back of President Kennedy's limousine immediately after the president had been shot in a Dallas motorcade. And I've met an FBI profiler, a space shuttle astronaut, a holocaust survivor, an actress from a CBS television show, an author of vampire novels, and a nationally known gardening expert.

This week the next speaker in the series was announced and it will be Rudy Ruettiger, former Notre Dame football player famous for being too small and too poor a student to get into Notre Dame until ... well until he just did it.  The real life scout team player who's only quarterback sack (and the only statistic) in his Notre Dame career became the basis for the movie, "Rudy," will be bringing his story of setting a goal and making it happen to El Dorado, Arkansas, on October 11, 2018.

Come out and see Rudy, and realize that the only person who can really tell you that you are too small, too slow, or too anything else to live your dreams, is you. And learn why you - the only one that can talk yourself out of anything - should spend more time talking yourself up and talking yourself into the things that will make your life ONE in a Thousand.

That's this week's ONE.  See you next week.