Kavanaugh and Kaepernick

That the left has contempt for the former and admiration for the latter tells us everything we need to know about the left.

First, regarding the Kavanaugh hearings. I watched most of it, including the questioning that went well into Wednesday evening. Here are my thoughts.

First, the itemized Cliff's Notes version:

1. Kavanaugh's nomination was a no-brainer. He is eminently qualified, perhaps more so than any nominee to the high court in recent memory.
2. The opening statements by the Committee members, and to a large degree, their questioning, amounted to nothing more than posturing for their constituents back home (and, in some notable instances, for a broader base of voters come 2020). They'd have been just as well-served to devote their allotted time to playing their re-election campaign ads over and over, and with the same intent.
3. At the end of the process, Kavanaugh will be the next Supreme Court justice. Bank on it.

So if items 1 and 3 are the buns, what's in the middle renders the whole process just one big s***burger.

(To this point, why do the Committee members need a 30-minute opening statement if their role is truly advise and consent? Proof positive that these hearings are all about campaigning, and nothing more.)

Now, a more in-depth look. First, Kavanaugh was clearly the sharpest legal mind in the room. (Of course, that may be damning with faint praise.) In fact, he may well have been the smartest person in the room.

He was certainly the most ethical.

Second, the seemingly endless stream of hysterical, screaming protesters are all idiots. Do you doubt my assertion that Democrats are the party of sore losers, that they can't accept the outcome of a free and fair election if their guy (or gal) doesn't win, or that they can't accept the outcome of a ballot referendum or state legislative vote if it doesn't go their way, and so expect the Supreme Court to legislate their wishes into law - even though that's not the way the system was designed to work?

Well, these clowns were living proof. They should have seen this handwriting on the wall when Hillary lost. And what did they think would be the effect of their nonsensical behavior? That anyone would be swayed in their confirmation vote? That Kavanaugh might not, at the end of the process and thanks to their incomprehensible screaming, be a Supreme Court justice?

Third, watching the proceedings unfold was like watching a football game, where the Dems are on offense and the GOP was on defense. The Dems tried to run between the tackles on pretty much every play. Well, pretty soon, that strategy becomes easy to read, and so the GOP committee members followed each of their Democrat counterparts' line of questioning with a very effective parry. In other words, they stuffed the run.

Then the Dems - rather than mix things up with an occasional play-action pass, jet sweep or bubble screen, tried a couple of over-the-top trick plays, something so obvious and that takes so long to develop, you know it's not going to work before the ball ever leaves the quarterback's hand. To wit:

• Kamala Harris' "mysterious" questions about whether Kavanaugh had ever talked about the Mueller investigation with someone from President Trump's former law firm. (Yes, she was knowingly lying when she referred to it as Trump's law firm, rather than the firm that used to represent him.) The implication would be that, if Kavanaugh had said to one of Trump's lawyers something like, "The Mueller investigation is a bunch of hooey, and if the President is smart, he'll fire Mueller and shut it down," that lawyer would then pass that comment along to Trump. Then Trump would nominate Kavanaugh to the bench, fire Mueller, and if that action were challenged, the Supreme Court would take it up and the votes would go Trump's way, with Kavanaugh the swing vote.

There are several problems with this scenario. First, such a case might never make it to the Supreme Court (though it likely would). Second, at least four other justices would have to feel the same way as Kavanaugh for a decision to go Trump's way - if that was, indeed, how Kavanaugh felt. Third, Brett Kavanaugh is clearly not the kind of guy to toss around careless opinions in casual conversation. And fourth -

There was no such conversation. And Harris knew it when she asked the question. Her intent was to make the ever-cautious Kavanaugh think she knew of some conversation, and appear guilty in his caution. Unfortunately, that play was whistled dead. If Harris had knowledge of such a conversation, she would have named the person and provided the evidence. She'd have had that person speak on Friday, when a number of people spoke in favor of or in opposition to Kavanaugh. Nice try, Kamala, but much ado about nothing.

• Cory Booker's hysterically pathetic "Spartacus" moment, when he declared that he'd risk being kicked out of the Senate for violating the rules by releasing "Committee confidential" emails that purportedly showed that Kavanaugh favors racial profiling. One problem: the "confidential" emails had already been cleared for release earlier that morning, thus they were no longer confidential, and Booker risked nothing by releasing them (kinda like Colin Kaepernick, but more on him later).

To make things even more comical, Booker then had to appear "mavericky" by releasing some emails that were still confidential. No matter, because - 

Not only did the released emails not show that Kavanaugh favors racial profiling, they showed that he does not. Are Booker's constituents really that stupid? For America's sake, let's hope the rest of us aren't, come 2020.

Finally, about those folks who were called to testify for and against Kavanaugh. Nearly everyone who spoke on his behalf was a respected legal mind, and a number of those were Democrats who voted for Hillary, but still recognize that, from a legal perspective, he's the best candidate for the job. And nearly everyone who spoke against him was someone who has a pre-existing medical condition, or had an abortion, who opined that Kavanaugh would take away their legal rights. Unfortunately, none of those people know a damn thing about the law, the role of the Supreme Court, or what constitutes a right under the Constitution. But the Democrats govern by emotion.

Congratulations, Justice Kavanaugh. You will serve America well.

*************************

On to Colin Kaepernick (I'm going to call him CK, because his name is a pain to type). His new Nike ad proclaims, "Believe in something - even if it means sacrificing everything."

Purely from a business perspective, this campaign is a major fail. Why? The target demographic of such an ad campaign still lives in their parents' basement, and can't afford shoelaces, much less shoes.

Okay, forget the fake ads that popped up after Nike announced its ad - you know, the ones featuring everybody from Pat Tillman to Tim Tebow to Donald Trump to Jesus. There's a more fundamental point to be made here:

What, pray tell, did CK actually sacrifice by taking a knee? At the time, his career was already in the toilet. He'd only won three games in his last two seasons, a death knell for any NFL QB. He was on the verge of being released.

In other words, like Cory Booker, CK sacrificed nothing. However, he gained something of considerable value: besides his payout from this Nike deal, he has become a household name, something few washed-up failures in the world of sport ever achieve.

For example, consider Jake Locker. Remember him? Me either. Locker played QB for the Washington Huskies, a perennial bowl contender. (CK played for Nevada. Yeah, Nevada, that college football powerhouse.) Locker was drafted by the Titans with the 8th overall pick in the 2011 NFL draft. (CK was picked 36th by the Niners.) Locker started for the Titans in 2012, but was hurt during that season. He finished the year with more INTs than TDs. Locker also started in 2013 but was again injured and didn't finish the season. In 2014, he was eventually benched, and in March 2015, he retired from football.

This is similar to the ignominy that CK "sacrificed." After a promising couple of seasons, including a Super Bowl appearance, CK's inconsistent play and behavioral issues resulted in his being relegated to a backup role behind fellow 2011 draftee Blaine Gabbert in 2016. He moved into the starting role in October, but the Niners kept losing. In a week 13 loss that year, CK threw for an impressive four yards - yes, four - before being benched again in favor of Gabbert.

Seeing the end of his career looming, CK chose to take a knee during the National Anthem, thereby sealing his place in history, rather than being relegated to the trash heap of failed NFL quarterbacks. He should thank Donald Trump every day for keeping his "legacy" alive.

So Nike's campaign is not only a fail in terms of target marketing, it's a fail in terms of the basis of fact. CK sacrificed nothing, yet he is a hero in the eyes of the left. In that, he is not dissimilar to Kamala Harris or Cory Booker.

Who knows, maybe one of them will select him as their running mate in 2020.

*************************

And finally, on to the anonymous op-ed writer in the New York Times. My theory is that the Times doesn't want to reveal the identity of the writer because they don't want us to know that the "high-level Trump administration official" is the guy (or gal) in charge of making sure there are enough paper clips at the White House meetings.

Several bookmakers are laying odds on who the culprit might be. I'll tell you definitively who it is not: Kelly, Mattis or Pompeo. Why? This is a chain of command breach that no former military person would commit.

Others have said it, so I won't belabor the point other than to say this: if you don't like your boss, quit. To undermine what your boss is doing, in a business context, is to jeopardize your career.

To do the same, when your boss is the Commander in Chief, is treason. Plain and simple.

This person is a hero only to the left - which, again, tells us everything we need to know about the left.