Ford testimony is history in the making --- men take heed

In one of the most moving testimonies, in recent memory, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, on Thursday, gave amidst fright, and the threat of tears, one of the most moving accounts, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, providing, in detail, her experience of near rape by Supreme Court Justice nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, when they were high school students in suburban Maryland.

Speaking in a winsome, almost girlish voice, the now professor of psychology at Palo Alto College, and research psychologist at Stanford detailed, not only the events, but also the subsequent psychological effect on her life, her academic struggles in college, and later her insistence on a second front door of her California home.

PTSD or post traumatic stress disorder, was first given professional psychological examination after soldiers returning from war and combat experiences, experienced symptoms of rage, and despair, and sometimes violent behavior -- and now, as most of the public knows, it can be extended to those who have experienced trauma, such as rape, or attempted rape.

Her credibility was evident to many, and later that afternoon, it was reported that President Trump chastised his staff, with the words, “Why didn’t you tell me that she was so credible?”

"This was extremely emotional, extremely raw, and extremely credible,” Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace said of Ford's testimony during a break. “She obviously was traumatized by an event. This is a disaster for the Republicans."

Claiming that it was her civic duty, as an American, to give testimony before the lifetime appointment, Ford was nothing less than sincere, as viewers witnessed one of the more dramatic episodes in American legislative history since Watergate, and many sided with the 51-year-old academic, while Republicans cringed in anxiety that not getting Kavanaugh on the Court could imperil the midterm elections, and their majority status in Congress, not to mention the long sought goal of revoking Roe v. Wade.

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein asked Ford, at one point, if she was sure that it was Kavanaugh who had forcibly straddled her and attempted to remove her clothes, as he ground his hips into her body. She answered: “The same way that I’m sure I’m talking to you right now,” Ford said. “Basic memory functions, and, also just the level of norepinephrine and epinephrine in the brain, that sort of, as you know, encodes-- that neurotransmitter—encodes memories into the hippocampus, so the trauma-related experience is kind of locked there, whereas other details kind of drift.”

As any undergraduate psychology student knows, this was a valid definition, and Ford who teaches graduate students, knew her testimony would be examined.

While Democrats praised Ford’s testimony, and Sen. Kamala Harris portrayed her as a patriot, her place in history, not just today, but from now on, noted many observers, is the capstone of the #MeToo movement, and a year where, after the marches women moved into the legislative arena as candidates, and their voices have been consistent, and insistent,

Republicans in contrast, tried to say that she was mistaken and Fox News noted that two other man had been interviewed, and that it was they, not Kavanaugh, assisted by his friend Mark Judge, who participated in Fords’ assault.

The aura in the chamber seemed tense and strained, despite the general air, of portent, and the chair, Charles Grassley, seemed irritated and even combative from the beginning as he tried to talk over Feinstein for the introduction of Ford.

On another occasion, when Sen. Klobuchar asked for more information, he snapped, “You got what you wanted: followed by, “You’d think you would be satisfied.”

It can be noted that many women, both of his own party, and that of the minority may have adjusted their voting intentions for the November midterm elections, as a result of behavior that another generation would have called boorish.

During his remarks, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., read a letter sent late Thursday by the president of the American Bar Association urging the committee to postpone the vote until the FBI could conduct an investigation, and asked again for such a delay.

Grassley responded, in turn, by dismissing the request, claiming that the the president of the American Bar Association doesn’t necessarily “represent the members of the Bar.”

With heads shaking, and murmurs of discontent about the lack of an FBI investigation, by the Dems it was the tide of the day.

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said, “This is sickening to watch. I'm sorry. I just find this excruciating," during a CNN panel discussion Thursday while Ford testified.

GOP leaders are getting worried, and especially that Ford, and other accusers, such as Debbie Ramirez and Julie Swetnick could topple them from power. And, even more so that these women are not porn stars, or escorts, but professional degreed women, (and one with several levels of government security clearance), makes them worry even more that their charges cannot be easily dismissed.

They had even more to worry when Kavanaugh appeared, with the air of entitlement, and alternating fury, and pain, at the possible lack of being promoted.

He also spewed forth a torrent of partisan hatred, and even, managed to squeeze in another blow on poor old Hillary Clinton as being behind a set-up, or a con job, as he denied the allegations, as if he was drawing from the Trump playbook.

Many who might have given him the benefit of a doubt turned a refuel eye to what appeared to be a frat boy rant, and not that of a candidate of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Looking at the big picture we see the following: "In the 25 years on this committee, I have never seen a nominee for any position behave in that matter. Judge Kavanaugh used as much political rhetoric as my Republican colleagues," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said. "She was poised, she was credible and she should believed."

After a vote along partisan lines -- 11-10 --  the Committee voted to proceed and some, such as Sen. Jeff Flake, who voted to put the judge up for a floor vote, received some blowback as he gave a Solomon-like decision, that day, to bring Kavanaugh out of committee, but that a subsequent floor vote had to be preceded by a weeklong  investigation by the FBI; something that the Democrats had demanded, and now they have conceded to, but not before he was verbally assaulted by two women in an elevator at the capitol.

“The women could be heard on CNN as Flake stood in the elevator for about five minutes from 9:31 to 9:36 ET.

“You’re telling me my assault doesn’t matter,” said one. “You’re letting people who do these things into power. That’s what you’re telling me when you vote for him. Don’t look away from me,” one woman said through tears.”

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., meanwhile, said Kavanaugh's confirmation, after his partisan display Thursday, would be a disaster for the Supreme Court.

“The court is flying all the warning flags of a captured agency, dancing to special interest tunes and rampaging through precedent and principle to get there,” he said. “This will be a disaster for the court and I believe Kavanaugh will contribute to that disaster. His partisan screed yesterday was telling,” reported NBC News.

It also seems, according to an article in The New Yorker, that GOP officials tried to smother another witness in a wealth of pseudo regulations to prevent them from coming to light and in an exchange between the lawyer for Debbie Ramirez, and Mike Davis, a senior Republican committee staffer, it seemed that the former was stonewalling the latter.

“Heather Sawyer, the Democratic staffer who was copied on the e-mails in accordance with committee policy, wrote to Davis, “As you’re aware, Ms. Ramirez’s counsel have repeatedly requested to speak with the Committee, on a bipartisan basis, to determine how to proceed. You refused. I’ve never encountered an instance where the Committee has refused even to speak with an individual or counsel. I am perplexed as to why this is happening here, except that it seems designed to ensure that the Majority can falsely claim that Ms. Ramirez and her lawyers refused to cooperate. That simply is not true.”

As events raced at breakneck speed --- the White House stated, in a reversal of his earlier opine, that, “President Trump said Friday he will sign an order authorizing an FBI background check into Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

“I’ve ordered the FBI to conduct a supplemental investigation to update Judge Kavanaugh’s file. As the Senate has requested, this update must be limited in scope and completed in less than one week,” the president said in a statement.

The statement came after the Senate Judiciary Committee said it would ask him for “a supplemental background investigation of Kavanaugh over allegations of sexual assault.”

But Republicans had refused to seek one until Friday when  Flake made that as a condition of his committee vote.

With the extraordinary stakes on both sides it seems almost impossible for either the Republicans, or the Democrats, to back down, from what has become a moral crusade on the part of the latter, but also as part of the larger women’s movement that has gripped the country and who has its zenith in Dr. Ford’s testimony.

On Saturday we learned that the White House is limiting the scope of the FBI investigation and that it will not consider Swetnik’s affidavit, or the drinking patterns of Kavanaugh, giving suspicion that the White House is not an honest broker.

Too old to lead? The perils of Pelosi meet the midterms

With the midterm elections approaching and the threat of a Blue Wave overtaking the U.S. House of Representatives, and with some observers predicting an 83.1 percent advantage by the Democrats, there is talk that once that is done, and in light of their disaster in 2016, with the defeat of Hillary Clinton, that there should be new leadership in the House with much of the change focused on House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, with many saying that she “needs to go.”

While much of the criticism has come from younger people, there are also those that charge her with a level of incompetence, seemingly due to age, but also in some quarters a level of sexism, that a male leader would not face.

Earlier in August, a newly elected Michigan lawmaker said she would not vote for Pelosi, as CNN reported: “A Michigan Democrat who is poised to be elected to Congress said Thursday she would be unlikely to vote for Nancy Pelosi for speaker if Democrats retake the House, adding her name to progressive and swing-state Democrats who won't back the current minority leader.

Asked on CNN's "New Day" Thursday morning whether she'd vote for Pelosi, Rashida Tlaib said, "probably not."

"I need someone that ... is connected with, just the different levels of poverty that's going on, the fact that there are structures and barriers for working families in my district that need to be dismantled," Tlaib added. "Supporting big banks and supporting efforts that I don't think put the people first is troubling."

While that seems to be borne from identity politics, a not entirely new phenomena, Tlaib also, like many fail to give Pelosi the credit that she deserves for pushing the Affordable Care Act into law that gave millions of poor people a chance at even routine care, and extended to the rural poor, as well as the urban poor.

“When Pelosi, a political target for Republicans and progressives alike, said in May that she would run for speaker, a half-dozen Democrats backed by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee as prime candidates to flip Republican-held seats said they would not support her.

Since then, additional Democrats have distanced themselves from Pelosi, and several, including Conor Lamb in Pennsylvania and Danny O'Connor in Ohio, have made their criticism of the former speaker a key part of their appeal to moderate voters,” they said.

Also in the Midwest was Indiana Democrat Mel Hall who told USA Today that “There is almost complete gridlock in Washington, D.C., when we have folks on one side and folks on the other side who are barely civil with each other. So my call is that we need new leadership.”.

Adding her voice was Liz Watson, who “said people in south central Indiana are “looking for a new direction in Washington and  “That’s why I won’t vote for Nancy Pelosi for speaker.”

It’s no secret that money, more money, and then even more, is needed to win elections, even on the local level, as we saw, even with run-offs, such as the Doug Jones win in Alabama, and to that extent, Pelosi is  “prodigious fundraiser, with many perks at her disposal to dole out to allies. So far this election cycle, Pelosi has raised more than $87 million for her fellow Democrats.”

“I feel very confident in the support that I have in the House Democratic Caucus, and my focus is on winning this election because so much is at stake,” Pelosi told reporters when asked about the comments.

“I think Pelosi has done a great job, and she’s taken us to the majority (before),’’ said Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., adding that Pelosi’s fate as a leader will be up to the caucus.

House Democrats have decided to hold their internal leadership elections in December which  “will give Pelosi, and any possible challengers, ample time to lobby colleagues and count votes,” yet she faces no serious contenders.

In an interview with The New York Times, “she also acknowledged a handover of power was coming eventually, and she encouraged would-be successors to prove their political mettle. Any aspiring party leader, she said, must demonstrate that “they do have a following, that they’ve shown a vision for the country,” as well as the necessary fund-raising prowess.

“If people want to be the bridge that I’m building toward, they have to show what’s on the other side of the bridge,” she said, stressing that she saw it as her role “to open doors, to build bridges, but there has to be another side to the bridge.”

Majority rules a wide margin for the 78-year-old veteran, whose voice has not been shy, and on a number of key areas, even beyond the ACA, she has proved her mettle in the Recovery Act, and Wall Street Reform in an era when it was thought that some banks were too big to fail, and her actions helped save the economy.

Pelosi has also been a target for Republicans and her name as a synonym for all of the liberal evils visited upon the nation. And, the right-leaning USA Today, somewhat gleefully, reported at the end of July, that “So far, 27 Democratic candidates have said they will not support Pelosi, according to a tally by Vox and USA TODAY’s reporting.”

“Republicans are using the San Francisco Democrat as their favorite boogeyman in this election, running reams of TV ads linking her to local House contenders.”

“It’s incredibly effective,” said Corry Bliss, executive director of the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC devoted to protecting the Republican House majority. “Nancy Pelosi is the most unpopular, polarizing politician in American politics.”

Yet there is some motion to the movement and the Times noted that, “Representatives Seth Moulton of Massachusetts and Kathleen Rice of New York have been leading a group of insurgents who are urging Democratic candidates to pledge that they will not support Ms. Pelosi for speaker.

In addition to their efforts, “A diverse group of several dozen Democratic candidates, across all regions and ideological factions, have pledged to demand new leadership if they are elected.”

Mr. Moulton, 39, said he was hopeful Ms. Pelosi would soon conclude that her position had become untenable, noting that, “It’s far better for her to graciously step down before the election, so that Republicans can’t use that attack against Democrats, than to wait until after the election,” Mr. Moulton said.

Continuing in the battering of the leader, the folks at USA Today, coyly added, that their poll might be flawed, and said, “That’s not exactly true, but it's close. Only 29 percent of the American electorate has a favorable opinion of Pelosi, according to a Gallup Poll conducted in June; the California Democrat’s approval ratings have even sunk among Democrats, according to the Gallup survey.

Other congressional leaders “are similarly unpopular. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has the lowest ratings, with 24 percent approval.”

Then again, McConnell is not a woman, just an old white guy, maybe a butt of jokes, but not of sexism.

While pay to  pay-to-play politics is not new, but with the antics, escapades, and investigations, of an increasingly vulnerable administration of Trump, attacks on Pelosi do help the GOP, and especially with the character questions related to Brett Kavanaugh and the charges of sexual impropriety as a high schooler, that threaten to derail his chance as a Supreme Court justice, it’s going to be toe-to-toe come November.

The GOP has a long memory, and if Kavanaugh is denied his spot, then the heat on Pelosi might intensify,

Pelosi, is also from gasp, San Francisco, Sodom and Gomorrah for some outside of America’s urban areas, and the forces against her may get the most bang for their buck from those that view the city as all that they hate about liberals.

Much of the internal criticism goes back, once again, to the stunning loss of Clinton to Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election, and the so-called “Bernie Bros” who were hellbent on making a hard left towards Bernie Sanders whose “first day” changes were optimistic at best.

Clinton, with her support from Democratic veterans like Pelosi, notwithstanding,and some accusations of smoke filled rooms favoring her, that might have extended to some rule changes, have given credo to the ant-Pelosi charge led by eager young voters with a hero that ironically, is the age of many of their grandfathers.

One lesson that we have seen the Democrats embrace, and that is to focus on the issues, not beating the Trumpites,, that Clinton did.. To that extent Lamb focused, not just on swing voters, absenting Pelosi, but on the issues that face millions of Americans: health care, and the loss of coverage, for those with pre-existing conditions, preserving public education and also the so-called entitlement programs such as Medicare, and Social Security, that the increase in aging baby-boomers has necessitated.,

As O’Connor noted, in an interview with the Ohio press: “Growing up in a small town, you realize folks aren’t that much different no matter what their political beliefs are when it comes to the things they worry about daily.”

On another avenue, “The most perilous threat to Ms. Pelosi, for the moment, may be the impatient mood in the Congressional Black Caucus, where senior legislators have begun arguing that it is past time to elect an African-American speaker. Black lawmakers and candidates, furious about President Trump’s caustic racial politics and attacks on African-Americans, say they are determined to claim a greater role in steering their party,” they noted a few weeks ago in August.

“Some Democrats have focused on [Rep. Jim] Clyburn of South Carolina, the third-ranking House Democrat, as a potential successor. Though at 78 he would not represent generational change, Mr. Clyburn would be a history-making figure as speaker: He came under intense pressure at a black caucus retreat in the Mississippi Delta last weekend to take on Ms. Pelosi, with Representative Cedric Richmond of Louisiana and others urging him to step forward.”

Not without hubris, Clyburn said, ““If the opportunity is there I would absolutely do it,” said Mr. Clyburn, adding that the ascension of a black speaker would “put to bed forever the notion that the Democratic caucus is taking black voters for granted.”

Appealing to the Gospel of St. Matthew, “Mr. Clyburn, the son of a pastor, said he still supports Ms. Pelosi, for now, he recalled a hymnal from his youth about “keeping your lamps trimmed and burning to be ready when the bridegroom comes.”

Some, like CNN political analyst Julian Zelizer noted might be missing the boat in search of the ocean, and as he succinctly said: “But if the goal is to eliminate the bogeyman whom the GOP uses to motivate its base, then some Democrats have a badly mistaken idea of what the modern Republican Party is all about and how contemporary politics works. The truth is that regardless of who leads the Democratic Party, Republicans will demonize and characterize them as socialists who want to import radical policies to the United States.”

One could go back to Franklin Roosevelt who received withering criticism with the taint of communism when he created social security, or the staunch centrist Bill Clinton, and certainly President Obama faced the tag of socialist when many Americans couldn’t even define it.

“While liberals certainly engage in the politics of demonization, Republicans can count on a megaphone unlike any other with the conservative media universe dominated by Fox News and Breitbart.com. The entire mission of the conservative punditry is to paint all Democrats as being far left of center. Although social scientists have repeatedly shown that the Democratic Party remains much more ideologically factionalized than the GOP, which has become more ideologically coherent, such nuance disappears from the picture that viewers see of all Democrats on their television screens.”

Nearly every organization, from the church to the local VFW Hall has internal dissension, but one thing reads loud, and clear, from Zelizer’s analysis, and that is this: “The question for Democrats should not really be if Pelosi offers Republicans too easy a target but rather how their party can be tougher in convincing voters why continued Republican control of Congress threatens vital public policies and the institutions of democracy. . . and “Until Democrats start thinking this way . . .they will continue to play defense and take part in a debate in which the terms are perpetually set by their opponents.”

August Jobs Report hold strengths and weakness

The August Jobs Report, from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, on Friday, showed an increase in non-farm employment for Americans, with a rolling figure of 201,000, with 192,000 forecasted; a figure that makes many observers, consumers and economists happy, and with an unemployment rate holding steady at 3.9 percent, there is real joy on Main Street, as well as Wall Street.

“This is the strongest labor market in a generation of workers,” said Andrew Chamberlain, chief economist at the career site Glassdoor.

Business Insider exclaimed, from the seeming rooftop, “initial jobless claims [are] at their best level since 1969, the labor market is still largely in good shape.”

Adding to the luster of this report is that there has been an increase in wages - long a conundrum for many economists and bankers -- yet before the parades began, and the band strikes up, there is the sobering reminder is that the weekly wage only rose 3.2 percent; “The average hourly pay for employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 10 cents, to $27.16.”

“Average hourly earnings increased by 0.4% month-on-month. And at 2.9% year-on-year growth, wages increased at their fastest pace since June 2009,” noted businessinsider.com and that is the good news for some.

On the private side, ADP reported in advance of Friday’s BLS report that “Companies added 163,000 jobs for the month, a considerable slowdown from the 217,000 added in July and well below what had been an average of 206,000 a month. Economists surveyed by Reuters had been expecting 190,000 new hires,” reported cnbc.com.

"Although we saw a small slowdown in job growth the market remains incredibly dynamic," Ahu Yildirmaz, vice president and co-head of the ADP Research Institute, said in a statement.

To be fair, some consider this a less than spectacular report, since the wage increase is less than modest, but most are content to see that there are no major upsets. And, increases are also seen across the board, with women and racial minorities included.

While there are jobs galore, especially for those without a college degree, many employers are still complaining about candidates lack of specific skills needed to meet their needs, and supporting that view is Jim Baird, the chief investment officer of Plante Moran Financial Advisors, who said in a note:  "Increasingly, the challenge is one for employers trying to find workers,” that can give them what they want.

Subsequently, “there are severe labor shortages for jobs demanding specialized skills, licensing requirements or tough working conditions.”

.

As has been the case for several prior months, labor force participation has been slow, and came in at 0.2 percent, or 62.7 percent of 62.7 percent.

A broader measure than the headline rate, or what we call the marquee rate, of 3.9 percent, are those that have been called discouraged workers, mostly working part-time jobs when they would prefer full time, and that rate fell to 7.4 percent, from 7.5, and 781,000 of them have moved to full-time employment, a 17 year low.

Others caution that the figure for these workers, remained relatively unchanged from August 2017.

Secondary to that are “prime age workers, those aged 25 to 54, “who are working or looking for jobs. This figure dipped to 79.3 percent, from 79.5 percent in July. That is substantially higher than in the depths of the recession, but still below its 2000 level, when it exceeded 81 percent, said Elise Gould, an economist at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute.”

For the winners in August, “Leading the pack is business services that came in with 53,000 jobs, yet as we have cautioned before this is a catchall figure than can include temporary and staffing firms as well as those that support business needs, such as executive search firms, and even some retailers.

August, traditionally, a vacation month for many, will show revised figures in a few weeks, and this might affect the figures shown for manufacturing which took a hit, not one that would worry economists, but seems to be affected by tariffs put forth by President Trump and indeed, “The manufacturing sector, however, which Mr. Trump has made a centerpiece of his economic and trade policies, registered fewer gains than had been previously thought,” said The New York Times.

Related news showed that “The combined addition of 93,000 jobs that the government originally reported for May, June and July was revised down to 62,000. And in August, the sector shed 3,000 jobs. The auto industry, which is particularly exposed to trade, eliminated 4,900 jobs last month after cutting 3,500 in July.”

In the absence of agricultural jobs, some caution is needed here, and while that area is subject to volatility, most of the US economy is domestic, and  in contrast, some say: “Manufacturing employment creation was still pretty good” in previous months, noted Carl Tannenbaum, chief economist at Northern Trust.

“The impact of the tariffs that are in place now are annoying but modest in size and limited in scope, though the risk is certainly there. If tariffs broaden, we could see business activity impaired much more significantly.”

Adding to the more pessimistic tone is Challenger, Gray and Christmas, who noted in their statement: ““Last month saw an increase in companies attributing job cuts to tariffs, specifically tariffs on imported steel, which are ongoing, and newsprint, which have recently been overturned. Companies announced 521 job cuts due to these tariffs in August, for a total of 591 so far this year.”

“Manufacturers are grappling with rising costs, weak demand, and competition on a global scale. We may see additional job cuts as the full ramifications of imposed tariffs are felt,” said CEO John Challenger.

Looking away, for one moment, we have “In some occupations — typically those with low-skill requirements and relatively pleasant working conditions — there is a huge oversupply of candidates,” said Julia Pollak, a labor economist at the online employment market site ZipRecruiter.

One overlooked area, she told the Times, is that “Geography is critical: Lower-wage workers rarely move for a job, so openings in distant places, of course, might not be useful to them. Still, on average, Ms. Pollak wrote in an email, “it is harder (in some sense, at least) to get a job as an administrative assistant, receptionist or warehouse worker than it is to get into Harvard, with its relatively generous 5.2 percent acceptance rate” in 2017.

Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve “continues to focus on removing accommodation by boosting interest rates, and the August employment numbers are consistent with the central bank’s outlook," said Mark Hamrick, senior economic analyst at Bankrate.com. "The trajectory of future rate moves will be under scrutiny as the FOMC updates the summary of economic projections."

The Feds have targeted two hikes before the end of the year: 2.25 percent and 2.50 percent, and in response to the news, as well as the report, the Market showed that 10 year Treasuries were up on Friday, 2.904 percent from 2.877; and Dow Jones and S&P were down by 0.4 percent.

Adding a huge cautionary note is nbcnews.com who said that “The August jobs report ratifies the fact that for the first time in at least a generation, the U.S. has more open jobs than people out of work and looking for a position. While that is a condition ripe for job hunters, it’s a negative for the economy, with companies wondering where all the new workers will come from, as the U.S. faces a declining birth rate and a wave of retiring baby boomers.”

On another macroeconomic note, the lower wages, while seeing a slight increase is not enough to propel consumer spending forward, a key driver of the US economy, and increases “will depend upon better consumer spending, which means wage increases will need to accelerate,” said Joel Naroff, president of Naroff Economic Advisors.

While the president was away, at a rally, Vice-President Pence tweeted: “Promises made and promises kept! @POTUS Trump’s STRONG agenda is working for the American people. 201,000 new jobs in August and more than 4 MILLION jobs created since Election Day. The economy is roaring back and we’re just getting started!”

Partisanship aside most economists attribute that President Obama handed a near capacity employment, and healthy economy, with help from Janet Yellen, to President Trump.

Kavanaugh Senate confirmation shows fireworks

Senate confirmations are less about learning a nominee’s positions on issues, but instead, reflect a rhythmic and theatrical dance that is more reminiscent of a tribal ritual in a mythical country, rather than the United States, where prescribed movements and incantations, are repeated, and this current one with Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh seems destined to stay the course.

With the imprimatur of no less than former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, elegant, as always, in black crepe and pearls, but uncharacteristically using a girlish tone, as she anxiously described him as “really, really smart,” it seemed that the stage was set and the actors in their place, but some of the actors were not in character.

Certainly, with President Trump’s approval ratings in the tank --- a 60 percent disapproval rate -- he needs a win going into the midterms, to sustain his base, and hope to thwart the Democrats in their attempt to take the House; but, more importantly to keep a reactionary, and changed GOP in power, even when they are not, for decades to come.

As in Kabuki theater, there were also costumed protestors, like the women in Margaret Atwood’s famed book, “The Handmaid's Tale” - and their red robes and white bonnets only increased the air of theatricality --- but their silence was broken by the Greek chorus of keening women protesting, livid at the idea of a nominee who is backed by anti-abortion activists, whose very real goal is to repeal Roe v. Wade, that legalized abortion in the US.

The senior senator from California, Dianne Feinstein tried earnestly to get his views on Roe v. Wade; she said "Do you believe it is correct law?"

Kavanaugh replied: "I said that it's settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court entitled to respect ... it has been reaffirmed many times."

We have seen this before, from other nominees, most recently Neil Gorsuch, but this time, rather than leave that answer alone, he added that  “he understands Feinstein's point of view that women should have a right to legal abortion, though he did not say he agreed with that view,” reported ABC News.

"I understand how passionate and how deeply people feel about this issue. I understand the importance of the issue. I understand the importance that people attach to the Roe versus Wade decision, to the Planned Parenthood versus Casey decision. I don't live in a bubble. I understand, I live in the real world. I understand the importance of the issue," he said, but without saying anything at all.

One clue was citing Casey v. Planned Parenthood, and that there could be add-ons that don’t unduly restrict a woman’s right to choose --- but some other states have -- including parental notification - which on the surface meet the test of no undue restriction, but in reality do not.

Considered a staunch Roman Catholic, his views seemed defined not only by dogma, with this no-answer, but how he, along with others, say Justice Clarence Thomas, another Catholic, might, in the future, nibble at the edges of Roe in later decisions.

Kavanaugh avoided nearly every question from Democrats as they tried in vain to get responses to the most controversial statements, previously heard --- such as his assertion that a sitting president cannot be subpoenaed --- and in one notable exchange, “he declined to answer Feinstein's question about whether a sitting president can be required to respond to a subpoena, saying any answer would violate the principle that nominees shouldn't give views on hypothetical cases.”

"I can't give you an answer on that hypothetical question," he replied.

In another highlight she asked him “about his frequently cited comments that a president should not be investigated on criminal charges while in office.”

What he did say, perhaps accurately, but no less controversial, and what many might call “fudging” was that he “proposed ideas for Congress to consider in a 2009 law review article but ‘"they were not my constitutional views"’ and that he has never taken a position on what the Constitution says about investigating a sitting president or whether a sitting president can be indicted.”

“Sen. Chris Coons, D-Delaware, pushed Kavanaugh on comments he made during the Ken Starr investigation in 1998. Coons quoted comments Kavanaugh made on a panel where he reportedly said no one should investigate possible criminal conduct by a sitting president and wrote that a Congressional inquiry should take precedence over a criminal investigation.

But Kavanaugh said his comments were misconstrued and that he actually argued in favor of independent counsels in a law review article the same year. He also said that he's never taken a position on whether a sitting president can be investigated or indicted and that it's actually the Justice Department position that a president can't be indicted while in office.” ABC reported.

"I have never taken a position on indicting or investigating a sitting president," Kavanaugh replied deftly.

Not to be fobbed off, Coons said: "Frankly, judge, your views about executive power that you have detailed, what you like to overturn and what limits you think there should be really leaves me concerned. It's because of our current context, because of the environment that we're operating in.”

The Richelieu behind Kavanaugh as well as Gorsuch, Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as Sam Alito is Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society, a group, according to Huffington Post, has been behind all of the above people, as well as advised George W. Bush, on his court selections, and membership, even peripheral attendance at social events is de rigueur for conservative judges.

The National Law Journal, noted on Wednesday, that Kavanaugh was also firmly pressed “about what role, if any, the conservative Federalist Society played in his nomination,” and “Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island, questioned Kavanaugh about comments White House Counsel Donald McGahn made in November that rejected the contention the White House has “outsourced” judge-picking to the Federalist Society.”

“I’ve been a member of the Federalist Society since law school—still am,” McGahn said then. “So frankly, it seems like it’s been in-sourced,” was the smoking gun, that began the question.

“Kavanaugh couldn’t answer questions about what McGahn meant by the remarks and he said he did not know the “specifics” of the role played by Leonard Leo, executive vice president of the Federalist Society and now an adviser to the president on judicial nominations.

“President Trump made the nomination. I know he spent a lot of time in those 12 days on this issue. I also know Mr. McGahn was directly involved with me.”

“Leo, executive vice president of The Federalist Society, a national organization of conservative lawyers, has played a central role in the selection and confirmation of three Supreme Court justices: John Roberts, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch. And on Wednesday, Leo announced that he’s taking leave from his job, effective immediately, to personally advise Trump on a replacement for retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, reported Huffington Post.

“It’s incredible,” said Carl Tobias, a law professor at Virginia’s University of Richmond and an expert on judicial nominations. “Certainly, he’s had an outsize influence for any one person. I know President George W. Bush relied on him a fair amount for two nominees, and in this administration, I don’t think there’s ever been anything quite like it.”

Taking it even further was Carrie Severino, chief counsel at Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative judicial advocacy group, who said, “We’re at the point where almost the entire Supreme Court is something Leonard Leo was active in in this process,” laughed Severino. “There isn’t anyone who knows the conservative legal movement as well as him.”

For progressives, this outsourcing has dangerous consequences: “Selecting nominees from The Federalist Society ensures that the right will cement the hold they have on the judiciary for the next several decades,” said Nan Aron, president of Alliance for Justice, a left-leaning judicial advocacy group.

“What they have in common is an exceptional hostility to the progress that’s been made in this country since the New Deal, whether that’s to workers, civil rights litigants, women, consumers or people who care about the environment,” Aron said. “Nominees being confirmed by the Republican Senate today would have been deemed unqualified even under President George W. Bush because of their extremism.”

Putting aside extremism for the moment was Sen. Corey Booker who continued to press the judge on several key areas of concern --- one of the most pressing, was the civil rights of all voters, but especially black voters, and specifically a racist email that was sent to him by a South Carolina lawmaker, who felt that rewarding black voters with a $100 bill would work, as in old, and near vulgar terminology, and that Voter ID laws in that state was “systematic disenfranchisement” for black voters. In his response, the judge concurred.

To that question of concern, Kavanaugh gave a long and exhaustive report of how he helped black law students gain clerkships, without once answering the senator’s question.

All that was missing here was the stage whisper of the court jester to make this bit of theatrical, and planned obfuscation, part and parcel of a performance, albeit planned, to bypass legitimate questions, and have him confirmed.

Also, on Wednesday, the candidate refused to answer a direct question, by Harris, on whether he had ever had a conversation with special counsel Bob Mueller with anyone --- probing to see if he was part of the efforts to silence the investigation, or at least to belittle it and also if he was counsel to the king --- ergo Trump.

“After answering "with other judges I know," Kavanaugh was asked if he had discussed the probe with anyone who works at Kasowitz Benson Torres, the New York law firm founded by President Donald Trump's personal attorney Marc Kasowitz.

Kavanaugh replied that he's unsure he knows everyone who works at that law firm and asked the senator if there was a specific person she was talking about.”

Looking red faced, and flustered, Kavanaugh stumbled and pled for a list of names of those who worked at the firm, an obvious diversionary tactic --- not to be outdone, Harris, a former prosecutor, said:

"You've been speaking for almost eight hours to this committee about all sorts of things you remember," Harris said. "How can you not remember whether or not you had a conversation about Robert Mueller or his investigation with anyone at that law firm?"

Later, Kavanagh said he would like to know the specific person Harris was thinking of.

Harris fired back, "I think you are thinking of someone, and you don't want to tell us."

After more back and forth delay tactics, she had to concede that he was not going to answer the question.

CNN reported on Thursday that “Kavanaugh responded to the questioning again on Thursday saying he hasn't had any "inappropriate" conversations about the special counsel's Russia investigation "with anyone," adding he doesn't "recall any conversations of that kind with anyone."

"I don't recall any conversations of that kind with anyone at that law firm," Kavanaugh said during the third day of hearings. "I haven't had any inappropriate conversations about that investigation with anyone."

The law firm also issued a statement to CNN on Thursday, saying, "There have been no discussions regarding Robert Mueller's investigation between Judge Kavanaugh and anyone at our firm."

Harris pushed back against the law firm's denial, telling CNN, "They're not under oath."

Asked if she didn't believe them, Harris said again, "They're not under oath. The question was asked under oath."

With the third day of testimony concluding, it is safe to see that with the usual cast from Capitol Hill there was some jousting with new entries, like Harris, which shows that the Democrats are not going either slowly, or passively, with the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh.