Susan Collins is in trouble

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Catty comment”? It was simply factual. Susan Collins is an esteemed, ethical senator. She has a long record of bipartisanship and is widely respected on both sides of the aisle. I only wish I lived in Maine so I could vote for her.

She is a decent woman at heart. However she badly miscalculated on the BK thing. Many people believe the victim, and BK in his speech behaved terribly, and not at all like a SCJ nominee. It's not that we forget all the good she's done as a moderate Republican, but that was really a cringeworthy mistake on her part, probably in part because she's an older woman, and lived in times when wealthy white men did this with impunity. She forgot that things are different now, and that men are held to more rigorous standards of behavior - thank God!

I don’t think you understand that just as many people support her decision and view her as having more integrity in her little finger than most of the Democratic senators who created the Kavanaugh circus. I cringe every time I think back to that hearing, and not because of Kavanaugh’s understandably human behavior, but because of the disgusting and surreal grilling of his high school life (30+ years ago). She was one of the only senators to speak up for common sense and decency and not jump on the witch-hunt bandwagon. Whether she wins or loses her next election, I will always admire her for having a backbone and doing what was right.

+1 but Roe vs Wade and abortion may bring her down

[Anonymous]

Collins finger-wagging speech when she voted for Kavanaugh was unnecessary and probably sealed her fate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Catty comment”? It was simply factual. Susan Collins is an esteemed, ethical senator. She has a long record of bipartisanship and is widely respected on both sides of the aisle. I only wish I lived in Maine so I could vote for her.

She is a decent woman at heart. However she badly miscalculated on the BK thing. Many people believe the victim, and BK in his speech behaved terribly, and not at all like a SCJ nominee. It's not that we forget all the good she's done as a moderate Republican, but that was really a cringeworthy mistake on her part, probably in part because she's an older woman, and lived in times when wealthy white men did this with impunity. She forgot that things are different now, and that men are held to more rigorous standards of behavior - thank God!

I don’t think you understand that just as many people support her decision and view her as having more integrity in her little finger than most of the Democratic senators who created the Kavanaugh circus. I cringe every time I think back to that hearing, and not because of Kavanaugh’s understandably human behavior, but because of the disgusting and surreal grilling of his high school life (30+ years ago). She was one of the only senators to speak up for common sense and decency and not jump on the witch-hunt bandwagon. Whether she wins or loses her next election, I will always admire her for having a backbone and doing what was right.

+1 but Roe vs Wade and abortion may bring her down

you mean breaking her promise to maine voters?

yeah - that's a big deal.

i hope whatever she got from moscow mitch in return for that disgraceful vote was worth it.

[Anonymous]

So many on this thread seem to have forgotten what decency, integrity and valor mean.

I suspect the majority of Maine citizens do still remember.

We will see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:she is either incredibly naive or a liar, not brave

She thought it was a brave thing, to stand as a woman, in defense of BK.

I think she made a grave error because the man she sincerely thought was all right, was not all right.

I don't think she thought it was brave. I think she thought it was politically expedient.

She is not a stupid person, and she cannot have believed that voting yes on BK was fulfilling her promise to Maine citizens that she wouldn't confirm a justice who wants to trash Roe. That's even leaving aside the rest of it. She must just have believed she was powerful enough to withstand blowback, and that the trouble of not voting for him would be worse for her.

She walked through every step of the confirmation process. She talked about our justice system. Unfortunately, Dems no longer need evidence--only accusations to convict a person. And, just look at the latest disaster in the NYT. Two key things from that book--Leland Keyser stood firm even though she felt she was under great pressure from friends, and the latest "victim" refused to talk to press and told friends that she had no recollection of the event Stiers described. Pretty significant facts to be left out of a newspaper--even in an op-ed.

And THAT is the crux of the matter and the force against which Kavanaugh has found himself.

DP: You may be scared by mob, but thank God most Americans ain't.

[Anonymous]

"She walked through every step of the confirmation process. She talked about our justice system. Unfortunately, Dems no longer need evidence--only accusations to **convict** a person. And, just look at the latest disaster in the NYT. Two key things from that book--Leland Keyser stood firm even though she felt she was under great pressure from friends, and the latest "victim" refused to talk to press and told friends that she had no recollection of the event Stiers described. Pretty significant facts to be left out of a newspaper--even in an op-ed."

Nobody is talking about a conviction.

We're talking about a job interview, for the 1000th time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"She walked through every step of the confirmation process. She talked about our justice system. Unfortunately, Dems no longer need evidence--only accusations to **convict** a person. And, just look at the latest disaster in the NYT. Two key things from that book--Leland Keyser stood firm even though she felt she was under great pressure from friends, and the latest "victim" refused to talk to press and told friends that she had no recollection of the event Stiers described. Pretty significant facts to be left out of a newspaper--even in an op-ed."

Nobody is talking about a conviction.

We're talking about a job interview, for the 1000th time.

So, you think false accusations should keep someone from getting a job? I disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So many on this thread seem to have forgotten what decency, integrity and valor mean.

I suspect the majority of Maine citizens do still remember.

We will see.

You mean saying you are pro-choice and pro-women's rights and then sticking to that? Yes, I guess we will see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"She walked through every step of the confirmation process. She talked about our justice system. Unfortunately, Dems no longer need evidence--only accusations to **convict** a person. And, just look at the latest disaster in the NYT. Two key things from that book--Leland Keyser stood firm even though she felt she was under great pressure from friends, and the latest "victim" refused to talk to press and told friends that she had no recollection of the event Stiers described. Pretty significant facts to be left out of a newspaper--even in an op-ed."

Nobody is talking about a conviction.

We're talking about a job interview, for the 1000th time.

So, you think false accusations should keep someone from getting a job? I disagree.

They're not proven false. They, along with everything else, point to a flawed character.

He should not have one of the most important lifelong appointments in the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"She walked through every step of the confirmation process. She talked about our justice system. Unfortunately, Dems no longer need evidence--only accusations to **convict** a person. And, just look at the latest disaster in the NYT. Two key things from that book--Leland Keyser stood firm even though she felt she was under great pressure from friends, and the latest "victim" refused to talk to press and told friends that she had no recollection of the event Stiers described. Pretty significant facts to be left out of a newspaper--even in an op-ed."

Nobody is talking about a conviction.

We're talking about a job interview, for the 1000th time.

So, you think false accusations should keep someone from getting a job? I disagree.

They're not proven false. They, along with everything else, point to a flawed character.

He should not have one of the most important lifelong appointments in the country.

Not as flawed as the setup by Feinstein and her cohort. I used to admire Feinstein.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"She walked through every step of the confirmation process. She talked about our justice system. Unfortunately, Dems no longer need evidence--only accusations to **convict** a person. And, just look at the latest disaster in the NYT. Two key things from that book--Leland Keyser stood firm even though she felt she was under great pressure from friends, and the latest "victim" refused to talk to press and told friends that she had no recollection of the event Stiers described. Pretty significant facts to be left out of a newspaper--even in an op-ed."

Nobody is talking about a conviction.

We're talking about a job interview, for the 1000th time.

So, you think false accusations should keep someone from getting a job? I disagree.

They're not proven false. They, along with everything else, point to a flawed character.

He should not have one of the most important lifelong appointments in the country.

Thank God you people did not succeed at your witch hunt.
And, you are not succeeding at your latest attempt.
Hopefully, this latest effort will push Collins over the top because decent people don't tolerate your sick game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"She walked through every step of the confirmation process. She talked about our justice system. Unfortunately, Dems no longer need evidence--only accusations to **convict** a person. And, just look at the latest disaster in the NYT. Two key things from that book--Leland Keyser stood firm even though she felt she was under great pressure from friends, and the latest "victim" refused to talk to press and told friends that she had no recollection of the event Stiers described. Pretty significant facts to be left out of a newspaper--even in an op-ed."

Nobody is talking about a conviction.

We're talking about a job interview, for the 1000th time.

So, you think false accusations should keep someone from getting a job? I disagree.

They're not proven false. They, along with everything else, point to a flawed character.

He should not have one of the most important lifelong appointments in the country.

Not as flawed as the setup by Feinstein and her cohort. I used to admire Feinstein.

Why'd she sit on the info for so long. That was pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"She walked through every step of the confirmation process. She talked about our justice system. Unfortunately, Dems no longer need evidence--only accusations to **convict** a person. And, just look at the latest disaster in the NYT. Two key things from that book--Leland Keyser stood firm even though she felt she was under great pressure from friends, and the latest "victim" refused to talk to press and told friends that she had no recollection of the event Stiers described. Pretty significant facts to be left out of a newspaper--even in an op-ed."

Nobody is talking about a conviction.

We're talking about a job interview, for the 1000th time.

So, you think false accusations should keep someone from getting a job? I disagree.

They're not proven false. They, along with everything else, point to a flawed character.

He should not have one of the most important lifelong appointments in the country.

Not as flawed as the setup by Feinstein and her cohort. I used to admire Feinstein.

Why'd she sit on the info for so long. That was pathetic.

It was their Hail Mary that they hoped they wouldn't have to use. But, everything else failed. So, out came the bogus allegations.
Disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"She walked through every step of the confirmation process. She talked about our justice system. Unfortunately, Dems no longer need evidence--only accusations to **convict** a person. And, just look at the latest disaster in the NYT. Two key things from that book--Leland Keyser stood firm even though she felt she was under great pressure from friends, and the latest "victim" refused to talk to press and told friends that she had no recollection of the event Stiers described. Pretty significant facts to be left out of a newspaper--even in an op-ed."

Nobody is talking about a conviction.

We're talking about a job interview, for the 1000th time.

So, you think false accusations should keep someone from getting a job? I disagree.

They're not proven false. They, along with everything else, point to a flawed character.

He should not have one of the most important lifelong appointments in the country.

Thank God you people did not succeed at your witch hunt.
And, you are not succeeding at your latest attempt.
Hopefully, this latest effort will push Collins over the top because decent people don't tolerate your sick game.

DP. If Trump is going to go through the government, wrecking all norms, then the Supreme Court is not immune. I'm in favor of impeaching Kavanaugh. Not for this most recent revelation but for the mendacious testimony under oath at his hearing.

Actions have consequences.

[Anonymous]

Bogus allegations that she told her shrink about in 2012.