Ford testimony, Kavanaugh response

Christine Blasey Ford has been giving testimony on Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in the US Senate.

This is on events alleged to have happened a long time ago.

Ford seems like a genuine and credible witness, but memories are no always accurate over long periods of time in particular. However it does seem that she has genuine beliefs about what happened.

Kavanaugh has not looked or sounded convincing in what I have seen of him denying things.

From Reuters:

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh testifies on Capitol Hill regarding sexual assault accusations by Christine Blasey Ford

Kavanaugh says he was not at the party described by Dr. Ford

Kavanaugh says he had demanded a hearing, says his family and name have been destroyed by accusations against him

Kavanaugh says Democratic rhetoric, reaction against him aimed to ‘blow me up and take me down’

Kavanaugh cites a long series of false last-minute smears designed to scare him and drive him out of the process, ‘crazy stuff’, says the opposition against him has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled by anger against Trump; ‘This is a circus’

Kavanaugh says he will not be intimidated into withdrawing from this process, says while he may be defeated in the final vote, he will never quit; says due process means listening to both sides

Kavanaugh says he is ‘innocent’ and that he has ‘never done this’ to Ford ‘or to anyone’

Kavanaugh says no one ever accused him of any kind of sexual misconduct through his career; categorically and unequivocally denies the accusations against him by Ford

Trump has big lead in CNN poll

Donald Trump has a big lead in the latest CNN poll for Republican presidential nominee, with 39% compared to the next highest, Ted Cruz on 18% and then Ben Carson and Marco Rubio on 10% each.

CNNRepublicanPollDec15

Trump is probably getting far more than 39% of the media coverage.

Based on the same sample of Republican or Republican leaning voters Trump was even further ahead on “best able to handle” questions.

Regardless of who you are voting for, which Republican candidate do you think can best handle…

  • The economy – Trump 57%, Cruz 8%
  • Illegal immigration – Trump 55%, Cruz 15%
  • ISIS – trump 47%, Cruz 21%

Trump fans will be very pleased with this but many will despair at what US politics has become, on the right at least.

A big unknown is what will happen when the field narrows – will the not-Trump preferences accumulate for the remaining candidates? Another poll question may give some insight.

Do you think Republicans have a better chance of winning the presidency in 2016 if Donald Trump is the party’s nominee or do they have a better chance of winning with someone else as the party’s nominee?

  • Better chance with Donald Trump 46% (up 8 from August)
  • Better chance with someone else 50% (down 8)
  • No opinion 4%

There’s other interesting poll results: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/12/22/cnnpoll.pdf

Slater still smearing National Northland contender

Cameron Slater has continued a smearing line of attack via Whale Oil on one of National’s nominees to stand in the Northland by-election. This can mean any of a number of things, in particular is it a paid for line of attack?

In contrast David Farrar has listed The five nominees for National in Northland

Mita Harris is the Chair of the Northland Conservation Board. A member of Ngapuhi, he stood for National in 2008. He is involved in numerous heritage, recreation and conservation projects in Northland.

Matt King is a local farmer, businessman and former police detective. He sought the nomination in 2011, and runs a private investigations company.

Grant McCallum is a local diary farmer and an elected board member on National’s Board of Directors.

Mark Osborne is the general manager of the Te Ahu Trust.

Karen Rolleston has stood for National in previous elections. She is the CEO of 3P Learning, and lives in Kumeu.

I’d say Karen and Grant are the front runners but all five candidates are credible and strong, and it will come down to the 120 local delegates, as they meet them and hear from them over the next fortnight.

That’s typical of Farrar’s insight and relative fairness with Party business.

In contrast Cameron Slater continues his dirty smears on one of them in NATIONAL’S NORTHLAND NOMINEES.

When he attacks like this one becomes curious about whether one of the other candidates is paying him to dish out the dirt or if he is just annoyed his client didn’t make the cut.

Or it could be he’s still just feeling dirty about being shunned by National and is lashing out and stiring things up.

‘Rod’ commented:

So National selects its candidates on the grounds of drinking capacity, or whether or not they have the potential to impinge on the careers of others. Silly me, I thought they would be looking for someone who would be a good representative for the people of Northland.

Slater replied:

Every electorate wants the “next PM” or at the very least someone of “cabinet material”.

Mostly they are often very disappointed when the brilliant candidate they thought they selected turns into a bit of a useless twat.

Most electorates will be realistic enough to realise they won’t get rhe “next PM”, and they will know cabinet positions take time and need to be earned.

They will initially want someone who will represent their electorate well, and see where things go from there.

It’s always a lottery choosing an MP (or a party leasder) – they are all untried so it’s difficult to know whether they will shape up or not.

Slater’s judgement on who might turn out to be a useless twat has to be taken with a grain of salt.

He’s not exactly the most useful twat in politics right now.

Ironically Slater posted on Facebook yesterday:

I’m about done with lying, thieving, disloyal scumbags.

I’ve no reason to believe he’s a thief but it’s likely many in National would readily apply the rest of his descriptions to Slater himelf.