The assumption of the supposedly smart people is that the effort to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court will (1) fail, depressing Republican turnout, or (2) succeed, pumping up Democratic turnout.

Option number three is presented by James S. Robbins:

Have Democrats gone so overboard in trying to demonize Brett Kavanaugh that they risk a backlash from upstanding men and the women who love them?

Let’s start with the premise that Democrats want to keep Judge Kavanaugh off the high court by any means necessary. Their modus operandi is to bring up alleged sexual assault charges late in the game to delay or derail the nomination process. They see it as a win-win: they either destroy Kavanaugh, discourage the Republican voter base, and deal a significant blow to the Trump presidency (the real target of all this); or Republicans hang together in the face of this political monsoon, confirm Kavanaugh, and alienate women voters in the process, leading to Democratic victories in the midterm election.

Democrats seem to think this political game won’t cost them. But they have left the reaction of men out of the equation.

An NPR/Marist poll this week finds that a plurality of Americans are undecided on the issue, but there is a predictable gender gap with somewhat more men believing Kavanaugh and more women believing accuser Christine Blasey Ford. This supports the Democratic strategy in general, but it is noteworthy that many red-state Democratic Senators are still on the fence. Moving too soon against Kavanaugh could cost them at the ballot box if Ford does not come off as slam-dunk credible in Thursday’s hearing.

By most accounts, Brett Kavanaugh is a straight arrow guy. He has lived an exemplary and successful life. Yet his very squareness is the foundation for the Democratic story line, the contrasting idea that Kavanaugh has a malevolent hidden history. With the new and bizarre “gang rape” claims put forward by “total lowlife” porn lawyer Michael Avenatti, the story could become the Duke Lacrosse case 2.0. It’s the Lifetime movie version of a Supreme Court confirmation hearing.

To support their political assault on Kavanaugh, Democrats have been forced to take some controversial stances. For example, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, says there is no presumption of innocence for Kavanaugh because this is simply a “fact-finding” exercise. Democrats in general have rushed to the conclusion that Kavanaugh’s accusers are telling the truth, imposing a significant presumption of guilt on the judge. Senator Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, significantly expanded the issue when she said that “the men in this country” are “perpetuating all of these kinds of actions” and need to “shut up” and “do the right thing for a change.”

But men are rightly concerned about Democrats normalizing the idea that raising 30-to-35-year-old charges with no hard evidence and no presumption of innocence can wipe away reputations and careers. Why would any man vote for a political party that is generating this toxic environment?

If Democrats win on Kavanaugh, these tactics will be become commonplace. Any man could find himself facing unprovable accusations automatically taken as fact, made by an accuser who spent “six days … carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney.” Imagine the impact on workplace disputes, divorce proceedings, or any situation in which a man might stand accused, rightly or not.

The Kavanaugh case could set an anti-male precedent
This puts an extraordinary burden on men, who would face a dual-track justice system in which they are always in the wrong, unless they can prove otherwise. And it’s not just men who should be concerned but mothers of sons who would not like to see their children’s futures wrecked by people exploiting the potentially anti-male precedent of the Kavanaugh case. Also men’s wives, sisters, female coworkers and friends should reject the extremist notion that all men are suspect, if not outright guilty.

The gender gap has been a fact of political life for decades. The last Democratic presidential candidate to win a majority of male votes was Jimmy Carter in 1976. Perhaps Democrats feel that they can unleash whatever attacks on the male character they want, and it won’t matter at the polls.

But while Democrats use the Kavanaugh confirmation process to game the midterms for a favorable outcome among women voters, it could easily backfire. They may find they have motivated even more men — and women as well — to turn out to vote Republican to defend the male half of the population against this wholly un-American approach to justice.

Rich Lowry:

The attempted political assassination of Brett Kavanaugh is bad for the country, but good for a Trumpian attitude toward American politics.

The last-minute ambush validates key assumptions of Donald Trump’s supporters that fueled his rise and buttress him in office, no matter how rocky the ride has been or will become. At least three premises have been underlined by the tawdry events of the past couple of weeks.

First, that good character is no defense. If you are John McCain, who genuinely tried to do the right thing and carefully cultivated a relationship with the media over decades, they will still call you a racist when you run against Barack Obama.

If you are Mitt Romney, an exceptionally earnest and decent man, they will make you into a heartless and despicable vulture capitalist, also for the offense of campaigning against Obama.

If you are Brett Kavanaugh, a respected member of the legal establishment who doesn’t have a flyspeck on his record across decades of public service in Washington, they will come up with dubious accusations of wrongdoing from decades ago when you were a teenager.

Second, that the media is an unremitting political and cultural adversary. In the Kavanaugh controversy, the press has been wholly on the other side, presuming his guilt and valorizing his accusers and their supporters, including Hawaii senator Mazie Hirono, whose most famous contribution to the debate was telling men to “shut up.” The advocacy isn’t limited to cable networks or the Twitter feeds of journalists. It reaches all the way up the food chain.

The New Yorker — which imagines itself an upholder of the finest standards of American journalism; which sports a refined monocle-wearing dandy as its mascot; which was once edited by that famous paragon of editorial care, William Shawn — happily published a new accusation against Kavanaugh even though the accuser herself had doubts about it (she only became convinced of it after days of consideration and talks with her lawyer).

The New York Times passed on the story when it couldn’t find any firsthand corroboration of it. The New Yorker didn’t allow that to become an obstacle.

Third, that politics isn’t just rough-and-tumble; it’s red in tooth and claw. Process and norms are nice, but they go out the window as soon as something important is at stake, like a potential fifth vote on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Senate Democrats may delicately talk about the importance of norms and civility on Sunday shows, but watch how they act. They sat on an accusation throughout an extensive process of vetting and questioning a nominee, then declared it dispositive evidence against his confirmation when it leaked at the eleventh hour. They delayed a hearing with Christine Blasey Ford long enough to allow time for the second accuser to be persuaded to come forward.

All of this plays into Trump’s support. Surely, a reason that the president appealed to many Republicans in the first place, despite his extravagant personal failings, was that they had decided that virtuous men would get smeared and chewed up by the opposition’s meat grinder, so why be a stickler for standards?

If Trump’s attacks against the media are over-the-top and sometimes disgraceful, at least he understands the score.

He may not be a constitutionalist, but he will be faithful to his own side, and fiercely battle it out with his political opponents.

The logic of this dynamic is risky. It can be self-defeating, and lead down the road of supporting, say, a Roy Moore, a kooky candidate doomed even in red Alabama. It can be corrupting, if character and standards are no longer considered important. But the dark view of our politics that has driven the Trump phenomenon for three years now is impossible to gainsay. Who can watch the frenzied assault on Brett Kavanaugh and say that it’s wrong?

Amanda Prestigiacomo reports:

Speaking out about the unsubstantiated accusations of sexual misconduct launched against him, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh told Fox News’ Martha MacCallum that he did not engage in sexual relations throughout his high school years and many years thereafter.

This flies in the face of the wild allegations of sexual misconduct, which all apparently happened when Mr. Kavanaugh was in high school and college. …

“We’re talking about allegations of sexual misconduct. I’ve never sexually assaulted anyone. I did not have sexual intercourse or anything close to sexual intercourse in high school or for many years thereafter. And the girls from the schools I went to and I were friends,” says Kavanaugh, sitting alongside his wife.

“So you’re saying through all these years that you were in question you were a virgin?” asks MacCallum.

The judge responds, “That’s correct.”

“Never had sexual intercourse with anyone in high school?” the Fox News host follows up.

“That’s correct,” Kavanaugh responds.

“And through what years in college, since we’re probing through your personal life here?” she asks.

“Many years, many years after,” he responds. “I’ll leave it at that, many years after.”

Kavanaugh and his accuser(s) reportedly will be testifying Thursday. I wonder if their testimony will get an R rating.

Regardless of that, someone should remind them that lying is a sin and perjury is a crime.

Well, maybe they won’t testify Thursday. Mediaite reports:

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford‘s legal team has sent a letter (which can be seen below via NBC’s Frank Thorp) to the Senate Judiciary Committee amid continuous negotiations ahead of Thursday’s scheduled hearing.

In the letter addressed to Sen. Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Ford’s legal team cited Sen. Majority Leader’s Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) speech on the Senate floor on Monday afternoon as “flatly inconsistent” to Grassley’s promise of a “fair and credible process.”