An Iraqi soldier holds up the Koran (the Muslim bible) and a white flag as he surrenders to Saudi and American forces inside Kuwait on Monday, Feb. 25, 1991. Large numbers of prisoners were taken from fortified Iraqi positions by the allied forces in this operation along the coast highway north of the Kuwait-Saudi Arabia border. (AP Photo/Laurent Rebours)

Earlier today, Ramesh Ponnuru had an article in Bloomberg titled Five Reasons the Republicans Should Stick With Kavanaugh. It is a good read and here they are:

The first is to avoid an injustice…

The second reason is to discourage future spurious campaigns against nominees…

Third, a lot of conservative voters might see the demise of Kavanaugh’s nomination as a Republican betrayal, or at least a sign of weakness, and sit out the midterms in disgust.

Fourth, Republicans might not get another nominee confirmed if they abandon Kavanaugh…

Fifth, the claim that suspicion of Kavanaugh will taint any rulings he makes is overstated…

Remember, if they cannot confirm Kavanaugh, they cannot confirm anyone. This is the beginning of a new age of judicial character assassination and it only gets worse from here. — Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) September 26, 2018

For anyone suffering under the delusion that Dem groups are seeking truth and justice instead of blockade at all costs on SCOTUS, they helpfully disabused readers of @mikeallen's this morning: "Website coming soon!" pic.twitter.com/q691GsykLR — Josh Holmes (@HolmesJosh) September 26, 2018

Ultimately, if they can stop Kavanaugh, we will never find a SCOTUS nominee they can’t stop.

Those are some great reasons to support Kavanaugh, but what, ou’re asking by now, does any of this have to do with libertarians? Glad you asked that.

Robbie Soave is an editor at Reason. This is his hot take one the situation:

There are plenty of other, very conservative judges Trump could appoint, and the Senate could confirm. — Robby Soave (@robbysoave) September 26, 2018

Sucks for Brett Kavanaugh, I guess. It really sucks for him, in the possible but increasingly unlikely event he is completely innocent of all wrongdoing. But it's time to take the L. — Robby Soave (@robbysoave) September 26, 2018

The fact that Gorsuch's confirmation was a cakewalk leads me to believe a less compromised nominee would get through just fine. — Robby Soave (@robbysoave) September 26, 2018

As with most libertarians, you aren’t really sure if Soave is a dolt (this would be the Any Rand wing), a political naif, or just a liberal Democrat who happens to believe in civil liberties. And, as with most libertarians, you find they are much more interested in being reasonable and finding consensus and reaching across the aisle than they are in actually doing anything. Here is a prime example. We have two completely outlandish allegations and one that an best be described as “sketchy.” One of the allegations, the sketchy one, has been disproven by information given to us by the complainant. This leaves two allegations that are totally without foundation. And yet, Soave wants to “take the L.” There is a word for people who don’t mind losing. They are called losers.

Ronald Reagan, Ronaldus Magnus, was right about a lot of things. What he was wrong about was libertarians having any place at the table in a conservative movement. When he said, “I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism,” one has to conclude that he didn’t know what he was talking about. During the Obama and, now the Trump, administrations it became clear that libertarians saw playing remora to the GOP was a way of getting power and influence.

I’m more than happy to accept their votes and take their donations (except that they don’t seem to give a whole lot of money) but the more you listen to them the stupider you get.

=========

=========

Like what you see? Then visit my story archive.

Follow @streiffredstate

I’m on Facebook. Drop by and join the fun there.

=========

=========