Brett = angry drunk; Barack = confused youth

As Fox reports, the attempt to smear Brett Kavanaugh because he drank in college and allegedly lied about it is now officially in full swing:

In a statement released Sunday, a Yale classmate of Kavanaugh’s said he is “deeply troubled by what has been a blatant mischaracterization by Brett himself of his drinking at Yale.” Charles “Chad” Ludington, who now teaches at North Carolina State University, said he was friend of Kavanaugh’s at Yale and that Kavanaugh was “a frequent drinker, and a heavy drinker.”

“On many occasions I heard Brett slur his words and saw him staggering from alcohol consumption, not all of which was beer. When Brett got drunk, he was often belligerent and aggressive,” Ludington said. While saying that youthful drinking should not condemn a person for life, Ludington said he was concerned about Kavanaugh’s statements under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Note Ludington's careful effort to frame the issue not as a question of whether Kavanaugh was guilty of excessive youthful drinking, perhaps a pardonable indiscretion, but as a question of whether Kavanaugh lied to the Judiciary Committee, presumably a disqualifying offense. This has become a favorite tactic of investigators, including Robert Mueller: attack the victim not because of the seriousness of the crime he allegedly committed (if there even was a crime committed), but because he lied about it to the investigator. For example, as I have pointed out elsewhere, Mueller charged Mike Flynn not because he had spoken with the Russian ambassador (presumably part of his duties), but because he had lied about it to the FBI.

In other words, Ludington's statement has all the earmarks of a document that has been carefully formulated by lawyers so that it has the maximum potential to damage Kavanaugh, which is to say that this fucking prig, Mr Charles Ludington, is just another Democratic partisan working together with Democratic lawyers to defeat the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice with whose judicial philosophy they all disagree.

And where were all these critics of substance abuse when Barack Obama admitted to smoking marijuana and snorting cocaine when he was a young man? Back in 2006, the NYT reported:

Obama had written in his first book, "Dreams From My Father" (1995), before entering politics, that he had used marijuana and cocaine ("maybe a little blow"). He said he had not tried heroin because he did not like the pusher who was trying to sell it to him. ... "It was reflective of the struggles and confusion of a teenage boy," he said. "Teenage boys are frequently confused."

Ah, I see: Barry's cocaine use was the confusion of a teenage boy, but Brett's drinking is an unforgivable crime. And "maybe a little blow?" This is the very definition of fudging. There is no "maybe" about it, Barack: either you did or you did not snort cocaine. And, if you did, you know exactly how much you did. In other words, Obama was never entirely truthful in his characterization of his drug habits, but this was never seen as disqualifying for him. (For a lot more on Barry's pot smoking habits with the "Choom Gang" in Hawaii, see here.)

In sum, the only reason why NYT did not go crazy about Barry's drug use was because they liked his politics. NYT and the Dems don't like Kavanaugh's judicial philosophy or the politics of the President who appointed him, so now, they are suddenly shocked, yes shocked, that Kavanaugh drank in college.