Then he starts to get into it a real political problem. that would probably inflame his base more if he goes back on his promise. neil: he can deal with the wrath that may be out there if the government shutdown through the christmas holiday. it s not as if anyone would run back to town or stay in town to cobble something together. they very well could. i think the democrats, even if republicans say we can t pass anything, let s punt to january, democrats and probably be here every day trying to win the optics argument, especially if the president goes to mar-a-lago. the federal government has to process paychecks on the 24th. they will go out on the 28th and those nine federal departments for workers that don t get money, they wouldn t be paid at christmas. that s an optics problem for the president. neil: it s not a full government shutdown whatever the case. that s right. they have approved 75% of the money. neil: thank you very, very much. as long as you are working throu
Cannot be looked at as just a part of the political branch. that is what makes them so nervous about it. they can t be looked at as republicans or democrat, and right now, and this doesn t always happen, there are four members who were appointed by republicans president, and four by liberals. that doesn t always happen. we have had that switch around before, so they are very, very concerned about this. and they are also, i think that kagan made that interesting note about the swing vote, because now anthony kennedy is gone, and before anthony kennedy, justice sandra o connor was the swing vote. and right now, it doesn t look like there is going to be a swing vote. and she says that is another concern. because it looks like one side, one side of the bench would be owned in a particular issue. they are very nervous. now, let s talk about what is happening on capitol hill. there is obviously an optics problem for republicans on the judiciary committee, which we saw chuck grassley attemp
Were they g-men ornd? were they acting as g-men or tools of the white house. i don t know what a g-man is. you don t know the old 30s movies, but the fbi guys. ultimately, the white house is their client, so they are restricted. but they know and they recognize well, they re not pinkertons. they work for the united states, not the just the president. but the white house is ultimately the client. and as greg said, there are things that the white house can limit the scope on. and they recognize that they re being used by the white house here, they re being used by the senate. chris, i would say, as i mentioned with, the white house does control the background investigation process, both the scope and the duration, but obviously, the republicans in the white house have an optics problem here. it just doesn t look right to a lot of folks that those two individuals were not interviewed as part of this. i just don t think it makes sense to people. suppose the guy was up fo
Didn t do. i would advise the president to let us handle this. okay. so, jennifer rubin, obviously the tail end of that is that lindsey graham recognizes the optics problem radiates outside of that committee. donald trump, 19 accusers. he supported roy moore who was basically banned from the mall because of allegations that he preyed on young girls. the optics are bad all the way around, but lindsey graham says god only knows how many may never come ford, but he knows people are sometimes accused of things they didn t do. that s the line. this will mean no man will ever be able to be appointed because they ll all be accused. the imbalance is tremendous. it s estimated as many as 80% of women who are attacked never report it. the incidence of false accusations is minute. it s in the low single digits and there s a raft of studies out there so it will equate the two as wrong. you know what, if lindsey graham says he doesn t know when this happened, he doesn t know who is there, why i
Because they don t want to do it themselves so they ll sit there mute. there is no question there is an optics problem. sarah is right that the real variable is not necessarily gender, it is stupidity. and it is insensitivity and those comments i think they have a high potential of having a backlash. but both parties, i think, have to be aware of the optics here. and the way that they handle the the questioning. if, in fact, republicans beat up on dr. ford, i think that would be a political disaster. but i also think that democrats need to understand that if they go over the top in their questioning of kavanaugh, if in fact they become histrionic, there is a potential that there could be a backlash. what everybody has to do is approach this as soberly as fairly as possible and that is so difficult to do with all of the emotions around it. so what could possibly go wrong? a lot can go wrong. with orrin hatch and chuck