deskpro2k3 said:
So you think that kind of behavior is acceptable in a interview? If your boss asked you if you ever blackout from drinking, and you say, "I don't know, have you.." Do you think that's not disrespectful? Would you hire that person? My only question is why is he so angry and combative in a job interview. I would understand his defensive angry behavior if this was a trial in a court of law, but it wasn't. |
The comparison with a job interview is not a good one. For a start, if you lie in a job interview you don't potentially face perjury charges. Secondly. if you lie in a job interview you don't have to worry about the F.B.I. or a reporter chasing down the truth, and your lie is not being broadcast on national television for anyone with relevant evidence to comment. I think we all infer that Kavanaugh had indeed blacked out, but he couldn’t lie under oath and if he admitted it then the Dems would have said “see, he can't deny the allegations because he's shown that there are time periods he can't remember!” In the circumstances “have you?” is a thin response but maybe the best he could come up with to avoid the question.
Thirdly, in a job interview you don't know that about half the people will want to employ you whatever you say and about half will not want to employ you. Fourthly, in a job interview the only thing on the line is getting the job, not your entire standing in society. Fifthly, if it was a job interview Kavanaugh would have been quietly dropped as soon as the allegations came forward, because prospective employers aren't worried that they could lose their majority and never fill the vacancy at all. Sixthly, if you asked someone who, say, was an alcoholic in recovery about his or her past drinking, that might be a very inappropriate thing to do at a job interview. It would be fair enough to say “how much would you guess you drink in a typical week?” but not to ask about high school drinking.
There's a certain degree of disingenuousness about the Dems arguments. “Why didn't he ask for an F.B.I. investigation?” for example. We know why ... if he had called for one it would have pushed things past the mid-terms and made it less likely that he would be appointed. The F.B.I. investigation was only ever suggested as a means to delay Kavanaugh’s confirmation ... it wasn't intended to exonerate him (and couldn’t have done since its findings weren't public). So he was right to dodge the trap.
Kavanaugh's behaviour at the final session of questions was, unquestionably, bizarre, but I put that down to the fact that he was playacting and not very good at it. He was told to show his human side and it turns out he doesn't really know what that is. He came across as very unlikeable, but I'd be prepared to bet that any eminent judge would be pretty unlikeable: doesn't mean that they're guilty of something.
