I thought his best pathway was likely the truthful pathway.
He did get drunk when he was younger. He has no memory of the events described. He regrets the apparent damage done during those events but cannot authentically apologise in the absence of any memory of them.
He still enjoys a beer but his youthful, inebriated days are long behind him.
That's the response I think many were looking for. The admission of imperfection. The stubborn, partisan conspiracy-theorist not so much.
I don't think he can put the genie back in the bottle now. The Fox interview was PR. The WSJ editorial is more PR. He's trying to say he was defending his family and his reputation within it. Fine. But he revealed elements of his nature which demonstrate his character. And that character isn't quite that of a Supreme Court Justice. There's no appeal against his animus for Democrats on the Supreme Court.
If he steps aside, he can still do some good and retrieve some of his dignity.
Meanwhile, I think Republicans should find a different victim if they wish to elevate a poster child against the MeToo movement. There are plenty of examples. Jim Carrey's story is the most devious I know of.
| 