Maybe this is an obvious point, but it seems like Kavanaugh's defenders want to judge his lies/misdirections by the standards of a political or a partisan operative, rather than those of a Supreme Court nominee under oath.
Maybe just make that argument explicitly? Say something like: "Sure, he spins things to his advantage. And I'll concede that there are a few outright lies, if you want to be super literal. But that's to be expected when the stakes are this high, and Democrats have done it too."
Not sure I *agree* with the argument above but I at least find it intellectually coherent. But this defense should acknowledge that 1) this is a big shift in how we judge SCOTUS nominees and 2) it's unusual to have a SCOTUS nominee who thinks & speaks like a partisan operative.
OK. Here's a journalist—Politico editor-in-chief John F. Harris—making pretty much this exact argument. Except, he doesn't acknowledge how big a change it is to have a *Supreme Court nominee* (under oath, no less) lying/spinning like any other politician. politi.co/2NXUm3i
