NeverTrump Senator Jeff Flake, so unpopular in Arizona that he declined to run for re-election, may become the enabler of the Senate Democrats' plan to delay a confirmation vote on Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court until after the midterm election, at which point the excuse of a "lame duck Senate" becomes a powerful talking point for delaying a vote until the next Congress.  If Democrats win a majority, they will then kill the nomination.

Burgess Everett of Politico reports:

Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court hit a serious roadblock Sunday night, as GOP Senate Judiciary Committee member Jeff Flake said he is uncomfortable voting to advance Kavanaugh's nomination later this week after the nominee's sexual assault accuser went public. ...

Flake (R-Ariz.) said he needs to hear more about the allegations raised publicly by Christine Blasey Ford on Sunday in a Washington Post article, and said other Republicans share his view.  Flake is one of 11 Republicans on the narrowly divided panel and without his support, the committee cannot advance his nomination.  However, GOP leaders could try to bring Kavanaugh's nomination directly to the Senate floor.

Jeff Flake in 2018 (photo credit: Gage Skidmore).

There are various expressions to describe the role Flake seems to be playing.  "Skunk at a garden party," meaning the spoiler, is a good one.  The Yiddish word "shtoonk" is shorter and captures the notion of someone who habitually likes to deflate or kill the joy or success of others.  John Hinderaker of Powerline goes farther and calls him a "traitor."  Flake does have the power to get revenge on his nemesis Trump by blocking the nomination, but at the expense of his own party.

Flake might still decide to support moving the vote along after hearing the testimony and cross-examination of Professor Christine Blasey Ford, whose lawyer this morning just announced that she is willing to testify.

The Democrats' strategy for the testimony no doubt would be to portray any questioning of her as beating up on a victim and implicitly siding with the Harvey Weinsteins, Charlie Roses, and Les Mooneveses of the world against women victimized by sexual predators.  Weeping by Prof. Ford in her testimony is a checkmate, as far as Democrats are concerned.  Dropping the claim that women are as strong as or stronger than men, and fully as capable – or more! – of anything a male is able to do, they would shamelessly exploit the image of weak, vulnerable, dependent women so long as it advances their goals.  The women-as-Amazons party line would go down the Memory Hole until Kavanaugh's nomination is disposed of.

By the way, speaking of the Memory Hole, whatever happened to the claim that "youthful indiscretions" – for instance, Barack Obama's confession of use of the hard drug cocaine – are irrelevant to fitness for office?