At the risk of being politically incorrect, I have to take issue with the views that most people had of two women in the attempted lynching of Brett Kavanaugh.  Not because they’re women, but because they played such key roles in how things turned out.

First is Susan Collins, whom many, including Sean Hannity, labeled nothing less than a hero.  He and many Republican senators were effusive in their praise of Collins, with Hannity going so far as to say that her speech was the best he had ever heard on the senate floor.

While her delivery left a lot to be desired, there’s no question that Collins did an excellent job in laying out the case for Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation.  Much to the Dirty Dems’ dismay, she methodically spelled out precisely what had taken place in the senate’s lynch-mob atmosphere, and for that she deserves credit.

Nevertheless, there’s nothing Collins said that you and I — or anyone else who followed the confirmation proceedings even casually — didn’t already know.  It’s not like she uncovered new, exculpatory evidence.

Which raised the question in my mind, why would Collins take it upon herself to pontificate on the well-known facts of the case at a time when everyone just wanted to know how she was going to vote?  The cynical side of me says that it was a matter of ego and a morally superior mind-set that is all too common in the nation’s capital.

I say ego, because Collins apparently believed her vote was so important that she felt compelled to give a one-hour speech when everyone in the country just wanted to get to the bottom line.  I would have been far more impressed had she gone on record a couple weeks earlier and stated that she intended to vote for Kavanaugh — just like 48 other Republican senators did.

So, no, Susan Collins should not be deified for lagging behind her Republican colleagues.  If Republicans believe her vote on Kavanaugh is a harbinger of how she will vote in the future, they are setting themselves up for a big disappointment.  Why?  Because Collins is a progressive — radically and emotionally attached to Roe v Wade — who cannot be counted on to support the Trump/Republican agenda.

The other woman whom I believe has been treated far too kindly by Republicans is none other than Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.  I admit that immediately following her testimony, I was swept up by the prevailing wisdom that Ford was “amazingly credible.”

That, of course, was before any of the facts were known.  But once the discrepancies began pouring in, and all of her witnesses contradicted her account of the alleged Kavanaugh assault, I allowed my own feelings to surface.

Without even getting into the massive discrepancies in Ford’s story, three things hit me in her testimony right off the bat.  First was the caricature she portrayed — her stuttering, squeaky voice, her snickering answers, and her mousy facial expressions.  All seemed intended to make her appear to be a frightened, helpless woman.

Second was her affected overuse of the word hippocampus, a part of the brain that few people know much, if anything, about.  She sprinkled her testimony with several other words exclusive to the professions of medicine and psychology, so much so that I found myself mentally rolling my eyes — as in, “spare me.”

On the one hand she was playing the role of a vulnerable, frightened victim, while at the same time trying hard to talk above the average person’s head.  Speaking for myself, I’ve always mistrusted affectation and pretense.

Finally — and this one is sure to get me a lot of negative feedback — was the fact that she and her husband have been involved in “group marital therapy sessions.”  I realize that many people — probably some who are reading this article — have engaged in marital therapy sessions, but group marital therapy sessions?

I can’t grasp why anyone would want to share her marital problems with a group of strangers?  It smacks of someone who is, for lack of a more gentle way of putting it, a bit screwed up.  The Kavanaugh case aside, attending group marital therapy sessions is, at a minimum, a sign of some deep-rooted emotional problems.

But it got worse.  As things unfolded, I became more and more convinced that Christine Ford was just another left-wing activist.  “Amazingly credible?”  Based on the refutations of all of her so-called witnesses, I would say that she has no credibility at all.  The evidence is now clear that Ford repeatedly lied to the Judiciary Committee, and if the Dirty Dems succeed in getting the FBI report released, they may just regret it.

It will forever annoy me that the Judiciary Committee treated Ford as though she were a piece of fine China, while Kavanaugh was treated like … well … a rapist!  Unfortunately, he fell right into the Dirty Dems trap and lost his cool.  “Aha, gotcha!  He lacks the temperament to be a Supreme Court justice.”

In this regard, Kavanaugh made a huge mistake when he appeared to grovel in his Wall Street Journal editorial.  Saul Alinsky taught his left-wing radical students to never apologize, never show weakness, never back down — and always stay on offense.  Rather than celebrating, Republicans need to focus on remaining aggressive and never engaging in the hopeless and naïve task of trying to appease the enemy.

Now that this shameful episode in American jurisprudence history is over — at least for the moment, that is — my concern is that, based on his Wall Street Journal editorial, Justice  Kavanaugh may at times make the age-old Republican mistake of trying too hard to convince Dirty Dems that he is “fair minded.”

In this regard, I winced when he told Susan Collins that Roe v Wade is “settled law.”  News flash:  There is no such thing as settled law!  Just because a liberal activist court made a ruling years ago that is unconstitutional doesn’t mean that new Supreme Court justices are obliged to let it stand.  If precedent automatically rules the day, why bother to appoint new justices?

One final thought:  Schumer and his Dirty Dem partners in crime, now more hysterical than ever as they see their judicial legislative power slipping away, have been babbling a lot about the need for a “balanced court.”  Woe unto Republicans if they buy into this canard.

The Supreme Court was never intended to be “balanced.”  A Supreme Court justice has only one job:  Defend and uphold the original intent of the Constitution — period.  If politicians really cared about the Constitution, every Supreme Court justice would be a strict constitutionalist.

Republicans had better keep this in mind as the Dirty Dems become ever more desperate to mold the court into a legislative body that caters to its every demand.  There is an endless supply of Kagans, Sotomayors, and Ginsburgs waiting to be tapped, and the job of voters November 6 and beyond is to make sure that doesn’t happen.