Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Real Problem with the Judge Moore Situation
Just as a thought experiment, let’s say that all those very belated accusers of Judge Roy Moore in Alabama are telling the truth. Okay. In this world (which may or may not be Actual Reality, considering we are in the middle of a witch hunt situation) we now have a super-creepy and sleazy guy as our Republican Senate nominee.
Whose fault is it? Trump reluctantly backed Strange, the establishment guy, so it’s sure not his fault. The GOP and other contributors spent between $15 and $30 million dollars on Strange, a cost of as much as nearly $140 per vote he got. Those are some darned high costs.
But wait. What was all that cash spent on?
Where was the oppo research that should have turned up at least something shady here on Moore? How about Republican candidate vetting? Why do all these women suddenly appear about a month prior to the December 12 special election? And how is it that from a count of zero sex allegations over a 40-year legal and political career, Moore had four appear in the same Washington Post story? All uncoordinated? None familiar with one another? Seems mighty coincidental to me.
I can only see three possibilities here.
First, that our GOP leaders are utterly and hopelessly incompetent. If the WaPo can turn up four different women at once, why didn’t Republican candidate and oppositional research during the primary turn up even one? If it was so well-known in the Gadsden area that Moore was a creeper or at least an ephebophile, how is it that Luther Strange and other Republicans remained blissfully unaware of it? And how can we voters trust such pathetic information mastery in our leadership?
Second, that the Democrats are making the whole thing up. The WaPo is heavily in the tank for (D)oug Jones, who is a pretty weak candidate with little funding (the DNC sure can’t afford to fund him) and no political experience to speak of. Now, I’m not saying this is happening, but politicians have always found it to be cheaper to buy mud for the other candidate than buying goodwill from the public, especially when their party essentially owns the press. It seems most Alabama voters have been leaning toward this possibility.
The third possibility is the one that scares me to death. It is possible the GOP knew all this stuff about Moore but sat on it because they were overconfident that Strange would be the candidate. Even with Strange’s not-entirely-unpredictable loss, they knew they could get a do-over with this “fresh” information. In other words, they had worked out a strategy in which even if their establishment candidate failed, they could destroy Moore, declare him to be not a Republican, and force an entirely new election while keeping Strange, a McConnell loyalist, in his temporary Senate seat.
If I’m correct and the third possibility is the truth, then the GOP is actively disenfranchising its own voters in Alabama. Far from doing their job and enacting the policies of their constituents, they are working against them — and working to keep the swamp swampy.
Is it any wonder that Republicans are rebelling against their would-be masters?
Published in Elections
The people get to choose in the election. Why have two fake pre-elections prior to the real one just to select candidates? Was the country really more poorly run back in the days of the smoke filled rooms. Was that not the era that all the populists point back to as a golden age of middle class values? You can’t trust the masses any more than you can trust the elite, which is why they need to be placed in opposition to each other. The current democratic nomination process takes the elite out of the equation, and creates unbalance in the system. This was the principles of that guided the constitutional structures of our country.
Do you really think the Senate is so much more effective as another House of representatives? Rather than a place where states nominate and send representatives?
The progressives wanted the 17th amendment, they also wanted the 27th amendment. I would rather many of the 20th century amendments not to have been ratified but they were ( I do like the 22nd but it didn’t go far enough in limiting terms) .
We have to live with it, unless we can repeal it which I am all for. However, as per the constitution, the people get to vote for who they want to represent them.
NoI don’t want a bunch of elites picking who should be the candidates, perhaps if the people were able to send their choice and not their “betters” choice that was selected more on the basis of kickbacks and clout then any kind of virtue, maybe the federal government wouldn’t be as big and unconstitutional as it is. So no I don’t think it was run better during those smoke filled room days because it took a LONG time of really bad legislation and corruption to get where we are now. It was just covered up better.
also Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. It’s messy but better then the alternative
Yes, but you forget: 1) first, it just looks that way, 2) they are a lot smarter than regular Americans and 3) they know a lot more about how the world works than regular Americans, 4) they can’t tell us that stuff because we go all crazy and do crazy things (because we don’t have good impulse control like they do) and 5) their ideas and decisions and actions stand the test of time (well except for the debt and a few other minor things).
Yes, good question. The 17th Amendment showed a serious lack of understanding, didn’t it? We need to repeal that sometime soon.
Re: why no oppo research? Word is, Strange campaign did try but was unable to nail down specific names.
Q: why haven’t specific names come out before the WaPo article?
“…harassment related to court duties that may be hidden in bar complaints, bankruptcy, or divorce records.”
“some of those who worked with Moore roll their eyes when asked about him but keep their mouths shut. There are plenty of stories to tell, the longtime secretaries, parole officers and lawyers said, but not on the record and not now, while Moore sits atop the state court system and controls its purse strings.
Moore’s willingness to use his power in order to intimidate those of lesser power is a matter of public record, e.g., compelling probate judges to contravene SCOTUS ruling and continue to enforce the state’s ban on same sex marriage.
Nor would they have wanted to be reviled public targets. Persecution such as @m1919a4 describes in compelling posts based on personal knowledge of one of women in the initial WaPo article would make anyone think long and hard before going on the record over the years.
Re: possible scenarios of who’s at fault for Roy Moore’s nomination:
Incompetence – GOP has had a spotlight for months now highlighting their difficulty governing. GOP has also been frequently ineffective in meeting Progressive/Dem memes head on.
Dems driving the story – Dems are worse off than GOP, financially and organizationally. And most of the time the press seems to be feeding/directing them, not Dems controlling the press.
GOP plots all along – Puzzling how a GOP unable to coordinate strategy to pass legislation would be able to pull of maneuvers worthy of Machiavelli. McConnell, who reveres the Senate and is responsible for its smooth operation at present, is in crisis mode sending SOS to POTUS for help dealing with the Moore for Senate mess and at same time trying to get do-or-die legislation through Congress. Those GOP in power are not the burn-down-the-party type.
Speaking of Machiavelli and burning down the party, there is someone closely associated with Roy Moore who is attributed clever strategist and a desire to blow up the GOP. Haven’t seen speculation of where/how Steve Bannon fits into all this.
There’s two major questions being debated here and both are “problematic” (as the hip and woke kids might say.)
1. Roy Moore is a predator or, conversely, he is not. There should be an emphasis on the word “is.” These types of predilections do not simply clear up and go away. Sexual offenders don’t go through “phases” where they are predators for a year and then they stop. What I have found curious about this matter is that there seems to be an emphasis on the late 1970s only. Did he seek treatment? Why has nothing surfaced about subsequent years and decades?
2. On the question of primaries and the role of the people vs the party as the selector of candidates: Are elections really reflective of the will of the people if the candidates they have to choose from are pre-approved party apparatchiks? Does it matter if you’re choosing between Comrade A and Comrade B?
This is separate from the question on the wisdom of the 17th Amendment. With six year terms for the Senate and four year terms for governors, control of the US Senate then becomes an issue two years out during a gubernatorial election. Since the GOP currently controls 25 states with the trifecta (governor and both state chambers) they’d probably have a super majority in the Senate. Of course, the state votes may not have gone the same way under different standards.
Your statement was that Republicans would rather lose the seat than win with an “outsider” – any outsider.
Citation needed.
First two bullets in post #35 are when Moore sat on the bench (he was a lawyer in 1970s), and a DA/county circuit court judge around years article published in 2002.
Well, there is the past presidential candidate rushing to propagate a bogus ‘Russian’ dossier in order to undermine the Republican candidate…
McCain Trump Dossier
And of course the attempt to run a third party candidate against the Republican candidate, despite a far higher chance of splitting Republican votes and electing Hillary
McMullin for president
Or attempts to deny the winner of the primary the nomination at all
Deny Nomination to Trump
Not to mention the way all the Tea Party candidates have been received (Hobbits!).
Add to that the way it took all of 30 seconds for Republicans to call for another primary winner to withdraw after unproven 30+ year old allegations of a sexual nature, and I don’t think it is hard to come to a conclusion that there are plenty who would rather lose the seat than win with the ‘outsider’.
I do want to retract part of my statement, though. Obviously, ‘we’ don’t already know Republicans would rather lose the seat than win with the outsider. Some of us apparently do not yet admit it.
Went to the Examiner link and didn’t see anything that furthered the charge of pedophilia. I don’t know that kind of perversion extinguishes itself, does it?
Thought you were referring to suspected ongoing predatory behavior in general. If allegations are true, and I’m inclined to believe many of them are, as you said we could expect other instances. It would take some fortitude for more to come forward at this point….Moore’s potentially on his way to more power as a US Senator, situation is intense/highly volatile right now with those who have come forward experiencing repercussions.
+1 on Jim and Jamie.
In fact, there are intelligent pros in the Uniparty who are not only considering scenarios two and three but are implementing them. And presstitutes who help.
Fourth possibility: Strange had Trump’s endorsement and Moore is an obvious lunatic. It should have been a slam dunk. There was no perceived need to do oppo on the latter.
i.e. They overestimated AL primary voters.
But, what did they do then with all that money? Why did they need it?
I’m just curious. If the only three possibilities are all conspiracy theories, who was behind the conspiracy to get dozens of women to come out (nearly simultaneously) against Bill Cosby? Was Cosby planning on running for office or something? What about Kevin Spacey? Did one party or the other want to derail his fictional presidency? Bill O’Reilly? Roger Ailes? And, of course, Harvey Weinstein? Have people come up with political conspiracy theories to explain why each of these men have had a bunch of accusers suddenly pop up decades after alleged sexual abuse took place? Sigh, I suppose they have.
For my part, I will continue to believe that these accusers crawl out of the woodwork once a threshold of publicity is reached. Why? It probably varies. Perhaps some of them had been afraid to come forward (which is what they always say). Or perhaps some of them smell blood in the water, and want some kind of legal settlement. (Gloria Allred’s number is listed in the phone book.) But, in the absence of evidence, I’m not buying the conspiracy theories.
I don’t think suspicion of dirty politics in the midst of a campaign raises to the level of conspiracy theory. Do you not agree that Democrats conspire to tarnish Republican candidates in every campaign, and visa versa?
Sure I agree with the tarnishing tactics. That does happen. But that does not mean that everything that happens is part of a political conspiracy. Sometimes, stuff just happens.
Yes, interesting the parallels between this and the recent Presidential election. Since ‘everyone knew’ Moore couldn’t win, when he did it brought out some ‘lunatic’ reactions. #NeverMoore ( quoth the raven!)
Those damned voters, don’t they know they should mind their minders? They are out of control!