Are We Sure About Roy Moore, Or Do You Just Hate Him?

The pile on against Roy Moore has been swift and fierce. But is it right? I ask because few want to admit what is definitely true: the timing is awfully politically convenient and the behavior described doesn't fit anything we know about him.

The swiftest pile on over Roy Moore has come not from Democrats, but from a bunch of Republicans who have hated his guts for years. And now it's pay back time. Look, I know I'm going to get set on fire for this piece, but I think it needs to be said.

If the allegations are true, Roy Moore needs to step aside. But how do we know? I have to tell you that this seems like a political miracle for the Democrats with a most convenient timing and most convenient pile on. To listen to most, if Roy Moore is guilty he needs to step aside and if he is innocent he needs to step aside and clear his name. Moore's opponents have constructed the argument in such a way that the only way forward is for him to get out of the race. That's awfully convenient for a lot of people who hate him for political reasons.

Part of my character disposition is that when I see the whole herd running in one direction I tend to stop and wonder if I really should and I have reached that point with Roy Moore. I actually reached it a couple of days ago and it has taken me this long to decide it is worth saying anything given the undoubted blowback from a bunch of people whose opinions I really don't care about (and a few whose opinions I do) when it gets right down to it. I think it is.

I don't know whether Roy Moore did this or not, but I do know the timing and pile on, right when everybody is finished talking about Virginia, the President is out of town, everyone is talking about sexual abuse, and thus the story can capture maximum attention.

There is no love lost for Roy Moore here. I would have preferred Mo Brooks and only endorsed him in the runoff because Luther Strange is a McConnell flunky and also, I think, corrupt. And I would far rather a Democrat in the Senate than a kid toucher. But how do we know that is true?

Here are some undisputed facts.

Roy Moore has been happily married since 1985. There have been no allegations of infidelity in that time.

Roy Moore ran for Governor of Alabama and these allegations never surfaced when he was battling against people who savor nasty political character assassinations. He stood defiant about the Ten Commandments as the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court and no one dragged this stuff out when he was in the national spotlight. He stood defiant on gay marriage and again no one brought out any of this stuff. In his first run for Chief Justice, a statewide office, these allegations did not come up. In his run for Governor, a statewide office, these allegations did not come up. In his next run for Chief Justice when he has a big national profile and all sorts of leftwing activists gunning for him, these allegations did not come up.

Only now, 38 years after the fact and while running an aggressive Bannonite/Trumpist campaign the establishment GOP would love to smother in its crib., the Washington Post is fed the information, tracks down the victim, and gets a story that Roy Moore denies. There are 30 people who participate in the story and, though everyone should acknowledge it is creepy, they come up with a narrative that Roy Moore was in his early thirties, back from Vietnam, dated two girls of legal age who say Roy Moore did not force them into a relationship and did not have non-consensual sex with them, and one girl who was fourteen claims he molested her. Again, there are 30 people willing to come forward now who did not do so through multiple high-profile statewide campaigns run by Moore over the years.

I tend to think that when patterns fit we need to take these things seriously. And we have multiple girls who all look about the same and do not know each other and they all have similar stories -- except they don't. We have two women who say they were of legal age and dated an older man, one with parental encouragement. They say nothing untoward happened. Then Moore gets married in 1985 and has been happily married since.

To hear most of you reading this tell it, Moore is a serial child molester. In fact, I dare say Moore is hurt by his cultural, social conservatism because it is a common view among the left and probably even more than a few on the right that anyone who is outspoken about homosexuality is a closet homosexual; anyone outspoken about child abuse is a child abuser; and anyone who lives a reserved public life with a happy marriage is really a closet deviant. So much of the attack on Moore is premised on this leftwing view that everyone culturally conservative is privately a deviant and everyone really knows. The Los Angeles Times is already in on the act with an op-ed claiming sexual abuse is rampant among evangelicals. They all do it, so it must be true! Who can fight back against that? You can't really, which is both why I'll be accused of defending Moore by writing this and why the only option for Moore is to withdraw from the race and and hand it to the Democrats.

Maybe Roy Moore did it. But I have to tell you that the pile on and rush to condemn and destroy the man increasingly strikes me as more politically motivated than based on the allegations, which just provide a nice cover.

If Roy Moore did do to a 14 year old as he is accused of, he should quit the race. (and the alleged victim's prior unwillingness to tell her story does, in my mind, tend to boost her credibility) But how does Roy Moore go about proving his innocence? We're to demand he drop out of the race and just disappear whether he is innocent or guilty? I know most of you would like that, but then you all hated him to begin with. When a man is piled on top of by the press and his political enemies at the most opportune moment in the most convenient way to capture national attention and shut down the Bannonite rebellion you're all opposed to, I think we need to slow down and ask if it is fair. And I'm not sure it is.

Roy Moore beating Luther Strange was, for me, all about fighting against Mitch McConnell. Whether Moore goes to the Senate or not, McConnell has been impacted in the way he deserves. But when I see a man who has been the target of both the left and Republican Establishment get attacked in this way and brought low so quickly with few mentioning the man has been happily, loyally married since 1985 and there is just one allegation of something illegal, unproven, unreported, but supposedly widely rumored from all the way back in 1979, I wonder if his enemies are railroading him with a willing press more than his sins are finding him out. Are we sure about Roy Moore, or do you all just hate so much that it does not really matter?

"If Roy Moore did do to a 14 year old as he is accused of, he should quit the race." This is the only reason he needs to quit the race. Until someone can give corroboration to this woman's story, and we all know that will not happen, he should continue on with the race. Even the accuser's reluctance could be feigned. When any person's reputation is taken into question, there needs to be concrete evidence of whatever allegation there is, and until then, none of this can be taken seriously. As far as I'm concerned, the judgement is in God's hands because man has once again, faltered. He stood up to defend those Ten Commandments and now, someone may have broken one of the very commandments he defended to damage him. what irony!

1

It seems that most if not all of the adjectives being used to describe his character are interchangeable with those describing Trump or Weinstein. I say abandon ship, even if innocent he is now damaged goods.

Anybody remember Robert Bork?

1

If people would really look at the recent history of Democrat political campaigns, they would see that this is straight out of the classic Barack Obama campaign playbook. In both his elections, first to the Illinois senate, and then second; for the US senate he and his campaign dug up sexual dirt - sealed divorce records - (which magically got unsealed and printed in the paper) that ultimately destroyed very qualified candidates. Obama was behind in the polls, but magically surged ahead and won, based on the dirt his campaign threw out there. He did the same thing to John McCain, but by the time he was running for his second term he had his willing henchman Harry Reid make false accusations on the Senate Floor against Mitt Romney. He (Reid) could not even be sued for slander because of senate rules barring anyone from suing any senator making remarks in the Well of the Senate! What should matter is not whether Moore had a lapse in judgement when he was in his early 30's (face it, some men in their 50's have lapses-some in the Oval Office) but how he has conducted himself in Public Life since then and how he has served the people of Alabama! Hopefully the people of Alabama will see that and vote for what is best for them, not what is best for a sex obsessed political party.

1

@kafakesque53 It also sounds like a page out of the Clinton playbook. No wonder Joe Biden was afraid of running against Hillary.

If the left and establishment get away with this, they will be playing this card against any and all Conservatives in any race. We cannot let them win!

I'm in basically the same boat as you Erick. Ms. Corfman seems credible, but the timing is suspicious and reminds me of the allegations against Herman Cain that I still doubt.

Also, I haven't delved deeply into the accusations and I know that this quite a stretch anyway, but is there any possibility at all that this is a "Ted Mosby, Archatect" type situation (http://how-i-met-your-mother.wikia.com/wiki/Ted_Mosby:_Architect ) where another person that looked similar to him used then DA Moore's name and title without his knowledge? Did Corfman confirm that the perpetrator was Roy Moore in any way other than the perpetrator telling her who he was and that he was the DA? It's one possibility that allows for both Moore and Corfman to be telling the truth.

Ted Mosby: Architect
2

Usually, allegations of sexual misconduct for liberals and non-conservatives are based upon already-proven incidents, or have massive amounts of credible corroboration or smoking guns with shells lying all over the place (Weinstein's recording, Huma's phone, etc.) that allegations against liberals would have a general degree of believably. In addition, when allegations come against GOP members like Mark Foley and Tom Hastert (both Deep State Republicans), there is already loads of evidence that prove their guilt or at least their involvement that would automatically prove that they are not capable of office, if not criminal conviction. But seeing Gloria Allred enter the fray pretty much seals the deal for me that there is no credibility to the charges, and this is nothing but a conservative hit job.

I think McConnell's calculation is that even if the Democrat wins, when the seat comes up for regular election in 2018, the seat will revert to being safely Republican, so he'll live with a 51-49 majority for 11 months or so, and if Moore somehow survives, he'll be such damaged goods that a RINO stooge can primary him and win, again making the seat safely GOP. I'm with you, @ewerickson, that the timing is suspicious, but that doesn't mean the allegations aren't true. But other than Ms. Corfman (she is the 14yo, right?), everything else he's alleged to have done is skeezy but legal. Is that enough to bounce him from the race? I also agree with @ewerickson that Moore has handled this extremely poorly, and for that, I blame his advisors for giving him lousy counsel about how to handle a hailstorm like this.

Erik makes some good points. It's always good to have some self-reflection. When it comes to political offices, any credible indiscretion should at least be known to the public to determine whether a candidate's ability for the job may be at risk or undermine the integrity of the office in which they hold. There is no due process for the alleged victim or perpetrator here. Legally, I think this whole matter is mute due to possibly statues of limitations. Maybe he did it, maybe he didn't, but does this represent a risk to the office in which he is applying? Probably not, since he has successfully held other offices. And if not, then, let the voters decide whether he is right for the job, and everyone repent for their own sins.

false