Good piece by Quin Hillyer on the situation in Alabama and the justifications put forward by some to vote Moore. I'll just say again that if you have decided that the accusers are not believable, you go right ahead and vote Moore. But if you have concluded they are telling the truth or very credible, spare me any Biblical justifications for voting for Moore.
I hope I agree with Erick on this. We shouldn't necessarily look for a "moral" candidate. We want someone who will not lie to constituents and obey his oath of office, deliver on campaign promises and not embarrass his constituents. Sounds like a lot of morals involved in that, but it sets the doer apart from the declarer.
Voting a "moral" candidate into office doesn't guarantee that he would be able to stand up to the DC reorientation machine once elected. And once he has been conditioned to conform to DC practices and standards, he'll morally justify lying, stealing and killing just as the other inhabitants of the distant planet called Washington D.C. do.
We need to vote for candidates who have a provable track record of getting things done without reaching across the aisle. A reach across the aisle should not be necessary if it is about constitutional issues. In matters on the same side of the constitution and the law, reach not more than 10 or 20% because if it is necessary to reach further, your case is too weak. Go fix it first.
Democrats have for generations demanded that Republicans reach across the aisle without them lifting a finger, just sitting like obese royalty waiting for Republicans to prostrate themselves handing over gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.
Democrats would then mock the Republicans for a while before deciding to throw a few mites on the floor, watching them scramble for the coins and rush to the TV cameras to announce how hard they have worked for their constituents.
The Democrats would continue their incessant carousing and mocking of America and its treasures, laughing and scoffing about how stupid the voters are and how easily they are fooled.
Jonathan Gruber suddenly came to mind as I wrote that.
Correct that first sentence of the second paragraph by taking out the "don't" to make it read "I think altogether too many too many of them are looking out for the people ........
Since there are only one of two choices for people to make at voting time the time for all of the immorality etc. to be exposed is from the time when the candidate throws his or her hat in the ring to a cut off date long enough before actual election so the press and others can thoroughly vet the candidate. There could be an exception only if something particularly egregious comes out. We also need term limits on how long ago the offense occurred, again unless it is particularly egregious. This would give the press ample time to "vet" the candidates so people are not faced with this sort of mess shortly before they vote, and have to either not vote or hold their nose and vote for a candidate they have come to dislike.
We have to rely on media for information and, frankly, I don't think altogether too many of them are not looking out for the people by telling them the truth. Reporters are supposed to report, but to be honest most of them are so biased they really cannot be called reporters. Too many are just another propaganda branch of the political party they are affiliated with. That is fair for them to like a candidate, but they need to also be honest in their reporting and willing to tell it like it is.
Okay... for the sake of discussion let's agree that both candidates are morally flawed, then the question becomes which candidate will cast votes as I would if I were sitting in that Senate seat. Erick, spend as much time exposing the real-time immoral choices of Roy's opponent as you have washing all of Roy's dirty laundry in public. I am much more concerned with the choices Judge Moore's opponent would make in the Senate over the next six years than I am about some choices Roy made in the past, and I am anticipating that Roy will make more of the choices that I would make if I were personally voting in that chamber.
I don't know anyone personally who think he did it and justifies voting for him. Everyone I know believes he didn't do it.