First off, it appears that Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) is going to remain in the Senate despite claims from multiple women that he groped them. This doesn't even include the groping of journalist Leeann Tweeden, of which there's indisputable photographic evidence.
Now it seems Dems are closing ranks around the fossilized John Conyers (D-MI), who also has multiple allegations of sexual harassment against him. But hey, it's all good. Conyers' "icon" status apparently gives him special dispensation according to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
.@NancyPelosi: Accused Congressman Conyers is an "icon" in our country. #MTP pic.twitter.com/4QlKKJTIJP— Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) November 26, 2017
In reaction to Pelosi's pitiful Meet The Press performance, Guy Benson rightly states that she pretty much strengthened GOP prospects of holding the Senate seat from Alabama.
I'm no Roy Moore defender, to put it mildly. But for those unable to comprehend why many conservative voters are willing to stand by him, look no further than Pelosi's MTP performance today. Many GOP voters see Dems as ruthless defenders of power & are sick of double standards.— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) November 26, 2017
It makes zero sense from both a practical and political standpoint to circle the wagons around Conyers and Franken. If Conyers is pressured to resign, the district he represents, according to the 2017 Cook Partisan Voter Index, is D+32. And if Franken were to move on, his vacant seat would be filled on an interim basis by Minnesota's leftist governor Mark Dayton. In short, both men are pretty much expendable to the Democrat party.
I absolutely do not want to see Roy Moore in the Senate given that he has offered no credible refutations to the allegations he propositioned teenage girls while in his 30s. But if Moore is elected to the Senate, the Dems' indignation will ring hollow. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
-------------------------------
15 comments:
Question: How is Roy Moore, or anybody, supposed to prove a negative? I never pulled the Brinks job back in '50, honest! What proof do you have, is the next question.
Did you read the Washington Post investigative report? It was very thorough, particularly the verification of details on how the accusers first encountered Moore. What would these accusers have to gain by elaborately fabricating such stories? And if the WaPo is complicit in such fabrications, they would join Rolling Stone on the ash heap. As bias as the WaPo may be, I highly doubt they would risk sinking their publication over this.
Here's how Moore proves a negative. First of all, the time between when he met Leigh Corfman to the time she was supposed to be in her father's custody was a mere 12 days, and contrary to her claims, she already had behavioral and emotional problems and did not actually have a phone in her room. Moreover, Moore was never banned from a mall as claimed, and the yearbook inscription was doctored.
So in the places where the stories can be checked, all they've got is "he was in his thirties and dated teens", which is something that I don't like, but it's a long tradition, especially in the South. Men would establish themselves in business and then marry young ladies who did not need to do so.
Don't like Moore at all, with his showboating on the Decalogue and all, but given a choice between a guy who dated teens and a guy who favors taxpayer funding of prenatal infanticide, it's an easy choice.
Don't like Moore at all, with his showboating on the Decalogue and all, but given a choice between a guy who dated teens and a guy who favors taxpayer funding of prenatal infanticide, it's an easy choice.
So "None of the Above" then? Or perhaps a write-in.
You left out the point that their supposed secret meeting place was a mile from her house.
It may not be an easy choice, but it absolutely is a binary one. Just saying you cannot bring yourself to vote for either one does NOT automatically put a third (viable) name on the ballot. One of those two is going to win, and since Democrats have absolutely no compunctions about voting for a scoundrel and reprobate, failure to vote for our ALLEGED miscreant is self-defeating virtue-signaling at its best. "Yes, I didn't vote for the guy who kills babies, but he got elected because I didn't vote for the guy who liked younger women, either." There is such a thing as a value judgment.
Sorry, I don't subscribe to the "lesser of two evils" perspective. If there is a GOP candidate whom I, in good conscience, could not vote for, I typically abstain from voting in that race (I'll occasionally go write-in though). Depending upon which side of the aisle one is on, I'll be accused of enabling the candidate one doesn't like. Sorry, but I refuse to feel a pang of guilt for one's candidate not earning my vote.
All that said, I don't live in Alabama, so what I believe here is irrelevant.
Brad, I've always viewed politics as the lesser of two evils. Nobody agrees with me 100%, and opposition research is always going to come up with an October surprise--and hence the left, especially, is playing us for fools.
Brad, I've always viewed politics as the lesser of two evils. Nobody agrees with me 100%,....
Right. But there's a difference between someone who disagrees with me on how much to slash the capital gains tax and someone who engages in abhorrent (and downright illegal) activity. I don't consider slight policy differences as "evil." YMMV.
...opposition research is always going to come up with an October surprise
Eh. I think this is less about an "October surprise" than it is about this point in time being a period where victims of sexual harassment/abuse/assault have a stronger platform in which to share their stories.
I just can't see continued taxpayer funding of prenatal infanticide as a "slight policy difference." If it were just capital gains, sure, I'd agree with you, but this one is a biggie for me. I will put up with some a-holes in office on that grounds. Including the President, really.
I'm sorry, but for these 40-year-old stories to pop up just weeks before a critical election is just too d***d convenient for the Party of Dirty Tricks. Even if everything alleged is true, which is HIGHLY dubious, the only people made "imperfect" [and I would say only slightly] and therefore unelectable would be a Republican. This crap isn't intended to drive Democrats away from Roy Moore, it's to drive away Republicans because WE have some standards and are prone to throw our own under the bus at the slightest imperfection. Democrats, meanwhile, don't much care, and vice is virtue. In other words, if Democrats didn't have a double standard, they would have no standards at all.
And about that "why would these women come forward" argument? Ask yourself, why would anybody go on Maury or Jerry Springer-- "my boyfriend bought sexy lingerie for my SISTER!"
I just can't see continued taxpayer funding of prenatal infanticide as a "slight policy difference."
Nor I. That would go in the "abhorrent" category for me, which is why I wouldn't vote for a Dem (especially Doug Jones). Oh, and thanks for validating my premise that a non-vote in a certain race means a vote for the candidate you don't like.
Sorry gents, but neither of you has adequately answered the question of what Leigh Corfman has to gain by coming forward. From now on when anyone Googles her name, the Moore connection will dominate the search results. Dunno how anyone would consider that a "benefit" but, again, YMMV.
Oh, and did you see where Project Veritas attempted a sting operation to prove the WaPo was willing to listen to anyone claiming to be violated by Roy Moore? It went horribly awry, which would indicate the newspaper isn't just blindly running with salacious accusations.
Yes, and the sisters who appear on Maury are absolutely telling the truth and getting their man in a LOT of trouble doing it. Why? What they, or Corfman, "gain" by their accusations is not something more-rational folks might understand.
Post a Comment