Saturday, December 16, 2017

Roy Moore's Defeat

Does anyone see great irony that Roy Moore lost a safe Republican Senate seat by violating one of the commandments that he so ostentatiously put on his famous courthouse monument?

23 comments:

Starhopper said...

Next to hypocrite in the dictionary is a picture of Roy Moore (and everyone who supported him).

Legion of Logic said...

Starhopper: "and everyone who supported him"

I remember reading articles about feminists justifying their support of Bill Clinton by saying that while he himself was a piece of garbage, policy-wise he was what they wanted so they supported him for a "greater good" type thing. I don't think it's hypocrisy per se for a Democrat to vote Democrat to further progressive policy overall, any more than it is for a Republican to do the same. A piece of garbage will still be a Senate vote.

In politics, politics is supreme. That's (one of the many reasons) why the two party system sucks.

Starhopper said...

You are correct, Legion. In the dictionary, that type of supporter would be next to the word "deplorable".

Legion of Logic said...

Starhopper,

So if your choices boiled down to someone with the moral character of a Moore or Franken or Clinton, but who would pursue the policies you support, or a guy who would go the opposite direction you want, that you would abstain from voting and risk the other side gaining power?

If so, I commend you. There aren't a lot of people who can say the same. I didn't vote in 2016 for that very reason.

Starhopper said...

I would do what Senator Shelby did. Write in the name of someone who wouldn't make me feel dirty for having voted for him. But I would never consider not voting.

Legion of Logic said...

Starhopper: "But I would never consider not voting"

I don't see much difference between not voting and going to the voting booth and writing "none of the above". But I understand and respect your opinion there.

Starhopper said...

I've always held that voting gives one the right to complain. If you voted for the winner, and he disappoints you, then you can say, "Dammit, I voted for that turd, and look how he's turned out!" and if you voted against him, you can always say, "Don't blame me. I voted for the other guy!"

But if you didn't vote at all, then you have no right to say anything.

Joe Hinman said...

Does anyone see great irony that Roy Moore lost a safe Republican Senate seat by violating one of the commandments that he so ostentatiously put on his famous courthouse monument?


>>YES

Joe Hinman said...

I remember reading articles about feminists justifying their support of Bill Clinton by saying that while he himself was a piece of garbage, policy-wise he was what they wanted so they supported him for a "greater good" type thing. I don't think it's hypocrisy per se for a Democrat to vote Democrat to further progressive policy overall, any more than it is for a Republican to do the same. A piece of garbage will still be a Senate vote.


Clinton didn't force anyone i don;t think Lawenski was underage.

SteveK said...

What commandment was violated?

Is it also ironic that every Christian fails to live by the commandments? My life is filled with irony.

Starhopper said...

What commandment was violated?

Thou shalt not bear false witness.

Legion of Logic said...

Joe: "Clinton didn't force anyone i don;t think Lawenski was underage."

Clinton is a liar, a womanizer, and an adulterer, not a champion of women. Also, I don't believe that all the women who accused him of sexual harassment are liars. Some could be, but Clinton is a known liar, womanizer, and adulterer, so I tend to suspect at least some of the allegations have merit.

Legion of Logic said...

SteveK: "Is it also ironic that every Christian fails to live by the commandments? My life is filled with irony."

I don't think it's so much that he's a sinner - a disqualifier for 100 percent of candidates - but the average person's aversion to pedophilia, blatant lying and hypocrisy.

For myself, I won't vote for someone who blatantly lies to the public, I won't vote for someone who is a proven hypocrite politically, and I won't vote for a pervert. The list of people I will vote for is sadly tiny.

SteveK said...

I didn't pay close attention to what was said during the race so I don't know what you're talking about when you refer to blatant lying and pedophilia. You think he is both, and you may be correct, but I didn't see anything that made it clear and obvious. All I saw/heard was a lot of he said/she said and a lot of people reading between the lines.

Victor Reppert said...

Well, Al Franken went down for a lot less, even though he fessed up. But if you have multiple accusers of sexual harassment, and there is good reason to suppose this isn't a conspiracy, the leaders of your party should withdraw their support from you. Candidates need to be as far above reproach as they can be.

Sexual morality is supposed to be a "private" matter, but it isn't. The case for liberalizing sexual morality (and criticizing Christians for being so restrictive) is strongest when the parties are fully equal and fully consenting. This was almost never the case in the ancient world when Christianity was founded, and in too many cases today there is only the appearance of equality. (Over and above the fact that women, and not men, take the risk of getting pregnant when they have sex). It often involves an imbalance of power and authority.

Legion of Logic said...

Victor: "Over and above the fact that women, and not men, take the risk of getting pregnant when they have sex"

Could you elaborate? I didn't understand how this tied to the OP. People with known health risks who choose to engage in behavior that amplifies that risk are responsible for their own behavior, correct?

SteveK said...

Victor,
>> Well, Al Franken went down for a lot less, even though he fessed up.

When you fess up there are fewer unknowns.

>> But if you have multiple accusers of sexual harassment, and there is good reason to suppose this isn't a conspiracy

I'm not convinced we have that good reason. a) Politics is dirty. b) It takes a coordinated effort to get several people to come forward to talk about events from 20-30 years ago. c) The accusers didn't see any value in discussing this for 20-30 years. There's a reason for that maintained silence - they thought it wasn't worth mentioning. d) There was a lot of coercive talk and money exchanging hands. That's the reason they started talking. e) see (a)

Moore may very well be guilty but at this point I'm not convinced he is. If the accusers are serious they should keep pressing forward. If they drop off the radar and walk away then we will know what this was all about. Politics.

Jim S. said...

Blogger Joe Hinman said...
Clinton didn't force anyone i don;t think Lawenski was underage.


Clinton has been accused of forcing numerous women, over a dozen, one of whom accuses him of flat-out rape.

Blogger Victor Reppert said...
Well, Al Franken went down for a lot less, even though he fessed up.


He didn't fess up, that's part of the issue. He insisted he hadn't done anything wrong and that the women accusing him were misremembering.

I'm not on the political right, but I suspect Moore's loss is a long-term win for the right. Franken was forced out so that the Democrats could contrast how seriously they take these accusations with how seriously Republicans do. Except then the Republicans didn't even elect a guy who was accused of these things in a reliably Republican state. So now, some Democrats are trying to rescind Franken's promise to retire because the sacrifice is pointless. And of course if they mention the accusations against Trump, the Repubs can just bring up Clinton who is reliably accused of much worse.

Mike Darus said...

The the 'new' rules, Clinton is no longer off the hook because it was consensual. The 'new' rule is that there is no consent if there is a power differential.

Victor Reppert said...

The main case we heard about when Clinton was initially elected in 1992 was Gennifer Flowers, which was consensual (though I can name you one rather well-known party who did NOT consent, HRC)

Mike Darus said...

Under the new rule Flowers could not give consent because of the power differential.

SteveK said...

The accusers didn't say anything for 20-30 years. It's only fair that we treat this with the same level of seriousness and respect. I'll give it the same priority they did until such time as additional evidence is presented.

Victor Reppert said...

Steve: Back then, if this had gotten into court, the 14 year old girl would have been going up against a district attorney. I don't think they had anything like rape shield laws back then, so she would have been blamed for wearing too short a skirt or something, so it was her fault. This was Alabama in 1979. I lived in Georgia between 1975 and 1978. Even in 2000, one of them thought of coming forward but was afraid of being attacked for her divorces and finances and she still had children who she feared might be harmed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/woman-says-roy-moore-initiated-sexual-encounter-when-she-was-14-he-was-32/2017