November 10, 2017

"Saving Steve Bannon’s reputation as the leader of some (doomed) movement certainly isn’t worth it, not for the cost to the GOP not to mention your own souls."

That's the last line of Jonah Goldberg's column "Saving Roy Moore Isn’t Worth It."

It's hard to talk about the Roy Moore situation without including whatever preexisting bias you had about his impending election to the U.S. Senate.

Just yesterday, in the context of the racist graffiti hoax at the Air Force Academy, I was looking up the word "opportunism":
"Opportunism" is "The practice or policy of exploiting circumstances or opportunities to gain immediate advantage, rather than following a predetermined plan; the ability or tendency to exploit circumstances in this way. In later use esp. with the implication of cynicism or lack of regard to principles" (OED).
I understand using whatever you've got, whatever comes your way, when you're trying to defeat a political opponent. And when opportunities arise — like WaPo's "Woman says Roy Moore initiated sexual encounter when she was 14, he was 32" — they will be exploited for immediate advantage. And there's no plan going forward. You could never get everyone together on a plan for what's acceptable in bringing up allegations about something sexual that happened in private many years ago. How many years ago? How close to the election? Which sexual things? Is kissing and petting a 14-year-old worse than brutally raping a 35-year-old? How do we factor in a failure to report the incident to the police or to bring a civil lawsuit?

Can we at least agree — as an abstract principle — that the standard should be the same for everyone who is accused? Do we not have a foundation of due process — fairness — values? We need to treat Roy Moore the way we would want our favorite politician to be treated, right?

I'm afraid most Americans will say wrong. I think most of us want to look at everything, give everything whatever weight we want, including suspicions like Pizzagate, and let it all roil and seethe throughout our crazy little minds and then go vote. That's democracy. It's not a court of law. And anyway, those judges and jurors in a court of law are only trying (or pretending) to be rational.

Jonah Goldberg says we should just assume WaPo got it right — WaPo, which must want the GOP candidate to lose. He says:
Now, if you honestly think all of the people talking to the Washington Post are lying and that the Post somehow got them all to make this up, you have got one of the biggest stories of the century. If you can prove it, Roy Moore will end up owning the Post after his lawsuit.
Moore knows whether the allegations are true or not. He can withdraw if he knows they're true, but Goldberg says he should withdraw even if he knows the allegations are false, because he can make so much money in a defamation lawsuit against the Washington Post.

But Goldberg is only saying that because he thinks Moore is bad in so many other ways and because having to defend Moore will hurt the kind of Republicans he likes.

And Moore can't win that lawsuit, even if he knows the allegations are false. He's a public figure, and WaPo is protected when it publishes false statements, unless the plaintiff can prove that there was reckless disregard for whether it was false. The Washington Post was careful to make that impossible.  Goldberg knows that, I think, because he was cagey enough to write that Moore would have to prove that "the Post somehow got them all to make this up." That's a lot to prove! That's the point of the defamation law. The Post is not at risk putting this material out there for people to decide for themselves how to use.

Most people, I suspect, already didn't like Roy Moore and didn't want him in the Senate, but the question is what will Alabama voters do with it. We're talking about people who chose him in the primary over the more normal man named Strange. That's not easy to discern. People are strange.

224 comments:

1 – 200 of 224   Newer›   Newest»
Darrell said...

Just for fun, let everyone in the Moore case take polygraphs--without advance warning.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Everytime we lose, we get more socialism, we get more corruption, we get more lies, we get more tax payer rape to pay for the largest mega insurance company bailouts so O-care can stay afloat. all while the D and their media lie about it.

Roy Moore should step aside and let a winner win.

Darrell said...

Including Moore, of course--if I wasn't clear about that.

Michael K said...

I was a fan of Goldberg and loved his book, "Liberal Fascism" but I don't know what has happened to him or to NR.

It must be the donors who keep that magazine alive, especially since so many old subscribers, like me, have quit,.

Annie C said...

People are strange when you're a stranger.

As I listened to that song, I kept thinking about the Texas church shooter, Dylan Roof, Las Vegas.

Weird.

David Begley said...

I suspect that some parts of the WaPo story are true. I could also see Alabama voters electing Moore just out of spite of the Swamp.

Goldberg has TDS.

AReasonableMan said...

Moore is an own goal.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

We need to treat Roy Moore the way we would want our favorite politician to be treated, right?

There aren't enough lampposts to treat all politicians the way our favorite politicians deserve to be treated.

Gordon said...

Jonah Goldberg hasn't changed. He's never liked Trump. They have a feud that goes back years. And NR has always represented genteel conservatism. That's where the donors come from.

That said, it wouldn't hurt Goldberg et al to acknowledge that once past the vulgarity, Trump is accomplishing some very conservative things.

SDaly said...

Moore dated a 17-year old girl (when the age of consent was 12) for three months 30 years ago, with her mother's permission and kissed her once. That does not sound like a sexual predator.

SDaly said...

Read this to put things in perspective on Moore vs. Hollywood. Molesters Killed Her

Hagar said...

In the current climate they will have to come up with something better than "she said/he said" before I believe anything.

Especially with someone like Roy Moore, who has been pictured as the epitome of ol'time Alabamic backwardness ever since the Ten Commandments fracas. This goes deeper than political bent or a difference of opinion as to when a girl is old enough for marriage (though the latter may indeed have something to do with it).

Fabi said...

All of National Review's twenty seven readers agree with Goldberg.

Mac McConnell said...

It's too late for Strange to get off the ballot in Alabama. The voters will decide just as they decided in the case of alleged rapist Bill Clinton.

Curious George said...

Jonah Goldberg...isn't that the guy that LLR's finger bang themselves to?

Mac McConnell said...

Sorry, I should have said "Moore to get off the ballot". I worked late last night, slept in and only a third off a cup of joe down me.

Larry J said...

I live in Alabama and don't like Roy Moore. That said, this represents everything I despise about politics and journalism. He's being accused in a political environment where there is no presumption of innocence with no evidence other than the claim of his acussor. This conviently came out after the deadline for Republicans to name a replacement candidate, too.

mikeski said...

I wouldn’t believe the WaPo if they told me Moore was from Alabama.

HT said...

Except for trying to compare child sex with adult rape, that's pretty good, Ann.

Lots of people are rooting for the voters to just go ahead and elect him. The only way he'll lose is if he's removed from the ballot or the equivalent. Doug Jones is a fine mine, a great candidate, but in this environment, he's not going to win, not even now.

There are a lot of McConnell-Sessions Republicans - what will they do? My guess is that the majority will go ahead and vote for Moore.

grackle said...

I was a fan of Goldberg and loved his book, "Liberal Fascism" but I don't know what has happened to him or to NR.

I used to pay attention to Jonah Goldberg. Then he got all NeverTrump and started churning out anti-Trump bullshit.

There are 2 types of NeverTrumpers. There are the NeverTrumperAs, like the Bush family, who voted for someone other than Trump. They would rather have a Democrat as POTUS.

The NeverTrumperBs voted for Trump, or at least claim they did. The hope of the NeverTrumperBs is that they can get him to resign office or get him impeached so the more politically palatable Pence will be POTUS. Toward this end they ally themselves with the Lefties. They will turn into NeverTrumperAs in 2020.

Conservative punditry for the past few years have been about endless irrelevant debate over pet ideological causes rather than any real political education of the readers. They value ideological purity over political success. They all took a strong stand against Trump at the beginning and have been doubling down and predicting doom ever since. It burns them up that Trump has succeeded where the eGOP has failed.

Amadeus 48 said...

Clearly, the only rational choice is to vote for Moore.

AReasonableMan said...

HT said...
Except for trying to compare child sex with adult rape,


Althouse seems a little desperate here.

HT said...

Later I realized that she was perhaps channeling her readers and insinuating it was Clinton. It's also interesting that she doesn't acknowledge (or did she?) that he denies it.

" Moore is an own goal. "

Pretty good, but we'll see what pans out.

chickelit said...

Goldberg seems to insist on making Moore vs. Strange a referendum on Trump. He will lose that fight ( again).

MPH said...

Not to be rude, but this was a very Obama-like post, Professor. Lots of words - little substance.

Michael K said...

"They value ideological purity over political success. "

This is pretty much David Goldman's argument. The "Conservative Movement" is about an ideology that might work if it was ever tried but is just not a way to win elections.

Michael K said...

Bill Clinton voter ARM is shocked that Republicans might vote for Moore.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Both sides of the aisle cough of these old geezers. We can't have younger fresher articulate faces?

chickelit said...

Chuck is our Jonah Goldberg.

HT said...

His son is a handful. He'll have more hell raising in bama, but it'll be tempting for him to try new territory up here in the swamp. Come on up son!

AReasonableMan said...

HT said...
Pretty good, but we'll see what pans out.


It doesn't matter whether he wins or not, it is yet another nail in the coffin of 'character matters', exposing the hypocrisy of the voters.

From the vaults:
"During the 1990s and the scandals of the Clinton administration, evangelical Christians were pretty certain that Bill Clinton was a living demonstration of the fact that character matters and that a lack of character can be fatal for leadership. "

HT said...

Gadsden, so not a swamp. ha hahahahaha

Bob Boyd said...

I respect Jonah Goldberg.
I don't know much about Roy Moore.
But I don't think it's good advice that Republicans should tell Democrats, "We'll just give up when you do X."

HT said...

But I don't think it's good advice that Republicans should tell Democrats, "We'll just give up when you do X."

____

But they do that (or did) in Alabama. When an outright racist R was running for something, the R Party used to covertly work with the Dems to get the Dem elected. Happened not infrequently.

Angel-Dyne said...

...who will be asked to take a side on every scene in the clown show Moore would bring to Washington.

Well, we know we can rely on you to be johnny-on-the-spot demanding disavowals. But tell us, Jonah, how are you planning to keep track of those scenes in that particular clown show, amid the Mother of All Clown Shows, the non-stop, million-clown clown show that is D.C.?

Lucky for you that you have the Democratic Party and the MSM to keep you focused and to tell you where to look (and more important, where not to waste your time looking).

Laslo Spatula said...

Althouse wrote:
"Can we at least agree — as an abstract principle — that the standard should be the same for everyone who is accused?"

I don't think so. The milk is that sour.

I don't believe there is ANY principle -- even abstract -- that all Americans now will agree with, without at least adding a qualification that others will reject.

Freedom comes with an asterisk.

I am Laslo.

mockturtle said...

It is my understanding that Strange is ineligible to get on the ballot but a write-in campaign is being considered.

mockturtle said...

I don't believe there is ANY principle -- even abstract -- that all Americans now will agree with, without at least adding a qualification that others will reject.

Freedom comes with an asterisk.


So true, Laslo. :-(

Big Mike said...

I’m afraid most Americans will say wrong.

I’m afraid you’re right, Althouse. And I guess I’m not like most Americans. I simply don’t believe this allegation never came out before given Moore’s lengthy and controversial career. That makes me inclined to think it’s yet another hoax. If it’s a hoax, Moore and the Alabama GOP has 33 days to prove it. If not, he should resign immediately in favor of Luther Strange.

And if it does turn out to be a hoax, the next question is what do we do with the woman?

Goldberg wrote a great book, but I haven’t read his column in at least half a year and now I’m not going to read it again ever. It’s past time for him and alleged conservatives to suck it up and live in a world where abortion is legal and that’s not going to change and Donald Trump is President of the United States, and that’s not going to change either.

Chuck said...

Careful, Althouse; you're going to upset the "Pzzagate" believers in your readership:

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2016/12/this-particular-round-of-hostility.html

Sebastian said...

"During the 1990s and the scandals of the Clinton administration, evangelical Christians were pretty certain that Bill Clinton was a living demonstration of the fact that character matters and that a lack of character can be fatal for leadership."

Live and learn. By the 2010s, most conservatives realized that much as we'd like character to matter, power matters more. We'd prefer to play a different game, but since all values have been transvalued, we'll play the game rough if need be.

HT said...

Is it me, or am I sensing a resistance to accept just how common it was for (some) older men to go after young girls/women in precisely the way Moore is accused of?

Michael K said...

" If not, he should resign immediately in favor of Luther Strange."

The WaPo story was timed to prevent that as well. Just a perfect hit job.

The Cracker Emcee Activist said...

"I don't believe there is ANY principle -- even abstract -- that all Americans now will agree with, without at least adding a qualification that others will reject."

I'm not sure that's a bad thing. It's certainly not what the Establishment/MSM/Victorian Left wants. Real freedom will always at least look like chaos. And a whole lot of folks are uncomfortable with that.

Laslo Spatula said...

"Real freedom will always at least look like chaos. And a whole lot of folks are uncomfortable with that."

Yep.

Although sometimes Freedom looks like a stand-up comedian masturbating in front of you.

I am Laslo.

Matthew Sablan said...

Remember when we were told to assume the NYT got it right about Vicki Iseman?

Sorry. The lady is accusing Moore of a crime. Turn it over to the police. The people deserve to know the truth before voting.

Matthew Sablan said...

How come the media and politicians want us to assume they got it right about Republicans, but Edwards and Clinton get way beyond the benefit of the doubt?

James Smith said...

Moore should go scorched earth. Go out and rail against yankee liberals and GOP swamp creatures making false allegations because they are all scared of how he will help Trump drain the swamp.

Big Mike said...

@HT, I assume you’re talking about your own perversions.

cronus titan said...

Goldberg, like other neocons, lost all perspective with Trump. It is all personal. Trump has accomplished some notable conservative goals. Goldberg rarely writes or talks about that, choosing to pepper his writings with personal insults that are getting less humorous and more nasty as time passes. There is truth to the allegation that the Manhattan crowd will never, ever accept an outer borough guy as their equal.

Moore is loyal to conservative populism yet Trump supported Strange (a GOPe candidate) in the primary. Makes one wonder if Trump knew what was coming.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Roy Moore should step aside and let a winner win."

-- He can't. The smear came out after the deadline to change candidates passed, and the Republicans aren't going to get leniency in the law like Democrats did over Torricelli. If Roy Moore drops out, we're essentially conceding the seat.

Which if he's guilty, I'm fine with. But if he isn't, well, then they're just Ted Stevensing him, only with an even worse smear.

We deserve the truth.

HT said...

Big Mike, I think you need to examine what you assume about me.

dreams said...

I'm not a Jonah Goldberg fan.

William said...

The charges don't make Moore look good, but the timing of them makes the WaPoo look worse. Why are they made now rather than in the primary? Why did the news become known now just at this fulcrum moment when it could do the most harm to Moore and the Republcan Party. The charges may have substance, but WaPoo should answer questions as to why these charges were not investigated and reported on earlier......,,The Republicans are in a but of a quandary. If, despite everything, Moore wins election, and the Republicans welcome him,then the Republicans will become known as the party of child molesters. All those people who gave awards to Roman and Woody will make sure that word gets out just how evil and corrupt Republicans are for harboring such a criminal in their midst.

Kevin said...

Can we at least agree — as an abstract principle — that the standard should be the same for everyone who is accused?

You sound like one of those dead, white, slave owners whose wisdom must be disregarded for more diverse perspectives.

Why, they didn't even know how to use hashtags!

Big Mike said...

@Matthew Sablan, Alabama is nearly as red as Joisey is blue. Nothing to lose.

Known Unknown said...

Roy Moore just needs to get himself a piano, a crazy hairdo, and start wailing like Jerry Lee and he'll be fine.

Kevin said...

I'm afraid no reasonable prosecutor would fail to throw the book at him to give the Dems the best shot at his seat.

Kevin said...

If Roy Moore did do it, the only logical outcome would be to give him an Academy Award.

The Cracker Emcee Activist said...

"Although sometimes Freedom looks like a stand-up comedian masturbating in front of you."

True (and sadly, hilarious) but as I realized last night as a browsed through the mountains of moronic garbage on Netflix, you can always just walk away from the shitty choices on offer. The problem isn't that we don't agree, the problem is that so many people don't believe they have the agency to agree or disagree.

khematite said...

Don't think I've seen the word "petting" as used here in close to a half-century. Even "feeling up" seems an incredibly ancient term these days. Apparently, there was a documentary on the subject, called "Heavy Petting," but even that was thirty years ago and the phrase was used rather ironically.

Matthew Sablan said...

"It's not a court of law. And anyway, those judges and jurors in a court of law are only trying (or pretending) to be rational."

-- The fact it isn't a court of law is important-ish. It goes back to what do I believe, but cannot prove. For example, I believe OJ Simpson did it, but I can't prove it (in a court of law). So, while I can, as a person, withhold working for Simpson, could I justify the state throwing him in jail for the crime we can't prove he did?

No.

And that's the exact difference that the WaPo and the left routinely turn against Republicans, like Walker, Perry, Stevens, Bush, Trump, McDonnell, etc., etc. They use the mechanisms of the state to create phony prosecutions against them to try and make people think they did something wrong, despite not being able to prove it in any of those cases.

Republican law makers need to start taking a stand. If accused of a crime, say bring it. Force them to heel by demanding justice by a jury of their peers and a speedy trial.

Enough of letting the left showboat and hide behind endless prosecutions, leaking false or misleading tidbits to the media to drag it out even farther.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

30-35 year old allegations dropped 35 days before an election.
Allegations, mind you, that apparently never surfaced during the guy's decades-long high profile public career (including a number of prior election campaigns).
The Repub candidate has no chance of refuting the allegations before the election and it's too late to remove him from the ballot.
The story was published at almost the exact perfect time to harm the Repub. chances of winning the election--to close to get a new candidate and far enough out that it'll be a big story and drag on all the way to voting day.

Nothing suspicious about any of that at all. No sir.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Goldberg rarely writes or talks about that, choosing to pepper his writings with personal insults that are getting less humorous and more nasty as time passes.

I gave up on the NRO after the Never Trump issue, but will occasionally read articles there by following a link and they have became ridiculous. They'll be addressing some issue, sometimes one that is only peripherally linked to Trump or even an issue that is not related in any way, and they throw out an insult to Trump. They will go out of their way to drag him into the article so that they can insult him. Obstinately professional writers who are supposed to be deep thinkers put in lines that sound like something a middle school mean girl would say. "McCain is dreamy, he isn't anything like Trump, who is sooooooooo stupid."

Also, they have officially adopted the "working class people who are not benefiting from free trade and globalism are losing losers who should go out in a field, dig a hole, and die in it so the rest of us winning winners won't have to hear their whining" political strategy.

Matthew Sablan said...

We can add Palin to that list as well as the fake Iseman affair for McCain and the fake teen forced haircut story about Romney, which didn't come to light until the alleged victim was dead, and no one really knew about it, but basically said, "Oh, if he said that, I guess I could believe it."

HoodlumDoodlum said...

I'm a libertarian-leaning conservative. Moore was, to put it mildly, not my guy.
But can establishment Repubs really get behind egregious Media efforts to sink Repub candidates like this, even when the candidates are people like Moore?
Genuinely: what is the point of the Republican party? What is the point of the "conservative" pundit class if they're indistinguishable from your standard Leftist with a newspaper column?

exiledonmainstreet said...

"Why are they made now rather than in the primary?"

You have to ask, William? Because the WaPo wanted Moore to win the primary before lowering the boom on him so the Dem could win the seat.

The Access Hollywood tape magically appeared after Trump had won the nomination for the same reason.

Matthew Sablan said...

Just remember the standards of evidence the media/left wants us to use. Multiple eye witnesses willing to testify on the record about Kerry: SWIFTBOATING LYING LIARS! An anonymous source claims to have seen McCain with a lobbyist making sweet, sweet love? Truer than the Bible itself.

Matthew Sablan said...

"You have to ask, William? Because the WaPo wanted Moore to win the primary before lowering the boom on him so the Dem could win the seat."

-- This isn't even a crazy conspiracy theory, which I would have assumed a few years ago. I'd have come up with an innocent explanation, like the victim didn't come forward until now, etc., etc.

But... that's *exactly what Hillary Clinton and the media did with Trump, per her own emails.* She chose what she thought was a radical Republican with no political skills to run against, and had her allies in the media prop him up and protect him until he was nominated, and then they turned on him. If you look at the Romney and McCain nominations, the same pattern is followed, and I bet if we got our hands on the Obama team's private correspondence with the Journolisters, we'd see the same, let's call it collusion.

So, yeah. Even I think that this is what happened, and I'm normally wary of conspiracy talk like Pizzagate or Who Killed Seth Rich?

Fernananindiananaide said...

I'm so advanced that I've never read a Jonah Goldberg column.

Moore's picture on Drudge looks like Yule in the old Westworld movie.

Mac McConnell said...

William said...
"The charges don't make Moore look good, but the timing of them makes the WaPoo look worse. Why are they made now rather than in the primary? Why did the news become known now just at this fulcrum moment when it could do the most harm to Moore and the Republcan Party."

You need to ask? WAPO endorse the democrat candidate prior to releasing the Moore info. How would Moore ever get defend aganst these allegations. Statute of limitations prevent prosecution.

Kevin said...

Genuinely: what is the point of the Republican party?

They seem to be useful tools to bash the current president so as to make it appear less like a partisan screed. And they're useful to blame when people start noticing government not creating the utopia they were promised.

If they weren't there, the Dems would have to create them.

exiledonmainstreet said...

The only one worth reading at NRO now is Victor Hanson Davis.

I can't blame Goldberg for harboring a grudge against Trump, who insulted Goldberg's mother. However, Jonah has allowed his feelings to completely cloud his judgment and is as incapable of giving Trump credit for anything as any leftist screamer in the part is.

It's really too bad. I used to enjoy reading him.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

This is a warning from the establishment to anyone thinking about challenging an establishment candidate in a primary. Screw with us and we will destroy your good name.

rhhardin said...

The "why would I care?" response to alleged scandal is less fun than outrage. That's what makes it unstable.

Watch what you have fun at. Somebody's putting it there as bait, usually.

JAORE said...

"I live in Alabama and don't like Roy Moore. That said, this represents everything I despise about politics and journalism. He's being accused in a political environment where there is no presumption of innocence with no evidence other than the claim of his acussor. This conviently came out after the deadline for Republicans to name a replacement candidate, too. "

My thoughts exactly except I don't just "don't like" Roy Moore, I really dislike Roy Moore. I was pleased both times he was removed from his Supreme Court seat.

But the Democrat is pretty far left for my taste. Of course he doesn't run that way, but he's know 'round here. My plan was to sit this one out.

As noted above, this is a NYT hit job from decades ago on a controversial public figure of long standing just days before the election.... it stinks. It stinks really bad.

Gawd I might actually have to vote for the troll... I mean judge.

Matthew Sablan said...

Also: Moore cannot NOW withdraw just to make room for a non-tainted candidate, even if he is innocent. Because so many people have said, "If the allegations are true, withdraw," his withdrawal would be seen as an admission of his guilt.

So, thanks to the reactionary right pinning him down, he pretty much *has* to stay in if innocent, or for the rest of his life be "known child predator Mr. Moore."

rhhardin said...

You want Moore in the Senate for the speeches. He'll move where the middle is taken to be.

gg6 said...

Jonah Goldberg is a complete Fake just like WAPO is a complete Fake. He's also a complete moron for suggesting he cares much less knows about anyone elses "soul".

Ron Winkleheimer said...

It has become pretty clear over the last two years that magazines such as National Review and The Weekly Standard exist as vehicles for the donor class of the Republican party and the principle the people who run them and write for them hold most dearly is "get paid."

buwaya said...

NR always lived off its donors, it was never a paying proposition even at its height. It could never attract significant advertising as a commercial operation.

Go look at an NR from say 1985. Even the "Naval Institute Priceedings" had piles more ads.

Partly, and I believe Buckley alluded to this sometimes, there was a deliberate boycott of the magazine by ad agencies.

Thats from 30-40 years ago.

Kevin said...

I'm so old I remember when it was unfair for the Director of the FBI, coming upon evidence of an actual crime, to disclose it right before an election.

Michael K said...

I tend to agree with Rush Limbaugh that McConnell's fingerprints are on this story.

The GOPe is out to punish Trump and Bannon for poaching in their territory. Why donations from the hedge fund types might even have declined although the majority were going to Democrats anyway,

This sexual abuse, sexual harassment story, you don’t find too many Republicans in this story. It does appear from reading — and I haven’t had a chance to dig deep into it because of time constraints here. But it does appear that the Washington Post has been seeking out women who would go after Judge Moore. This supposedly happened in 1979. So that’s 38 years ago. Now, you think somebody in that 38 years knew this kind of stuff had happened? How does a guy like Moore with the enemies he has keep something like this bottled up for that long?

I would not believe the WaPo if they told me the time.


chickelit said...

Larry J's comment at 8:09 is the best one so far because it gets to what and who will actually decide and resolve this issue. At this point, and being against what WaPo stands for, I'd like to see a little moore abject bigotry on WaPo's part, for example, by accusing ordinary Alabama voters of racism, bigotry and stupidity. The kind of anti-Southern bigotry which Titus wields in these august pages.

AReasonableMan said...

Ron Winkleheimer said...
It has become pretty clear over the last two years that magazines such as National Review and The Weekly Standard exist as vehicles for the donor class of the Republican party and the principle the people who run them and write for them hold most dearly is "get paid."


So we can now dismiss all the nonsense about Laffer curves and tax cuts pay for themselves?

Michael K said...

"The only one worth reading at NRO now is Victor Hanson Davis. "

I also read McCarthy. VDH I mostly read at his own blog.

buwaya said...

Buckley was able to keep a degree of editorial independence from its donors by his celebrity. That is a sort of power.

After he passed the magazine contracted its ideological scope.
Thats when many of its regular writers, who came in under Buckley, were ejected as embarassments.

Matthew Sablan said...

"I tend to agree with Rush Limbaugh that McConnell's fingerprints are on this story."

-- I don't believe that, because McConnell might be establishment, but he isn't stupid. An accusation like this will nationalize an election and be used as a millstone around Republicans for multiple cycles. You'll start the endless parade of reporters asking random Republicans: "What do you think of Moore preying on children?"

If McConnell did this, then he's a moron.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Here's Goldberg: I get the argument that it’s a “binary choice!” But it’s a binary choice now, because a bunch of people who want to see the GOP burn down made it one. In the long run, a Senator Moore would cost Republicans more seats than the one he might give them.

Which is, you know, exactly what he and his NeverTrump pals said about electing Trump. Right? That it would be better to have President Hillary Clinton than to have President Trump--that Clinton would do less damage to conservatism in "the long run." In exactly WHICH long run, of course, they rarely bothered to specify...but take their word for it.

See, Goldberg has much stronger case here against Moore. But he made the same argument against Trump, where it was a much much weaker case (Presidents appoint Supreme Court and lower Court justices, can exert long-term influence over scores of federal agencies, etc).

I could be wrong but I doubt many Repub./centrist people really believe, today, that the country would be heading in a more conservative position had Clinton been elected instead of Trump (now or in the long term). That's what you have to believe, though, to think the NeverTrumpers were right back then about Trump. The same argument against Moore now doesn't have the force it otherwise would/should simply because we have the evidence of Trump's actual election.

Big Mike said...

OTOH, Kevin Williamson wrote the following in yesterday's NRO:

"There are a number of underappreciated factors that go into making up a healthy democratic political culture: Trust, cooperation, and institutions are among the most important of them. Politically, we cooperate even when we compete, trying to keep our political competition within our national norms and conduct contests in a way that honors the best of our tradition rather than corroding it. (At our best, anyway.) And we rely on institutions to help us do that: the media to inform us about what is actually going on in the world, the American Bar Association to help us judge judicial candidates, the Congressional Budget Office to help us understand the fiscal effects of legislation, etc. None of that works without trust. And who really trusts the media, the American Bar Association, or the Congressional Budget Office? The level of distrust in those institutions (particularly among conservatives) may be unwarranted given the scale of their transgressions against our trust, but that distrust is not entirely unwarranted, either."

Matthew Sablan said...

"So we can now dismiss all the nonsense about Laffer curves and tax cuts pay for themselves?"

-- Anyone who thinks the Laffer curve is nonsense doesn't understand the concept. The curve just says that at both 0% and 100% taxation, you have an ineffective government. Therefore, there is some curve--it may not be a perfect curve, and in fact, it could have multiple peaks and valleys--but that a curve does exist, and therefore, tax policy can have both detrimental and positive impacts on the economy.

Anyone who just thinks the Laffer curve means: Less taxes, more money, is ignorant of the topic.

Michael K said...

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer said...
This is a warning from the establishment to anyone thinking about challenging an establishment candidate in a primary. Screw with us and we will destroy your good name.


Agree completely. And, I don't think they care as much about the Senate majority as punishing an outcast.

Michael K said...

Anyone who just thinks the Laffer curve means: Less taxes, more money, is ignorant of the topic.

Can we just stipulate that ARM knows nothing about economics?

exiledonmainstreet said...

"They seem to be useful tools to bash the current president so as to make it appear less like a partisan screed."

To keep up the illusion that we have a two-party system.

Even though being an Establishment toady has been lucrative for Goldberg, Kristol, Stephen Hays, et al, I still think there must be an element of masochism involved. They bitched about Obama and write pretty essays ridiculing campus PC, but their reaction to Trump has revealed they were actually pretty comfortable with the status quo and were prepared to make a nice living continuing on as "the Loyal Opposition" under Hillary. When Bill Kristol said "Better the Deep State than Trump" he showed what a sham he is.

But if you're going to be a statist and globalist, why not just be a Dem? Being a member of the GOPe means you still get called Nazi, racist, sexist, etc. The leftists don't like Jonah Goldberg any more than they like Tucker Carlson.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

So we can now dismiss all the nonsense about Laffer curves and tax cuts pay for themselves?

Sure, go for it. That's why the economy cratered in the 60s and 80s. Tax cuts are bad for the economy.

AReasonableMan said...

Matthew Sablan said...
Anyone who just thinks the Laffer curve means: Less taxes, more money, is ignorant of the topic.


Yet this is how the tax cuts were sold, giving us deficits into eternity.

Still it is good to know that the idiots that sold this nonsense were just paid shills for the donor class.

buwaya said...

Goldberg doesnt grasp the real priblem, in that the dogs refuse his dogfood. It is one thing to blame Bannon, or Trump, but the true faults Goldberg sees are not in them but in the Republican base.

Leaders arise because they realize there is an audience for their message. They dont create their followers, they discover them.

I dont know if it would do any good, as men are difficult to persuade when their income depends on not being persuaded, but Goldberg should meet that industrial plant control-room shift I met in 2015. Or many other groups like them.

traditionalguy said...

Everybody likes hating deplorable Alabama. Heck, Georgians like hating them for being so really deplorable, compared to us.

Why can't the Bama nuts be more sexually moral ...like the Boston family of Joe Kennedy...and like the Boston Catholic priests...and New Jersey Senators.

But hating them based on imaginary stuff is fun.





HoodlumDoodlum said...

AReasonableMan said...So we can now dismiss all the nonsense about Laffer curves

Sorry if it's a sidetrack, but what specifically about the Laffer curve is nonsense?
I see this short of casual dismissal of the concept all the time but I'm not sure what sort of economic model people who think the Laffer curve is nonsense are actually using.

roesch/voltaire said...

According to the writer for the Post these women came forward on their own and she was not seeking them out. Given the frequency of hypocrisy amongst bible thumpers, I am inclined to believe them. But recent voting patterns suggest that the moral right has lost its morals and will vote for candidates who do not hold their values including Moore I suspect.

Oso Negro said...

In the future, political campaigns will mine each others enormous electronic tail. Even as I type this, there is a 13-year-old boy looking at on-line pornography. He will be demonized for this in a Senate race in the year 2043. If he isn't actually in a re-education camp for past thought crimes against women.

Dr Weevil said...

Someone in the comments of either Ace of Spades or Just One Minute (the only two I read this morning before coming here) says that the Washington Post says that the alleged victim's story didn't change in six interviews, as if that were a point in favor of truth. Six interviews? Two or three is enough to see whether a story is consistent. As the commenter pointed out, the only reason to have six is to try to gradually push an insufficiently-damning allegation to be more damning, or to be damning in just the right way. The old "Didn't you say X last time?" (when she really said something similar but less damning) "Didn't you really mean Y? Isn't that just the same as saying Z?" trick.

If there were six interviews, Moore's lawyers need to subpoena them right now. If the WP doesn't provide them to his lawyers complete, unedited, and on tape, preferably videotape, that would discredit the accusation right there.

By the way, isn't kissing or hugging a 14-year-old girl and making her very uncomfortable exactly the sort of thing Joe Biden has done repeatedly? And not just reported to have done forty years ago, but done on tape for a national audience in last nine years, so there's no possible doubt about his guilt? Why the Hell hasn't he been driven from politics and respectable company?

Mac McConnell said...

"Yet this is how the tax cuts were sold, giving us deficits into eternity."

So tax cuts achieve the same thing we are doing now, I choose tax cuts.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Leaders arise because they realize there is an audience for their message. They dont create their followers, they discover them.

Exactly, there is an old saw about a politician seeing his constituents marching in a parade and hurrying over to get in front of them and "lead" them.

The thing is, what is happening in US politics is exactly what is supposed to happen as taught to me in high school civics many decades ago. A new party forming in the US is a rarity because when the needs and concerns of a large number of voters are not being addressed, then one of the parties adds them to their coalition. A serious political realignment is happening and the PTB do not like it because it threatens the status quo and they are the status quo. But the realignment is going to happen whether they like it or not. The toothpaste is not going back into the tube. The smart people in the status quo will figure out how to make themselves part of the new status quo. The dumb people will continue to wail about the injustice of it all and how such and such is just not done.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

exiledonmainstreet said...When Bill Kristol said "Better the Deep State than Trump" he showed what a sham he is.

Yeah, I think that was the crossing the Rubicon moment for me, too. That and the memory that Evan McMuffin (I'm not lovin' it) was the NeverTrump's idea of a real conservative. Even a few of them have (lately) expressed a bit of embarrassment at that, but if as pundits their purpose is to educate the rest of us with their superior judgement and intellect then that choice more or less proves they're not worthy.

Mac McConnell said...

"According to the writer for the Post these women came forward on their own and she was not seeking them out."

That's their first lie. I can imagine the reporters just hung out at the mall.

The Godfather said...

Like others, I'm VERY suspicious of the timing of these allegations. On the other hand, some of the actions alleged are repellant. I don't know the truth. If I were an Alabama voter who preferred Moore to Jones, I would vote for Moore. After the election, if the accusations against Moore are substantiated, then I would urge the Senate to remove him from office.

Dr Weevil said...

I don't have time to research this (first-quarter grades due today), but I seriously doubt that "Yet this is how the tax cuts were sold, giving us deficits into eternity."

As I recall, someone (Warren something of the Washington Times) calculated that revenues went up an average of $80 billion per year (inflation-adjusted) under Reagan, after the tax cuts. Why the deficits? The Democratic-controlled Congress gleefully spent all that and more - partly to fund Reagan's military buildup, but mostly on the usual crap in ever-greater quantities and ever-lower quality.

Mark said...

For nearly forty years, this person did not care that the world know what is alleged now -- so why are we expected to care now?

Matthew Sablan said...

"Yet this is how the tax cuts were sold, giving us deficits into eternity."

-- Did the spending cuts that were supposed to be married to those tax cuts ever appear? Or did Republicans only get one half of the medicine that the Democrats agreed to take, and then get left out to dry on the other half?

Michael K said...

Given the frequency of hypocrisy amongst bible thumpers, I am inclined to believe them.

Of course you do and so do all the religious readers of the WaPo. By "religious" I mean those who follow the religion of leftism.

ARM is unconscious of the fact that Reagan had a Democrat Congress which would only let him save the economy and defeat the USSR if he would let them spend what they wanted.

Big Mike said...

According to the writer for the Post these women came forward on their own and she was not seeking them out.

@roesch, no doubt she’s lying.

Matthew Sablan said...

"According to the writer for the Post these women came forward on their own and she was not seeking them out."

-- Is this the same way we heard the Trump accusers did the same, until we saw the Clinton emails where the Clinton campaign was helping journalists find people to accuse Trump?

Sorry. Journalists no longer have absolute moral authority on issues like this, especially when they're following a recent script. Even comic books wait more than a year to reboot these days.

JustOneMinute said...

Re: "Jonah Goldberg says we should just assume WaPo got it right."

Hmm. "Assume"? I think he is saying that they talked to a number of witnesses with corroborating sorta-contemporaneous accounts and that a crtical reader should try to calmly assess the odds that this is a group or WaPo fabrication.

I'm neither a Moore fan nor a WaPo fan and I get that no Democratic candidate needs to worry about the WaPO breaking this sort of story a month before an election. Still.

Matthew Sablan said...

Now, again, it is possible Moore is guilty.

But, I'm sorry. I've been burned so many times believing the left about Republicans only to learn, Oh, sorry Stevens is dead and we pushed through a bunch of legislation, but woopsy! We hid the evidence and one of our investigators was literally sleeping with the prosecution, or some equivalent that... I kind of expect proof.

Crazy, right?

Elise Lee said...

Who are these most people who don't like Judge Moore? Every adult in my blue-state household likes him!

Mark said...

National Review has been fully establishment for at least ten years. And they were big supporters of John McCain, even knowing his reputation for "womanizing."

Ron Winkleheimer said...

My guess is that Moore will still win though with a smaller margin than he would have otherwise but he has enough supporters who will simply disregard the wapo's allegation regarding the 14 year old girl as a lie. The real risk to Moore is the state Republican party withdrawing their support. Disavowing him formally. In that case even if he won the race, he would not be eligible to take office. According to the state Attorney general anyway, who is all over local talk radio this morning. Its too late to replace him on the ballot. Since Moore is despised by the state Republican party leadership, I would not be surprised to see them disavow him. That way they can get a do over with a new candidate in a new race, if I understand correctly.

Mark said...

What some people do not get is that this isn't about Moore -- or about young teenaged girls.

It's about you and me and the acquisition of POWER, namely a seat in the Senate and control of the Senate, by any means necessary. It is about thereby changing your life and my life and the life of the country.

Sebastian said...

"that distrust is not entirely unwarranted, either" That's one way to put it.

The Cracker Emcee Activist said...

"Given the frequency of hypocrisy amongst bible thumpers"

To say nothing of male feminists...And female feminists.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

After the election, if the accusations against Moore are substantiated, then I would urge the Senate to remove him from office.

That would be the next play if he manages to get elected and is not disavowed by the state party. The Senate can simply refuse to seat him and never mind whether the accusations are substantiated or not. They'll simply claim that the mere possibility is enough to do so. And those simpletons in Alabama will learn to send a proper representative next time, like that fine gentleman Luther Strange that they had all gotten to know and like over the last few months.

Dionisio said...

The accuser is probably a Lone Wolf in the same way that some Islamic terrorists are Lone Wolves. They are influenced greatly by the cause and decide that they will contribute. So the comment by Ann that it would be impossible to conclude defamation because the media did not request that she make her accusation is true. The "cause" is operating all the time in the background and foreground and someone decides to join of their own accord.

rcocean said...

Goldberg - like Kristol - has reveled himself to be a #FakeConservative. He'd rather have a Democrat win then Moore because blah blah Nationalism or something.

Like most #FakeConservatives and Life-Long-Republicans he always hits soft when attacking the Left. All his real vemon is directed toward those on his Right. Y'know the people who agree with him on 90% of the issues.

AReasonableMan said...

This is the thing that Chuck gets. When the radicals here just dismiss the leaders of the GOPe as paid shills it is not just the issues of the day that get swept away but forty years of 'conservatism' is exposed as hypocritical fake nonsense, Merkins in a R-rated movie.

Chuck said...

Michael K said...
I tend to agree with Rush Limbaugh that McConnell's fingerprints are on this story.

Thank you for providing the link to the transcript with that. It's an interesting thing, listening to a Limbaugh transcript. There is a kind of hypnosis with Limbaugh, when you listen to him, alone, for a substantial period of time. I think it is why Limbaugh so rarely interviews anybody. And the few people he does interview (like Paul Ryan, early this week) are there as events, more than real interviews. Limbaugh doesn't do interviews to challenge people on views that he finds troublesome. Limbaugh does interviews to sort of celebrate his position as right-wing kingmaker. A right-wing Larry King, in a way. But of course all that Larry King does is interviews. Still, they are usually interviews where he and the subject are working together to put out a message that they together agree on. And where they can both be stars.

Anyway, Michael K; read that Limbaugh transcript. Limbaugh says he sees Mitch McConnell's "fingerprints," which is a peculiarly evidentiary term to use with what comes next. What comes next is that Limbaugh says he hasn't read much about the story (telegraphing, I suppose, to his audience that they don't need to, either). And then after that... nothing. Nothing about McConnell. No evidence about McConnell. Not even any mention of McConnell.

Here's what we know about Mitch McConnell in relation to the Alabama Senate special election: Mitch supported Luther Strange in the primary, and Mitch now says that if the allegations against Moore are true, Moore should step aside as candidate.

What about President Trump? Here is where President Trump stands: He supported Luther Strange in the primary, and the White House has now announced that if the allegations against Moore are true, Moore should step aside as candidate.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/10/politics/white-house-roy-moore-donald-trump/index.html


rcocean said...

This is a perfect reason why the Left wins.

Attack a Democrat and they circle the wagons and protect them no matter how guilty. Meanwhile, Republicans can't wait to knife each other and throw someone under the bus.

eric said...

There is zero reason any of this should be believed.

1) But there are 30 accusers!

No, there are not. The WaPo has 30 "sources" for their story. This is put out there to mislead. For example, the mother is a source but the mother has zero clue if the accusations are true or false.

2) The women must be believed!

No, we don't have to believe them at all. It's ok if you believe them. It's also ok if you believe Moore.

3) Roy Moore must step aside!

This is the playbook of our two party system to maintain our two party system. This is what Republicans do to destroy those they don't control. Someone joked on Twitter that Moore should come out and say, "I am not a witch!" Because that's how they destroyed one of their prior enemies. Strange lost. This sorta thing pisses them off. Now Moore must lose as payback. Or preferably, drop out of the race.

People who continue to believe and fall for this stuff will be the reason we continue with our two parties into destruction.

They manipulate us and control us with bogus like this.

rcocean said...

In a world of Teddy Kennedy's, Weinstein, Blumenthals, Clintons, and McCain's I'm not going to get upset that Moore may have chatted up a young girl 35 years ago, when he was single.

Chuck said...

lol. A little Freudian slip on my part, where I wrote "listening to a Limbaugh transcript." And that's just it. We listen to Limbaugh on the radio. We read the transcripts.

Sorry; my bad. But funny. Funny to laugh at myself on that one.

Mark said...

Now, again, it is possible Moore is guilty.

For the sake of the argument, say he is. So the rest of the country gets punished for it by handing the seat over to the Democrats?

Whether or not Moore is guilty of what is alleged, it is undeniable that the Democrats and MSM and Establishment-types are guilty of trying to manipulate the election, that they are guilty of a crass partisan political ploy. -- They too need to be held to account.

If Moore is guilty -- no, he should not step down before the election. He should stay in the race and people should vote him into office. And then he should step down so that there can be a full and fair complete special election, rather than this leftist attempted hijacking of the democratic process.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

When the radicals here just dismiss the leaders of the GOPe as paid shills it is not just the issues of the day that get swept away but forty years of 'conservatism' is exposed as hypocritical fake nonsense

Wow, ARM gets it. I'm impressed.

Matthew Sablan said...

"For the sake of the argument, say he is. So the rest of the country gets punished for it by handing the seat over to the Democrats?"

-- Basically, yes. If he is guilty, then blame the Republican party for failing to vet their own candidates. Remember: If he is guilty, the Democrats/MSM/Whoever may be only doing it to manipulate the election... but he's still guilty as sin. And, frankly, if he is, I'd rather him out than in. Because if he gets elected and is shown to be guilty, you will have collateral electoral damage come the midterms as people are asked "Why didn't you speak up against known child predator Moore?"

If Moore is guilty, I don't blame the Democrats for hitting him fair and square. If he's guilty, this is a good play.

wwww said...



I don't understand why Althouse would be referring to privacy -- or in the privacy of a home -- between a 32 yr. old and a 14 year old.

A 32 year old has NO privacy rights to sexual contact with a 14 year old unmarried, unrelated girl. If the account is true, that he approached her mother at a courthouse hearing & offered to babysit her is disgusting.

Stuff like this doesn't happen once. Men who pray on kids do it repeatedly until they age out. Looks like his profile was between 14-17 years old. We'll see if the age goes younger.

For people asking why now? Two words: Ronan Farrow. The Florida State House is also dealing with a scandal right now. It's not a coincidence -- people are saying that "you have a responsibility to say something."

Oppo research will be dropped on these women in a few hours to discourage anyone else from talking.

Chuck said...

rcocean said...
This is a perfect reason why the Left wins.

Attack a Democrat and they circle the wagons and protect them no matter how guilty. Meanwhile, Republicans can't wait to knife each other and throw someone under the bus.

The Democrats have absolutely nothing like a Limbaugh, or a Hannity, or an Ingraham, or a Bannon, who is daily making their mission to attack the leadership of their party.

You're talking about people "knifing" their own party. Without any doubt, the greatest intra-party nihilists are the Bannonites/Limbaugh/Hannity.

Sean Hannity has claimed for years to have not been a Republican at all. So I just wonder why that smarmy little fuckhead psycho wants to be such an influence in Republican politics.


Darrell said...

Sorry; my bad. But funny.

We'll be the judges of that.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

I read a Weekly Standard post last week (don't remember the author) arguing that the proposed Republican tax cut plan was awful in that it takes away the state income tax and/or state property tax deductions. The author resides in a high-cost blue state and gave a point-for-point similar argument to the one your standard Leftist would (about how the plan is a giveaway to "rich" corporations, to undeserving fatcats, etc). Which, you know, fine.

But it occurred to me that he and his fellow Repub. establishment pundits (specifically Kevin Williamson at NR, but others have echoed his points) say that rural Trump-voting people who complain about the harm of globalization and illegal immigration should "just move" to solve their problems. Town run down, county addicted to pills, no jobs in your state 'cause the factories are all closed? Just move to where the opportunities are you whiny lazy idiots. Move and learn to code--asking for Trump or any other politician to solve your problems is evidence of a weak mind and a corrupted soul. That's the line, right?
Well why the fuck would that not apply 1:1 to the complaints some of these same pundits have about the harm of doing away with state tax deductability? Just move, assholes. Move to low-tax states. It is unreasonable for people to expect to have the same job opportunities as their fathers so it should be just as unreasonable for people to have the same tax break expectations as their fathers. Right?

But it seems like that advice is only good for the plebs.

Honestly: this is just one small example but it's hard to escape the notion that a lot of the NeverTrump and NT-type animus towards Trump voters is partly driven by class.

Anonymous said...

Just some thoughts: Jonah Goldberg is regularly excoriated at lucianne.com, a site owned by his mother, sad. His Trump hatred is real because Trump once proclaimed Goldberg couldn't afford pants, a reference to a time when Goldberg bragged that he wore shorts (!) under the desk of various panel TV shows with a jacket and tie visible to the viewer. Age of consent was a leftover reform from the 19th century, when women, like the unmarried Louisa May Alcott, wanted to save girls from being exploited by older men. You can look it up. In the movie, and novel, "Breakfast at Tiffany's," the character of Holly Golightly married a Texas veterinarian when she was fourteen, I don't remember any outrage at the time or in the ensuing years when this work was presented. Just some thoughts.

Mac McConnell said...

Chuck what is your point? That politicians use boiler plate, If true, then x" to cover their asses aganst a leftist national media?

Ron Winkleheimer said...

When Reagan agreed to the illegal alien amnesty back in 1986, the understanding was that there would be better enforcement of the migration laws so that we would not get another ingress of illegals. Well, that did not happen because the national CoC didn't want it to happen because cheap labor. And NAFTA was sold, over union objections, as a way to increase jobs in the US. Automotive and other manufacturing jobs wouldn't be moving to Mexico. That was just crazy talk. Sure the Mexicans would be manufacturing some things that took a low level of skill. But cars! No way! And we would be able to export all kinds of things to them, so more jobs.

Well it turns out that things didn't turn out the way we were told, and whether that is because of honest mistakes or deception is immaterial. What matters is adjusting our stances to the current reality, not to continue as if it was still 1985.

Mac McConnell said...

Chuck I get your point now, the Republican leadership is like the Vatican.

M Jordan said...

Jonah the Whale Goldberg is a carbuncle on the anus of the Republican Party. He is facile, clever, witty, and full of pus. He needs to be popped or excised. If excised, the doctor must be careful to avoid damaging any remaining conservative principles.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Yes, if it wasn't for Rush and Hannity the Republican party could continue to sell its base out without having to hear the losing losers whine and make demands. Life would be so much more pleasant that way.

Yancey Ward said...

I used to visit National Review Corner every day, and left many comments there over the years. However, other than the occasional Andrew McCarthy and Victor Davis Hansen, I never visit any longer. One thing, though, struck me like a lightening bolt when I scanned the comments to one of McCarthy's articles and I confirmed it in a number of other essays' comment sections- the comments were dominated by Democrats and/or Progressives. I didn't even see very many authentic LLRs. I think National Review is in its death throes if the the people commenting are any indication. Now, it is true that some people have taken to creating Disqus comments in place of the Facebook that NR changed to a year or two ago, so maybe that is the cause, but even that should be worrying for the NR staff who still think themselves conservatives.

cubanbob said...

AReasonableMan said...
Matthew Sablan said...
Anyone who just thinks the Laffer curve means: Less taxes, more money, is ignorant of the topic.

Yet this is how the tax cuts were sold, giving us deficits into eternity. "

Tax rates cuts are good. Spending is bad. Simple enough for you? Eliminate unearned income redistribution and the deficit problem is solved.

Yancey Ward said...

Are the allegations about Moore true? I would tend to believe them if they had come forward during one of the other instances in which Moore was in the news in the last 15 years. That they only came forward now is suspicious. It isn't like Roy Moore is just now in the news in Alabama, or even nationally.

I will predict the election, though, if Moore stays in- he wins 55-45.

buwaya said...

A very great deal of Anti-Trumpism is driven by class.
Or perhaps all of it.

Modern American politics is, in class conflict terms, the classic pattern of the top and bottom allied against the middle.

Relatively few of the "deplorables" are in the two lowest income quintiles, but rather form the majorities of Q3 and Q4, and at least half of Q5, including the lower bits of the 1%. The highest bits of the 1% are solidly Democrat.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

I will predict the election, though, if Moore stays in- he wins 55-45.

I think that is probable, which will freak the establishment out. It will demonstrate how much the party's base detests the MSM and the party's establishment.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Modern American politics is, in class conflict terms, the classic pattern of the top and bottom allied against the middle.

Part of it is regional as well. Nikki Haley will never be President because of the stance she took during the Confederate Flag controversy. She doesn't realize that. But it is true.

mockturtle said...

Mark's got this right: It's about you and me and the acquisition of POWER, namely a seat in the Senate and control of the Senate, by any means necessary. It is about thereby changing your life and my life and the life of the country.

Howard said...

Blowback. Just because Moore is, IMO, a vile POS, that doesn't mean that the last minute sexual misconduct allegations shopped to the press to destroy his candidacy should be applauded. Neither should there be a joyous feeling of schadenfreude that one of the morally superior bible trumpeters gets trapped in a web of salacious innuendo and ridicule.

Howard said...

The Trump/anti-Trump equation is not driven by class, rather what sort of con one is susceptible to.

reader said...

When I heard about the issue with Moore my first thought was about Schwarzenegger and the October Surprise, not about whether it was true. That's sad but a reflection of my lack of trust in the media.

The Los Angeles Time's coverage of Arnold Schwarzenegger before recall election

With all of the recent allegations of misconduct it does read differently now. Especially the portions about O'Reilly.

Sam L. said...

I gave up on Jonah last year, and his crowd.

Jupiter said...

The whale is welcome to Jonah.

rcocean said...

I think National Review is in its death throes if the the people commenting are any indication.

Several "Never Trumper" websites are like that. The comment sections are dominated by liberals and Trump haters.

I assume several of these sites - and NR - are being propped up by a media company or some Liberal Republican Donor like Paul Singer.

rcocean said...

I'm hoping the peeps in Alabama are smart and can see through this obvious hit job. Like the "Trump tape" its a very weak and transparent attempt.

Crossing my fingers.

Jupiter said...

"The Post is not at risk putting this material out there for people to decide for themselves how to use."

You mean your partner, Jeff Bezos? Senior partner, I believe, but I gather you get your cut.

Earnest Prole said...

If Alabama Republicans did a Torricelli–Lautenberg maneuver to replace Moore on the Alabama ballot, Moore's defenders here would cut him loose faster than shit through a goose.

Unknown said...

“Blowback. Just because Moore is, IMO, a vile POS, that doesn't mean that the last minute sexual misconduct allegations shopped to the press to destroy his candidacy should be applauded. Neither should there be a joyous feeling of schadenfreude that one of the morally superior bible trumpeters gets trapped in a web of salacious innuendo and ridicule.”

No? Oh phooey.

Big Mike said...

I will predict the election, though, if Moore stays in- he wins 55-45.

Well, if I lived in Alabama and was forced to vote for Moore or for the Democrat, I'd vote for Moore.

Unknown said...

“I don't understand why Althouse would be referring to privacy -- or in the privacy of a home -- between a 32 yr. old and a 14 year old.

A 32 year old has NO privacy rights to sexual contact with a 14 year old unmarried, unrelated girl. If the account is true, that he approached her mother at a courthouse hearing & offered to babysit her is disgusting.”

Is 14 the age of consent in Alabama? No? Then he broke the law.

Unknown said...

“Well, if I lived in Alabama and was forced to vote for Moore or for the Democrat, I'd vote for Moore.”

I wouldn’t brag about that.

Michael K said...

the comments were dominated by Democrats and/or Progressives. I didn't even see very many authentic LLRs. I think National Review is in its death throes if the the people commenting are any indication.

I think the lefties, here and elsewhere, think it is more important than it is. They flock there, just like they flock to the WSJ comments at the web site and on facebook. There used to be a function where you only see comments of subscribers. I don't know if they still have it.

Michael K said...

"Is 14 the age of consent in Alabama? No? Then he broke the law."''I think it was `12 at the time.

Do you know anything about what you comment on ?

Unknown said...

Please don’t make me call you an idiot.

"Is 14 the age of consent in Alabama? No? Then he broke the law."''I think it was `12 at the time.

Do you know anything about what you comment on ?”

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gop-senate-candidate-roy-moore-denies-allegation-sexual/story?id=51046527

“The Washington Post interviewed more than 30 people for its story, which included descriptions of a 32-year-old Moore kissing and removing the clothing of a 14-year-old girl in alleged encounters with her in 1979. Three other women told the newspaper that Moore courted them when they were 16 to 18 and he was in his 30s. At the time, the 14-year-old and her family members did not report the encounters to authorities, and none of the subjects of the report accused Moore of a crime. The age of consent in Alabama in 1979 was and remains 16.”

Big Mike said...

I don’t excuse Moore’s conduct, even if the age of consent was 12. But I don’t believe the Post, I don’t care how many people they claim to have interviewed. The Post assumes that real human beings, as opposed to the average Democrat, is actually foolish enough to trust them. Believing that is a mistake.

But Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell backed Luther Strange, so right now in the alleged struggle for the soul of the party between Steve Bannon and Donald Trump, Donald lost that battle but has won the war. Guy wins a lot, he does.

n.n said...

American conservatives are not Pro-Choice, so there should be a presumption of innocence. They should neither support nor tolerate a baby trial, but rather the conservative (constitutional) guarantee for due process. Unfortunately, in the absence of time, thanks to several decades of delayed allegations, and a political process that relies on trial by press, they will have to be jurors at a trial where there is collusion to influence their vote and direct their conclusion.

That said, Moore should confront the press (they may escape legal but not public accountability through claims of ignorance) and the accusers and force a semblance of due process in the midst of what is now the fourth trimester of the Democratic baby hunts.

eddie willers said...

Are the allegations about Moore true?

He is Caesar's wife now.

Michael K said...

Blogger Howard said...
The Trump/anti-Trump equation is not driven by class, rather what sort of con one is susceptible to.


This is how you get more Trump. Ignorant lefties thinking they are smarter than Trump voters and are dumb enough to tell us.

Relatively few of the "deplorables" are in the two lowest income quintiles, but rather form the majorities of Q3 and Q4, and at least half of Q5, including the lower bits of the 1%. The highest bits of the 1% are solidly Democrat.

Yes and the 1% are usually crony capitalist types or, like the Silicon Valley billionaires who aren't gay, they have wives who are abortion activists.

Michael K said...

Good research Inga. I had read elsewhere that it was 12 at the time.

dbp said...

I (as a longtime fan of Jonah) have to agree that he has clearly lost his perspective. The best way forward and really the only fair course, would be for Moore to stay in the race. If the claims gain credence, he can resign and let the Governor pick a replacement. If Republicans fold at any accusation, we will always be in the minority and deserve it.

narciso said...

The winner of that primary was Rob Bentley wonder what happened to him.

narciso said...

So those other witnesses were there at the time, sounds like dossier 2 electric boogaloo

narciso said...

A totricelli will just confirm the fix is in, like Murkowski modest suggestion already brings to mind.

narciso said...

Btw the fix is in with Menendez otherwise why bother with the pillow.

Mac McConnell said...

Moore like Bill Clinton will face the only due process available at this late date, the ballot box. Moore can't be prosecuted in a criminal court because of the Alabama statute of limitations. Alabamans will decide.

Mike Sylwester said...

HoodlumDoodlum at 10:23 AM

... Just move, assholes. Move to low-tax states. ...

Great comment !!

Jim at said...

Roy Moore has been a controversial, public figure for how long?

And this stuff - 40 years in the past - comes out now?

Sure.

JAORE said...

"“The Washington Post interviewed more than 30 people for its story, which included descriptions of..."

That lead in can be accurate if 30 people all told tales of Moore's depravity,

or,

29 people said, "There is no there there, he's a good man" and one said he's "Guilty-Guilty-GUILTY".

IOW they threw that 30 in there to imply a host of witnesses for the alleged victim. Lotta smoke, lotta, lotta smoke. Yet their actual words do not support that.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Ages of consent in North America - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America
Jump to United States - The federal law establishes the age of 12 as the minimum age of consent, while the age at which there are no restrictions for consensual sexual activities is 18 (sex with someone 12-18 is not illegal per se, but can still be open to prosecution under certain circumstances).
‎Canada · ‎Cayman Islands (United ... · ‎El Salvador · ‎Mexico

Leora said...

I am not a fan of Roy Moore. I think Judges should adhere to the law or resign.

However, I noticed that in the story there is one accusation that is beyond the pale. A 32 year old dating 18 year olds just isn't that out there - particularly when their mothers apparently thought he'd make good husband material. I'd note that when he was 38 he married a 24 year old and is still married to her without any rumors of dalliances with young women.

The account of the woman who said she was approached when she was 14 may or may not be true. Since she did arrange to meet him for a date, I kind of wonder if she misrepresented her age. I also wonder if the story that he engaged in heavy petting on a first date is true, given that the other women said he just kissed and hugged them. If there three or four ladies saying he came on to them when they were under 18 I'd be more inclined to think he had a problem.

Given that this all took place decades ago, at a time and place where it was not uncommon for 16 year old girls to marry, I would probably consider voting for a man who had done this, depending on his current positions compared to those of his opponent. After all, as my Clinton supporting friends used to tell me "It's just sex."

JAORE said...

Read that "Lotta smoke...." in a Rainman voice.

hombre said...

Let's see, a "victim" of an unlawful touching by Moore 35 years ago suddenly appears just in time for a "November surprise" by the sleazy WaPo as the future of the federal judiciary is at stake in the Senate. After interviewing 30 people, WaPo "corroborates" with accounts of three or four examples of perfectly legal conduct.

As transparent as it is, this is good enough for the GOPe, the Democrats and the leftymediaswine, corrupt swamprats all. It will be interesting to see if Alabamans are gullible enough to side with them. If so, look for more of this in the future. Accusations, after all, are everything.

Mike said...

Given the frequency of hypocrisy amongst bible thumpers, I am inclined to believe them. But recent voting patterns suggest that the moral right has lost its morals and will vote for candidates who do not hold their values including Moore I suspect.

Right. Does your anti-Christian bigotry have a factual basis or is this another if your analyses by anecdote?

The religious right, to paint with a broad brush, more likely believe that defeating the Left is the only morally correct thing to do, no matter how many imperfect men are elected to make it so. If they’ll fight the progressives and cut regulation that is a morally superior outcome for a nation. A life-affirming outcome.

Mike said...

A 32 year old has NO privacy rights to sexual contact with a 14 year old unmarried, unrelated girl.

Maybe you should google “age of consent” for ‘Bama. (12)

HT said...

Maybe you should, Mike.

grackle said...

According to the writer for the Post these women came forward on their own and she was not seeking them out.

And they all came forward at exactly the same time. What a coincidence.

And bravely sought out only the Post to tell their tale. Obvious coincidence.

And after it was too late to change the ballot. Another coincidence.

As in baseball with strikes: Three and you are OUT!

HT said...

Grackle, you haven't read the Post piece, obviously. The Post never says anything but that they pursued the women for the story, not the other way around.

"Neither Corfman nor any of the other women sought out The Post."

cronus titan said...

After Harry Reid boasted that he made up stories of Romney not paying taxes for 10 years because after all "Romney lost, didn't he?" Afterwards, some blogs started a "Harry Reid is a pedophile" memes because there was as much evidence Romney failed to pay taxes as there were Reid was a pedophile.

The link below publishes a piece written to convince the reader that Reid is a pedophile. At the end, they say it is a parody to demonstrate how common it is for the mainstream media to write a blatant lie with zero evidence and convince a reader it is absolutely true. Brilliant parody. I thought of this when the Post said it interviewed 30 people but never said what those 30 people said. An excellent technique for misleading readers to give a lie credibility

http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/03/are-three-democratic-senators-confirmed-pedophiles/

hombre said...

Members of the GOPe who have forgotten the American tradition of innocent until proven guilty should look to their own souls, Jonah. Members of the GOP who trust WaPo, don't understand November surprises and can't see how lame these accusations are should look to their brains.

People like McCain and Romney and vocal members of McConnell's staff appear to have neither.

hombre said...

HT wrote: "'Neither Corfman nor any of the other women sought out The Post.'"

Why would anyone believe the WaPo? Where was Corfman for 30+ years while Moore was in the headlines? What misconduct did "any of the other women" bring out? Did one of WaPo's famous "sources" put them on to Corfman?

What difference does it make who sought out whom? Fakery and bribery cannot be ruled out. The Courts, etc., are at stake.

Looking back, do we think the people who put their freedom and jobs on the line to leak classified information to the NYT and WaPo were patriots or on the take? How many retractions of fake stuff have their been? 5? 10?

If Corfman is proved to be a liar after the election, will the Democrat resign? LOL!

grackle said...

Grackle, you haven't read the Post piece, obviously.

Correct. About both the NR piece and the Post piece. NeverTrumper outlets don’t deserve to be read. I avoid it if at all possible. Too much fake news. NeverTrumper pundits, too. Since the commentor obviously did read the piece I have a question: Did the authors tell us how they found these women who never came forward for 30+ years? It must have been like looking for a needle in the haystack.

Neither Corfman nor any of the other women sought out The Post.

Well, such information doesn’t appear out of thin air. It’s obvious that someone “sought out the Post.” Are they named so we can judge their credibility? Take your time. I’ll wait.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

“A 32 year old has NO privacy rights to sexual contact with a 14 year old unmarried, unrelated girl.
Maybe you should google “age of consent” for ‘Bama. (12)”

Wrong. First Michael K , now you. You both must’ve been reading the same fake news. Please don’t make me call you an idiot.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gop-senate-candidate-roy-moore-denies-allegation-sexual/story?id=51046527

“The Washington Post interviewed more than 30 people for its story, which included descriptions of a 32-year-old Moore kissing and removing the clothing of a 14-year-old girl in alleged encounters with her in 1979. Three other women told the newspaper that Moore courted them when they were 16 to 18 and he was in his 30s. At the time, the 14-year-old and her family members did not report the encounters to authorities, and none of the subjects of the report accused Moore of a crime. The age of consent in Alabama in 1979 was and remains 16.”
— — — — — — — — — — —
“Age of consent is incredibly important in Alabama. An individual who is 19 years old or older has sexual contact with someone who is younger than 16 but older than 12 has committed sexual abuse.”

Wiki
— — — — — — — — — — — —
“As The Post notes, Alabama law in 1979, as now, placed the age of consent at 16. It would be “sexual abuse in the second degree” for someone 19 or older to engage in sexual contact with someone younger than 16 but older than 12, and sexual contact is defined as the touching of sexual or intimate parts.”

Unknown said...

“The law includes a provision for legal adults who entice a child younger than 16 years old into a home for a sexual encounter, which is a felony crime and carries a sentence of up to 10 years in prison. In Moore's case, the statute of limitations on both types of alleged crimes has run out.

Corfman told the Post that Moore took her to his secluded home. She further claimed that the encounter ended when Moore, who was in only his underwear, guided her hand toward his penis. Corfman then reportedly asked that he stop and requested to be taken home.”

http://www.ibtimes.com/what-alabamas-age-consent-roy-moore-accused-seducing-14-year-old-2612834

Earnest Prole said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gospace said...

roesch/voltaire said...
According to the writer for the Post these women came forward on their own and she was not seeking them out.


I have this bridge in Brooklyn for sale. Great investment opportunity. I think it would be prefect for. Contact me so we can work out a deal.

Earnest Prole said...

I had read elsewhere that it was 12 at the time.

The only people interested in whether the age of consent is 12 or 14 are pedophiles and those who prosecute them.

Gospace said...

Even if you believe the very worst of the story, the 14 year old (I don't), something comes through very clear.

He takes no for an answer, unlike the last losing Democrat's presidential candidate's husband.

Anyone can claim to be anyone on the internet, and with that caveat, on another blog someone wrote a very long comment stating he was from the area, knew two of the families involved in the accusations against Moore, and he doesn't believe a word of them. 3 women is all they could find, only one of whom reported anything resembling unlawful contact because of her age- and she says when she objected he took her home. Really powerful stuff there. With those three, WAPO is obviously expecting the floodgates to open like it did with Weinstein when the first allegations went out. For something to come out when the floodgates are open, there's needs to be something behind them. It's now been well over 24 hours and I hear- CRICKETS.

And the one with the most serious accusations. 3 divorces, a bankruptcy, financial troubles... Did those 30 people they interviewed include her 3 ex-husbands with their statements on how truthful she is?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 224   Newer› Newest»