Puzzled As To How Any Conservative Or Republican Can Continue To Support Roy Moore? Don’t Be. We’ve Seen This Many Times, And For The Same Reasons…

Here is how Moore’s defenders are thinking, if you can call it that.

The Hill, from 2011:

During an appearance on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher,” [actress/comic] Janeane Garofalo said, “Anthony Weiner deserves to be supported and hopefully he will be mayor of New York one day. I’m serious. He is a Democrat [who] actually fights for the things liberals and progressive and rational people care about.

The man, a member of the House of Representatives, was sending pictures of his penis to women, in some cases without warning or their consent. He, like Moore, then lied about it.

In both cases, the conduct was disqualifying, and any objective individual should be able to see that. But extreme partisans and ideological zealots are not objective, nor rational, nor ethical. Their ethics alarms don’t work; they believe that the ends justify the means, like Garofalo. They are corrupted. This is why public servants like Weiner, Moore, the Clintons, and Trump are ethics corrupters. Then the people they corrupt, like Janeane Garofalo, use their own collection of rationalizations and false arguments to corrupt others.

The defenders of Weiner were exactly the same, in this regard, as Moore’s defenders.

The self-righteous progressives who have repeatedly spoken and written as if Moore’s defenders are some kind of incomprehensible enablers of evil are endowed with remarkable powers of amnesia and a stunning lack of self-awareness. The mocking contempt that is oozing from social media is the apotheosis of rotting integrity.  Boy, those Republicans are disgusting to try to defend and make excuses for Roy Moore! It is disgusting, but if you applauded hyper-partisans doing the same thing when the scandal was on the other foot, you really should shut up. (I’m looking at you, Bill Maher…)

Ethics Alarms, in contrast, has worked hard for the right to condemn every one of them, because it is character and conduct that matter here, not policy positions and ideology.


Pointer: Instapundit


Filed under Character, Ethics Dunces, Gender and Sex, Government & Politics, Leadership, Social Media

43 responses to “Puzzled As To How Any Conservative Or Republican Can Continue To Support Roy Moore? Don’t Be. We’ve Seen This Many Times, And For The Same Reasons…

  1. Doubtless I am using my rose colored glasses, to at least some extent, but it has been my impression that the Republicans as a party tend to react better to scandals such as this. By that I mean they are more likely to demand that the person in question resign or withdraw. I’m not saying that Republicans are any more or less likely to get caught up in this type of scandal.

    That said, it’s up to the people of Alabama at this point. I don’t think many people believe Moore will ‘do the right thing’ either now or if he were to be elected. From a recent article I read, it would perhaps be unwise for the Senate to try to expel him after he was seated. He would have done nothing while in office to justify expulsion, and it could set a bad precedent for the future.

    Ardent Republican though I have usually been, I cannot believe it is in the party’s or the country’s best interest to have this man as a Senator. Find some other states to bolster the majority next year.

  2. The one diffetence us that Weiner’s accusers did not wait forty years to come forward.

    I am.as skeptical of the claims against Moore as I am of the claims against George Takei.

    • There are now six claims against Moore, only one regarding Takai. No question, there was physical evidence in Weiner’s case. I see no reason to be skeptical of Moore’s accusers at all. He admits that he dated teens…with their mothers’ permission, of course.

      Good Lord.

      • The quantity of claims is beside the point.

        • Matthew B

          It does matter when we’re talking about he said / she said cases, provided there is some evidence to back up the claims being made. Cosby is a perfect example. He wasn’t convicted because there is no evidence, but the overwhelming number of stories that are so similar leaves little doubt he is guilty.

        • Hardly! In that area especially, the proliferation of claims is typical of genuine harassers and molester, because it is a habit and a state of mind.

          • Has a murder trial ever admitted, as evidence, the existence of outstanding murder charges in other jurisdictions?

            • Chris

              Whether or not evidence can be accepted in a trial is irrelevant to whether reasonable people can fairly evaluate that evidence do make up their own minds about a person’s guilt or evidence. We don’t have to pretend OJ didn’t kill his girlfriend just because there wasn’t enough legally acceptable evidence to convict him.

            • joed68

              I’m a little skeptical too. The timing, for one thing. His opponent actually supports late-term abortions, making him nearly a god to the left. The claim that he locked the door, preventing her from leaving, when child-proof door locks didn’t exist yet. The matter of the yearbook, and Gloria Allred’s involvement. Coffman claims he called her on her bedroom phone, but her mom says she didn’t have a bedroom phone.I’d be interested in hearing from the boyfriend.
              Of course, if he did this, he shouldn’t get that seat, but I hope they leave no stone unturned along the way.

      • Matthew B

        Lest we forget, Weiner also had $4K per visit prostitutes. One likely breaks the same laws that Dennis Hastert was convicted of to commit such acts with regularity on top of that.

      • Still Spartan

        Eight now.

        • Steve-O-in-NJ

          After three the rest is just keeping score. Men best beware. A single clumsily worded compliment, a single touch that wasn’t particularly wanted but did no harm, a single moment of goofy horseplay with someone who later decides she dislikes you, any of these could bring you down decades after the fact. This is before we even get into the question of dates gone bad or relationships that didn’t work out, and now the girl you didn’t call or didn’t call soon enough or your girlfriend of one year in college that you couldn’t see your way clear to marrying sees her chance to ruin you.

          • After two, each additional accuser ups the odds that the first one was accurate. By three, its already at 75-85% per cent probability. By Cosby’s or Weinstein’s number, it’s 100%

            • Interesting.

              So if prosecutorswant to win murder trials, all they have to do is to convince other prosecutors to file murder charges.

              How many murder charges are needed for an accused murderer to be 100% guilty, even in the absence of other evidence?

              • No. The analogy is “witnesses”. Not individual charges. And yes, the MORE witnesses to a murder, the more we can believe the murder actually occurred.

                Don’t conflate that each separate witness in the Moore situation were witnesses to separate acts…the acts all had the same nature and thus are more and more believable as more and more come forward.

                • So then a prosecutor could bolster a murder case by calling in witnesses who testify seeing the defendant commit other murders?

                  • No, a prosecutor could bolster a murder case by calling in other witnesses to that murder. I already mentioned that the character of the crimes involved don’t lend themselves to perfect analogies, where multiple victims (and simultaneously witnesses) to an equal number of separate crimes increasingly corroborates the notion that at least a portion of the accused crimes actually occurred.

        • But did he have all of their mothers’ permission?

  3. Steve-O-in-NJ

    Again, it all goes back to the first two of the six basic truths about people. People are biased, they know what they want, they know what they don’t want, and they really don’t care too much about anything else. People are partisan, they will bend over backwards and twist themselves into logical pretzels to support their guy, and they will cut the other side’s guy no slack at all.

    Judge Moore will vote the right way to support the president, and he stands firm against the tide of rising atheism, so his supporters really don’t care if he dated some girls who were a little too young or touched someone inappropriately. As long as it was not a rape, that’s good enough for them.

    Anthony Weiner was going to vote all the right ways on abortion and other issues important to feminists. The Dirty Little Secret of the left and a feminism is that they are willing to let their own take one for the team and don’t care if someone who is otherwise a progressive voice decides to treat his office as his personal harem or, as in Anthony Weiner’s case, does something truly outrageous.

    As I said elsewhere, it is a pro wrestling mentality, where your side is always right, and the other side is always wrong. It’s your job to defend your side no matter what. If someone breaks the rules or does not set a good example, you need to cover it, or minimize it for the sake of the greater good, which is defined as your side dominating.

    It is times like this I am glad not to be a ladies’ man. If someone was to accuse me of doing anything she would be looked at like she was crazy. I may not be getting laid on the regular or getting away with touching someone where I shouldn’t, but I’m not going to lose my job because someone made a BS accusation that was just plausible enough to stick.

    • Luke G

      I like your pro wrestling analogy. Current politics reminds me a bit of a college football game- if the home team is penalized the bulk of the fans are disappointed and skeptical of the call but ultimately accept it, while the relatively small but incredibly loud group of extremists in the student section will never accept the possibility that their guys could have messed up and the whole game must be rigged.

  4. Chris marschner

    Well stated

    You did forget that Bob Menendez(NJ) was alleged to have brought underage prostitutes to party with him in the Dominican Republic.

    To me that suggests that being in the “club” is a prerequisite to being defended. No matter what club of which the person belongs.

  5. Janeane Garofalo (marginally funny in the underrated “The Larry Sanders Show” and ” Bye Bye Love”) abandoned any benefit of the doubt when she decided people needed to hear her content-bereft, imbecilic, spittle-flecked slobberings.

  6. Least we forget that none of these decades old sexual harassment/abuse claims have been substantiated by any actual witnesses or physical evidence (yet). We actually do not know the validity of any of these decades old claims and yet “we” are rendering a guilty verdict based on the quantity of unproven accusations. Decades old accusations, absolutely no proof, reasonable doubt is completely flushed, and the public screams “GUILTY” and destroy’s the life of the accused, this is how vigilante justice works.

    I know the perception of these accused individuals is that they’re sexual abusing dirt-bags; but seriously folks, what have we as a society become?

    • Come on.

      I am, as you know, concerned about the witch-hunt aspects of this. But we have seen Clinton, Cosby, Aisles, O’Reilly, Spacey, Weinstein. Multiple non-anonymous allegations, coming in sequence, with no benefits attached to them, plus transparent lies, attacking the victims, and near-admissions—Accuse me of dating teens in my thirties, and my answer is, “You’re out of your mind! Ask anyone: I never dated anyone under 20 after I turned 20. I only dates teen a few time when I was a teen.” Then they ask “anyone,” and anyone confirms what I said.

      When you say, “Hey, I always had their mothers’ permission!” and they ask “anyone,” and they say, oh sure, he was famous for dating teens, we DO know the validity of the accusations with enough certainty that we also know that this gut is a creep and a weirdo who is not worthy of a Senate seat.

      • In the cases of both O’Reilly and Weibstein, there were actual settlements. The existence of settlements show that such persons were accused in a timely manner (as well as bring circumstantial evidence supporting the accusation).

        In Moore’s case, the statute of limitations expired. That means that the accusations are as undecidable as the halting problem.

  7. charlesgreen

    A thought: it seems to me the one thing missing here is the “times have changed” argument as applied not to the crime, but as to the judgment.

    It’s not just that THINGS used to acceptable; it’s also that things used to be ACCEPTABLE.

    This is true whether it’s Eddie Murphy making faggot jokes, or Roy Moore ‘dating’ young girls, or Apu depictions on the Simpsons, or Confederate status. Standards change.

    The question this raises is – what is the role of logical consistency in the face of social change? Is it fair to judge past behavior by current standards?

    Note that some cases in the current news do NOT involve changed standards: we still don’t think well of Cosby drugging women, nor of Anthony Weiner sexting his junk. The Moore case is confounding because some of the charges (actual assault) are still viewed badly, while others (hitting up teens in the mall) are probably viewed more harshly now than they were then. The worlds of comedy and politics in particular offer a lot of examples of both types of offenses.

    The defense of “everybody did it back then” is itself not a convincing argument against charges that something is (currently) unacceptable (slavery is an obvious, if extreme, case).

    On the other hand, the charge that something is “unacceptable” isn’t fully convincing if in fact it USED TO BE acceptable (think left-wing schools banning Huckleberry Finn, or theater groups banning The Mikado, or your instant case of Garofolo).

    This is not an easy path to navigate. Social change is messy, all revolutions devour their own, and all pendulums swing “too far” before settling down. In some cases (statues), there’s a relatively easy solution – put them in museums. In other cases – George H.W. Bush vs. Anthony Weiner – it’s easy to sort out what IS vs. USED TO BE acceptable.

    But in lots of cases (Moore, Clinton, Apu), we’re confronted with a bit of both.

    I don’t have any clean answers, other than to try to help clarify the argument. Let’s not confuse matters by lumping together then-and-now violations of the social contract (Weiner, Cosby) with post-hoc critiques of once-acceptable behavior (Apu, Bush).

    • charlesgreen

      Correction: my next-to-last paragraph should not have included Apu. Rewritten, it should say “But in lots of cases (Moore, Clinton), we’re confronted with a bit of both.”

    • “The defense of “everybody did it back then” is itself not a convincing argument against charges that something is (currently) unacceptable (slavery is an obvious, if extreme, case).”

      “Everybody did it back then” is definitively NOT the argument being made.

      The argument is purely, the way values were weighed back then allowed people to come to the conclusion that 30 year olds dating mid to late teens is not unethical. Those most did not engage in the practice, most did not condemn the practice. That’s the argument.

  8. valkygrrl

    Standards haven’t changed that much, when older men sniffed around her daughters in the 70’s, my grandmother ran them off and it’s much agreed that they were creeps.

    In other cases – George H.W. Bush vs. Anthony Weiner – it’s easy to sort out what IS vs. USED TO BE acceptable.

    No, dirty old men, which to my eternal disappointment, it turns out George H Bush is, playing grab-ass were not acceptable, merely more tolerated. Handsy uncles and dirty grandpas have been the subject of uncomfortable laughs and hurriedly whispered warnings for a long time.

    • charlesgreen

      I agree.

      Just noting that we’ve moved from “the subject of uncomfortable laughs and hurriedly whispered warnings” to front page news. A great example of social change; mere ‘whispering’ is now being relegated to the dustbin of history. Or to use your terms, we’ve moved from privately “more tolerated” to publicly “not acceptable.” It’s a non-trivial step along the road of social evolution. Or so it seems to me.

    • Steve-O-in-NJ

      I dunno about tolerated, more like handled with a shrug and a “what can you do?” My dad’s greatest blind spot is that he believes you have to tolerate misbehaving relatives for the sake of family harmony, including the drunk aunt, the punster cousin whose puns amuse only him, the jerk uncle, and the handsy grandfather. So tell me, what do you do, ethically, in the following situations:

      1. Your aunt has had more than one two many and is loudly talking nonsense. No one likes it, but no one dares to say a word.

      2. Your cousin, a well-known joker, is on his twelfth or thirteenth bad joke, a good half of which you’ve already heard, and none of which are more than mildly funny.

      3. Your uncle, who responded to your offer of a handshake by putting pocket fluff on your wrist, is pushing people’s buttons, deliberately trying to see who he can get a rise out of.

      4. Your grandfather, who might also have had a drink too many, has pinched your college-age cousin on the behind and is now trying to chat up your 16yo niece, remarking on what a “beautiful figure” she is developing.

  9. luckyesteeyoreman

    Second try…

    I was attracted to a teen once while in my early 30s, while separated from my wife. The girl was certainly in her teens; she might have been underage. She might have been an emancipated minor. She was unusual: uncommonly poised, gracious, well-spoken, and smart. (And pretty.) I could not reconcile in my mind her elegance and refinement, despite the roughness of the neighborhood where she boarded the commuter bus and then exited to school (before my bus stop). I speculated that she might have been a genuine exiled African princess – foreign royalty, hiding out in the States.

    We were oddballs among passengers on that bus route, because of what we most obviously had in common: we both wore uniforms (hers, for school; mine, military).

    I never touched her, unless you want to count the rubbing of the sides of our thighs and shoulders as we sat together. We talked a lot on those bus rides, over a couple of months. I am sure we talked more than over 90% of couples do before going on a first date. We had several instances of looking directly and purposefully into each other’s eyes for more than a split second. I am sure that my thoughts during at least one of those gazes were, “Fool that I am, I should be fool enough to ask you out RIGHT NOW.” Her gaze seemed to say to me more than once, “If you asked me out, I would say yes.” We had the same sense of humor, same way of speaking sarcastically, same favorite entertainers. And yet, I never learned her age or other personal facts. (She never learned my age or that I was married, either.) I didn’t pry – I expected we would share more details during our first off-the-bus socializing, if that ever happened.

    Nothing happened. I never seized a moment to ask her out – which at most would have been a brief and simple encounter, like a soft drink at McDonald’s, with each of us having our own means of making our round trip – or even, a visit to her residence while-on-the-way-somewhere-else-alone, to meet her parents, followed by a chat with everybody there. A slow walk through one of the Smithsonians might have been a decent, enjoyable next time…

    Then suddenly one day, for whatever reason, we weren’t on the same bus anymore. She disappeared. Talk about a clean break! It wasn’t the end of my world, although my enjoyment of that bus ride ceased. I moved on, even reconciled with the wife. But I have never stopped wondering what became of that girl, and will never forget her or my attraction to her. Remembering helps me to stay away from troublemakers (and making trouble) today.

    Clearly, from the ethics perspective, in almost every case, what I am calling “Semi-Intergenerational Dating” (SID), where the younger person is a minor or teen subject to the parenting or guardianship of an older adult, and the older person is “upwards of” a generation older, requires (and must be expected to require) more than just mutual consent of the two mutually interested persons. But, I do not view SID as a taboo, unlike what I believe I have seen in most comments here. Like any relationship or potential relationship, there are or can be risks, to both the elder and the younger. I do view SID as requiring a strong “Achtung!” (especially by the “parental units”) – but not automatically characterized by “ick,” nor cause for immediate suspicion that the elder is a criminal sexual deviant or other kind of psychopath or sociopath.

    Related to current events: I can’t speak for Roy Moore specifically. But as a man, I believe I can speak well in general for men in their 20s, or 30s, honorable men, who discover an interest in dating a teen: Maybe a guy just expects to feel less awkward with a younger female than he’d feel with a woman his own age, for whatever reason, unrelated to “dark motives.” Another guy might be…a virgin, hopeful for raising his odds of marrying a virgin, with a suspicion or conviction that odds are unacceptably higher that an older woman would not be a virgin. In my case: marriage on the rocks, pessimistic about reconciliation, lonely…stunned but grateful about the improbability, the LUCK of meeting ANOTHER someone so irresistibly attractive, so simpatico, yet SO YOUNG.

    Note: I have tried here to distinguish between SID and the (I believe) more problematic, plain old “ID.” I commented briefly in another recent EA thread about the gateway to unethical conduct (and to a disastrous relationship) that “daddy issues” present. To put it another way: Any man, who is more than old enough to be the father of a teenager in whom he is interested in dating, had better be continuously and extremely vigilant; “brutally” introspective; uncompromisingly and fastidiously accountable to many other adults who know him well (not just “the parents”), and just plain cautious – in addition to being extremely Golden Rule-dedicated and –reputed – when considering attempting any dating relationship with such a younger person.

    I can’t finish this essay without teasing Jack: If anything ever does happen between me and Sydney…Jack, it’ll be ALL YOUR FAULT! (and we’ll both owe you our gratitude)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.