Stuff and nonsense: Clarity on Judge Roy Moore

As has often been the case, our friends at Powerline have again separated the wheat from the chaff in the fantastical Judge Moore tale created last week by the same publication that destroyed George Allen's presidential dreams many years ago.

John Hinderaker wrote here that "the [writer's] allegation that Moore tried to seduce a 14-year-old girl 38 years ago is more likely false than true, particularly given the gaping hole in the accuser's story that has been attested to by her own mother."

Hinderaker makes a strong legal case that reaching back 38 years is, indeed, a bridge too far to:

... be grounds for defeating a political candidate.  There is a reason why our criminal laws include statutes of limitation. After decades have gone by, it is often impossible to prove (or disprove) an allegation. The accuser in the present case remained silent for 38 years, during most of which time Moore was a prominent figure in Alabama politics. Now, a few weeks before a U.S. Senate election, at the importuning of a team of reporters from the Washington Post who are obviously determined to bring down the candidate, she sees fit to accuse Moore.

Hinderaker also reminds us that character assassination is a one-way street for Democrats and their media arms:

The accusation, if it were true, would be relevant as an indictment of Moore's character. Of course, low character has never been much of a bar to political office. Consider, to name just a few examples from modern history, John Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, Chris Dodd, Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton.

The essential element of the piece is that the Senate seat is far too important for the voters in Alabama, Republicans, the Trump Agenda, and the nation to let it go to the Democrats on the basis of a pieced together, agenda-driven, imaginative narrative:

For the Democrats to steal that seat now, by recruiting a troubled woman to tell a 38-year-old story that is probably false, would be outrageous.   I am not a fan of Judge Moore. I would not have voted for him in the primary election. But control of the Senate is important. It is far better that Moore represent Alabama for the unexpired three years of Sessions' term than that the seat go to a Democrat on the basis of a smear.

Powerline writer Paul Mirengoff has also forcefully explored that smear here and here.  In both pieces, he makes the case that inconsistencies in the tales told to the reporter and the lack of comparable indecencies on Moore's part as told by the other interviewees militate against belief in the publication's smear.

I'm strongly inclined to agree with the Powerline guys because, as others have written and readers of AT have probably seen, over Moore's long career, many opponents have dug for dirt and found none to throw.

That so many Republicans have abandoned or come out against Moore is reckless, shameful, and destructive.  That the liberal MSM have done the same was predictable.  An ABC host badgered Kellyanne Conway repeatedly about whether Conway was calling the ladies in the tale liars, and I waited fruitlessly for Conway to ask, as every sane Republican should ask of antagonists asking such questions: Do you believe that Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey are liars?

Of course, Lewis Carroll would understand the situation perfectly, for he had his marvelous character, Alice, say, "Stuff and nonsense!" to the Queen's "Sentence first – verdict afterwards."

Stuff and nonsense, indeed!

Given that it is unlikely that further information will be forthcoming, every serious Republican, decent Democrat, other observer, and honest media personality should put paid to this folly and soldier on irrespective of the clamor.

The author is retired, his profile may be found on LinkedIn, and he usually responds to emails sent to bilschan@hotmail.com.

As has often been the case, our friends at Powerline have again separated the wheat from the chaff in the fantastical Judge Moore tale created last week by the same publication that destroyed George Allen's presidential dreams many years ago.

John Hinderaker wrote here that "the [writer's] allegation that Moore tried to seduce a 14-year-old girl 38 years ago is more likely false than true, particularly given the gaping hole in the accuser's story that has been attested to by her own mother."

Hinderaker makes a strong legal case that reaching back 38 years is, indeed, a bridge too far to:

... be grounds for defeating a political candidate.  There is a reason why our criminal laws include statutes of limitation. After decades have gone by, it is often impossible to prove (or disprove) an allegation. The accuser in the present case remained silent for 38 years, during most of which time Moore was a prominent figure in Alabama politics. Now, a few weeks before a U.S. Senate election, at the importuning of a team of reporters from the Washington Post who are obviously determined to bring down the candidate, she sees fit to accuse Moore.

Hinderaker also reminds us that character assassination is a one-way street for Democrats and their media arms:

The accusation, if it were true, would be relevant as an indictment of Moore's character. Of course, low character has never been much of a bar to political office. Consider, to name just a few examples from modern history, John Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, Chris Dodd, Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton.

The essential element of the piece is that the Senate seat is far too important for the voters in Alabama, Republicans, the Trump Agenda, and the nation to let it go to the Democrats on the basis of a pieced together, agenda-driven, imaginative narrative:

For the Democrats to steal that seat now, by recruiting a troubled woman to tell a 38-year-old story that is probably false, would be outrageous.   I am not a fan of Judge Moore. I would not have voted for him in the primary election. But control of the Senate is important. It is far better that Moore represent Alabama for the unexpired three years of Sessions' term than that the seat go to a Democrat on the basis of a smear.

Powerline writer Paul Mirengoff has also forcefully explored that smear here and here.  In both pieces, he makes the case that inconsistencies in the tales told to the reporter and the lack of comparable indecencies on Moore's part as told by the other interviewees militate against belief in the publication's smear.

I'm strongly inclined to agree with the Powerline guys because, as others have written and readers of AT have probably seen, over Moore's long career, many opponents have dug for dirt and found none to throw.

That so many Republicans have abandoned or come out against Moore is reckless, shameful, and destructive.  That the liberal MSM have done the same was predictable.  An ABC host badgered Kellyanne Conway repeatedly about whether Conway was calling the ladies in the tale liars, and I waited fruitlessly for Conway to ask, as every sane Republican should ask of antagonists asking such questions: Do you believe that Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey are liars?

Of course, Lewis Carroll would understand the situation perfectly, for he had his marvelous character, Alice, say, "Stuff and nonsense!" to the Queen's "Sentence first – verdict afterwards."

Stuff and nonsense, indeed!

Given that it is unlikely that further information will be forthcoming, every serious Republican, decent Democrat, other observer, and honest media personality should put paid to this folly and soldier on irrespective of the clamor.

The author is retired, his profile may be found on LinkedIn, and he usually responds to emails sent to bilschan@hotmail.com.