Words of Advice:

"Never Feel Sorry For Anyone Who Owns an Airplane."-- Tina Marie

If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne

Flying the Airplane is More Important than Radioing Your Plight to a Person on the Ground
Who is Incapable of Understanding or Doing Anything About It.
" -- Unknown

"There seems to be almost no problem that Congress cannot, by diligent efforts and careful legislative drafting, make ten times worse." -- Me

"What the hell is an `Aluminum Falcon'?" -- Emperor Palpatine

"Eck!" -- George the Cat

Wednesday, December 13, 2017

48% of Alabamians were Fine With Having an Accused Child-Molester as Their Senator

But 50% were not.

In one of the reddest states in the nation, Steve Bannon managed to find a candidate so repugnant that Alabama's junior senator will now be a Democrat.

Bannon is starting to shape up like the latest iteration of the Tea Party. The GOP would have had a solid lock on the Senate a long time ago if not for Republican candidates supported by the Tea Party fringe.

The GOP itself lost a senate seat, but they dodged a bullet. Democrats would have hung Roy Moore around the necks of every Republican running in `18 to force them to justify being a candidate from the Party of Moore.


B said...

More likely 48% of the voters didn't believe the lies and innuendo and saw it for what it was. Collusion with the DNC to smear a candidate.

I despise such tactics, no matter who uses them. This was a race where the outcome was in doubt from the start. The smear campaign worked.

Is Moore guilty? I dunno. But the timing of the accusations, (and the veracity of the accusers, and the fact that the media had to go looking...with cash....to find 'em) makes me believe that he was. But, again, I dunno. And sometimes, no matter who is flinging the poo, it sticks to everyone that comes in contact with it.

Hey, Alabama chose it's Senator. Smart or dumb, they get the government they deserve.

CenterPuke88 said...

I suspect the recent Gerrymandering by R’s is about to come home to roost. With many House Districts built 55-56% R, small nudges by the Far Right make them acheviable by the Democrats. Nominating the crazy’s and unpalatables wild work in the average 85-90% D districts they built, but in those districts with just enough R’s to control it, the defectors, disinterested and disgusted will toss the races to the D’s.

dinthebeast said...

What I liked about last night's election was that even though they have passed voter restrictions that kept over 100,000 eligible voters from casting ballots, we still won.

Moore hasn't conceded yet, which should tell you something about whether he's believable on other subjects, but the turnout numbers were far more sane than expected, and black women saved the day yet again.

I would have liked it more if the election was actually fair. Having to win by ten points to get a tie, as happened in Virginia, is getting old.

-Doug in Oakland

Philo Vaihinger said...

Well, no.

But 48% thought the Democrat who wanted the job is worse than a child molester.

Comrade Misfit said...

Gee. Last time I checked, the Right is just find with slinging all sorts of innuendo against Hillary Clinton.

But pointing out that a Republican engaged in pervy conduct is somehow not proper? And ignoring that the entire climate towards accusations of sexual harassment has changed, to boot?

bmq215 said...

Yeah, B, the timing is suspicious all right.

I mean why, in a time when women everywhere are finding the courage to break their silence about past harassment and rapes by powerful men, would women suddenly choose to come forward and accuse this powerful man?

And since when do international news organizations go digging for unreported stories? It just beggars belief that a reporter would think "y'know, people are finally coming forward about all this unreported harassment. Maybe I should look into other prominent figures and see if there's a story there".

Nine women (of all political stripes with long voting records to prove it) have accused him of direct harassment. A number of others, including a retired PO, have stated that this was general knowledge. So he's either a pervy politician or this is a massive conspiracy involving a large number of parties, all with some very tight lips. Occam's Razor would seem to apply...

CenterPuke88 said...

bmq215, the R’s suspended Occum’s Razor so as the be able to twist Vince Foster back on Hilary and have never allowed its use since. (See Jones, Alex and Infowars)

Nangleator said...

Conservative conspiracists use Occam's Rogaine.

B said...


If you truly believe that this was a circumstance in timing, and the Post just reported what they found without looking (and paying) for the accusers, and that all this just "coincidentally" happened just before a closely contested election, they you are either stretching your credulousness or are truly foolish (or so biased as to have lost your ability to see truth from fiction).

Hint: I don't think you are that foolish.

This was collusion by the press to turn an election. It worked. To believe anything else is to deny reality.

(and, BTW, it was 48.4% to 49.9%)

dinthebeast said...

B: Who cares WHY the girls he molested decided to talk about it. HE MOLESTED THEM.
If you had been molested by a powerful creep twice your age and didn't feel that telling on them would do any good, and they started running for the senate, wouldn't you feel kinda responsible for biting the bullet and telling on them? Even in the face of all the shit you knew you would take for doing so, in a place so hyperpartisan that your personal safety would almost certainly be at risk?
Maybe not, but some people actually care about shit like that, and by the look of things, there are more of them every day.

-Doug in Oakland

bmq215 said...

B, my third paragraph was intended to be sarcastic. I fully believe that the Post went looking. Just as I believe that they (and if not them, Fox. And if not Fox, Breitbart) went looking for stories involving other candidates, Doug Jones included. The point of the media is to dig and uncover the dirt that others would rather stay hidden. If they're not looking, they're not doing their job.

Is there an ideological bent to some news organizations? Hell yes. But market forces ensure that organizations with an opposite bent exist as well (assuming there's a readership for it). You're naive if you think that the conservative media didn't search long and hard for comparable dirt on Doug Jones. This is how the media keeps politicians honest.

Had Trump's pick, Luther Strange, run he would have won. This is Alabama. A 49 - 48% Democrat win is a landslide.

CenterPuke88 said...

Let’s see...Mr. Moore runs for a National Office, so the National Press is interested in him...previous runs have been Local or State...women nationwide have begun coming forward with reports of unwanted advances...a reporter asking about Mr. Jones is told, “hey, he’s got a fondness for young teens”...reporter investigates.

That’s collusion? B., you act as if only the D’s can have this problem, and that the R’s would removed anyone with any whiff of a problem before they reached a significant office. You are wrong on that, the list is long and ever expanding...on both sides of the aisle. You also act as if the “Press” was either sheparding this story for release at the perfect time (false, that would have been one week before the election, see the Comey/Clinton playbook) or was remiss in nit finding this earlier (false, local and state level press often ignores this kind of story because they live in the community/state and know they allegation won’t do much but will make their life more difficult).

Dark Avenger said...

He’s also alleges that the women were paid by the WaPo to tell their story which is demonstratedly false.

Comrade Misfit said...

Let's see if I have this correct:

Reporters don't uncover bad things alleged by Right-wing conspiracy theorists to have been done by Democrats: "The Press isn't doing its job!!!"

Reporters uncover bad things done by Republicans: "It's not the job of the Press to investigate politicians!!"

Is that accurate?

B said...

Nope, it IS the job of the press to uncover bad things about politicians.

They )generally) did so with Conservatives, 'cause they were looking and willing to publish when they found something.

Not so with Liberal types. Ignored or looked the other way as long as possible.

Doesn't change the timing on Moore or the fact that they only published when it looked like Moore was gonna win. And, of course the National folks ran with it....and they ALL SAID THE SAME THING in the SAME WAY....

If you can't see the fact that the press was doing all they could, even to PAYING for stories, to trash Moore (who, as I have said, may or may not be guilty, all we got so far is innuendo, no a shred of proof) then you are deliberately choosing to not see.

Again, for good or bad, the voters made their choice.