Art of Conservatism---December 10, 2017

Lessons from the Roy Moore Saga

Nothing has brought into sharper focus the political divide in this country as has the race for the Senate seat inAlabama between Roy Moore and Doug Jones. I have a few insights on this.

First, the election of December 12 is only in part a referendum on Donald Trump. Yes, Trump lent his support to Moore, but the support came late, and it should not have. Still, the support is there, and I hope it helps, because if draining the swamp which is Politics and Usual in Washington, DC, Moore needs to win because his is like Trump---a maverick---and that's just the kind of person needed to help Trump battle drain that swamp.

Let's look at the charges for a moment. Roy Moore is accused of having sex with a minor some 40 years ago. Why did .this story wait until now to bring that up? As controversial as were Roy's actions as an Alabama Supreme Court Judge, and as a jurist elsewhere, any reasonable person would think that these accusations would have come out back then. But then again, Opposition Research has only become the norm in the last few years, or at least it has become well-known to We The People. Still, it's that timing thing. If brings up two things in my mind, one a question and one a quote. The quote is from President John F. Kennedy, who once opined, “Where there is smoke, there's a smoke-making machine.” Indeed, there has been a lot of smoke brought into the Alabama Senate Election fray here---eight women (and still counting) who've come forth to 'tell their stories'. All of them tell of Moore doing whatever with them.

But remember something: All these incidents occurred more than 35 years ago. Apparently, nothing since. Whether it is, that Moore finally married, or whatever, his act, if there was indeed an 'act' at all, it has since been cleaned up. He has since walked the straight and narrow. Why should anyone judge any person's behavior from decades ago when he or she has been a model citizen since? Fast answer: Greed for Power.

Being that all these allegations have gone unreported until now, there must be some incentive being given to those who are now accusing Roy Moore of all these various and, frankly, unprovable-by -physical-evidence charges. Remember, physical evidence always beats word of mouth. The latter is often an aid to validating the former, but in cases where there is only word of mouth, things get a lot more dicey. So, I'll ask the question again, “Who is paying all of these women to come forth now?” In my book, anyone who is paid to come forth with accusations decades after the alleged deed(s) is an unreliable witness. Think also, dirty tricks.

Furthermore, and this is a telling argument, the Left is more than happy to apply behaviour standards which of today (again, think politically correct) against the accepted mores of decades ago. Think of the Paula Deen scandal, which cost her millions in her business dealings. What she was accused of and condemned for a couple of years ago, were for instances of behavior which were fairly normal and non-condemned at that time, decades ago, even though Deen has not exhibited that sort of behavior in recent memory. The shunning heaped upon Paula Deen should be scorned and condemned by all of us who believe in real justice.

(As an aside, when Paula's Restaurants were closed at the local gambling casino a few years back, my wife and I made it a point to go there for dinner, as a sign of support for her as well as a punch at political correctness. My review? I've never paid so much for a meal which was so bad for my diet, which tasted so very good!)

The same situation is just as true of Roy Moore. I heard this perspective from a lady calling in to one of the national talk shows recently: Roy is a man who served his country as soldier in Viet Nam, who came home at around age 30, only to find that all the eligible good ladies had been snapped up, married off, to guys who, for the most part, had not been in military service. So this veteran, Mr. Moore, was moved by circumstances to cast his net further afield. Add that the mores of that time and place were more lenient to a lowerage of consent to younger teenage girls. Add further, that girls younger than 16 were not above lying about their ages and, depending on how rebellious they might be, for 'hooking up' with an older man just to spite their parents. Could all of this have come into play with the ladies that Moore dated back then? I'd be surprised if they didn't. Would you?

I know of a couple, decades-long business associates of mine, sadly both now deceased, who were married when she was 14. She told her then-boyfriend that she was 18—lied about her age! Understand that her parents did consent to the marriage, and the husband didn't find out the truth about her age until she was 21, by which time she had made him a father of three wonderful daughters! And wouldn't you know, the two of them stayed married for about 40 years, until death indeed did them part. Sadly, she died first. The point is, these things happen, and they're not all bad. Moore, of course, eventually married, and the two of them are a solid couple. That's all which should count here.

The bottom line here is that, if you are a person of principle, especially if you are a Constitutional Conservative, who has aquired wisdom through experience borne of folly, be prepared if you wish to serve your country through elective office. Be prepared to be smeared, lied about, and if you did sow some wild oats, to have all of those experiences dredged up and thrown at you and at We the People. Never forget that the goal of these monsters is to shame you, marginalize you, destroy you and those you love, and, if possible, to send you to prison.

But the more important lesson is for you who vote. If the smearing of any candidate is for things allegedly done back in a candidates youth, and if nothing can be found to besmirch that candidate across the last, maybe, twenty yeards, and you can judge this, then consider that that candidate's opposition is the one to vote against, consider the source, and vote for the candidate being smeared. Most likely, that candidate is the conservative one.And it should say more about the smearer, than of the smearee.