T1B

Over the last 48 hours, the Republican Party has come to grips with a stark reality: Roy Moore may well win the Alabama special election next Tuesday.

That realization has triggered a series of events. President Donald Trump, always interested in associating himself with winning, endorsed Moore on Monday in a tweet and a phone call -- telling the embattled Senate nominee to "go get 'em!" And the very same senators who called on Moore to step aside and condemned him for allegedly pursuing sexual relationships with teenage girls when he was in his 30s started to find ways to walk those comments back.

"I think we're going to let the people of Alabama decide a week from Tuesday who they want to send to the Senate, and then we'll address the matter appropriately," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said Sunday.

Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch took that rationalization even further on Monday while traveling with Trump in Utah.

Of Trump's endorsement of Moore, Hatch said: "I don't think he had any choice but to do that. You know he needs every Republican he can get so he can put his agenda through. So that's the only Republican you can possibly get down there."

Added Hatch of the accusations against Moore: "Many of the things he allegedly did are decades ago. So it's hard to -- that's a decision that has to be made by the people in that state."

And, of course, the Republican National Committee announced Monday night that it will re-engage financially in the Alabama race just weeks after pulling its money out of the state.

So. This is where we are. In the space of a few weeks, establishment Republicans have gone from saying they believed the allegations made against Moore and insisting he couldn't and shouldn't represent the GOP to leaving it to the people of Alabama to decide and attacking the accusations as decades old.

Why? Simple. Because the race is in a week. Moore has denied all of the allegations and never wavered in his pledge to remain in the race. And, perhaps most importantly, polling suggests Moore's numbers have bounced back after an initial dip following the accusations. In short: He looks like a winner now, so Republicans are finding ways to justify his behavior.

That logic is transparently obvious in Hatch's comments about Moore and the race. "You know [Trump] needs every Republican he can get so he can put his agenda through," is Hatch essentially acknowledging that winning matters more than anything else. Period. Full stop. That any Republican, even one faced with allegations of sexually inappropriate conduct, is better than any Democrat.

That logical leap also puts to lie the idea forwarded by Colorado Republican Sen. Cory Gardner (R) that if Moore wins, Senate Republicans should and would move to expel him from the chamber.

Color me skeptical. The last senator expelled was in 1862 for supporting the Confederacy. And, given the walking back of their Moore criticisms of late, can you imagine Republican senators pushing to overturn the results of a popular election victory? If, as McConnell said, Senate Republicans are content with letting the people of Alabama decide who their senator should be, then the Senate can't very well overturn that verdict now can they?

There are real risks in Republicans' newly adopted "winning isn't everything, it's the only thing" strategy in Alabama, however.

"Roy Moore in the US Senate would be a stain on the GOP and on the nation," tweeted 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney on Monday night. "Leigh Corfman and other victims are courageous heroes. No vote, no majority is worth losing our honor, our integrity."

That sentiment was echoed Tuesday morning by Matthew Dowd, who handled polling for George W. Bush's presidential campaign. "After going all in for Roy Moore, the President, the White House, the GOP, and any of their enablers has zero moral authority to talk about Weinstein, Franken, Conyers, etc.," tweeted Dowd. "Deplorable."

The issue Romney and Dowd raise is this: If the core principle of a political party is winning as a means to hold power then that party runs the very real risk of not standing for anything. Winning and power are means to an end. That end is accomplishing the policy goals that a party stands for. Winning isn't a goal to be achieved via governance.

What Republicans are doing here with their Moore justifications is seeking short-term gain at the very real risk of long-term pain. Keeping a two-seat Senate majority may seem like the most important thing in the world to Senate Republicans today. But, if the cost is sacrificing any sort of moral high ground when it comes to acceptable behavior in politics (and life), the prospect of holding a single Senate seat seems like a very poor tradeoff.

Moving Sale wrote:They have no shame.

Left Seater wrote:How many called for Clinton to resign when multiple women came forward?

Just sayin...

Mikey wrote:

Left Seater wrote:How many called for Clinton to resign when multiple women came forward?

Just sayin...

You have learned well at the feet of your orange harasser-in-chief master

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la ... story.html

Left Seater wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:They have no shame.

Nor do Dems and water is wet.

Left Seater wrote:

Mikey wrote:

Left Seater wrote:How many called for Clinton to resign when multiple women came forward?

Just sayin...

You have learned well at the feet of your orange harasser-in-chief master

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la ... story.html

Meanwhile rather than deal with the question and the double standard of the answer just twist it back onto Trump.

Left Seater wrote:You libs are delusional thinking you have the corner on upstanding politicians.

So unaware.

Left Seater wrote:You libs are delusional thinking you have the corner on upstanding politicians.

So unaware.

Diego in Seattle wrote:

Left Seater wrote:You libs are delusional thinking you have the corner on upstanding politicians.

So unaware.

Dems don't think they have the corner on upstanding politicians, Repugnantcans do. The left is simply pointing out the right's hypocrisy.

smackaholic wrote:


What I would like to see is an investigation into these 40 year old allegations, as best as they can be done.

Moving Sale wrote:. Repubs are suck Moore Orange dick. Go fuck yourself you fucking hack. you fucking piece of shit. Go fuck yourself you fucking drive by asswipe.

Diego in Seattle wrote:

Left Seater wrote:You libs are delusional thinking you have the corner on upstanding politicians.

So unaware.

Dems don't think they have the corner on upstanding politicians, Repugnantcans do. The left is simply pointing out the right's hypocrisy.

Derron wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:. Repubs are suck Moore Orange dick. Go fuck yourself you fucking hack. you fucking piece of shit. Go fuck yourself you fucking drive by asswipe.

Outstanding...on only one page of this thread you get off that many "go fuck yourself " blasts. "

We are going to call you Moving Parrot from now on, since all you can do is squawk " Go fuck yourself" incessantly. This can be your new avatar, but this parrot is a hell of a lot better looking that you I am sure, since you probably resemble a shaved dogs ass walking backwards.

Moving Parrot wrote:

Derron wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:. Repubs are suck Moore Orange dick. Go fuck yourself you fucking hack. you fucking piece of shit. Go fuck yourself you fucking drive by asswipe.

Outstanding...on only one page of this thread you get off that many "go fuck yourself " blasts. "

We are going to call you Moving Parrot from now on, since all you can do is squawk " Go fuck yourself" incessantly. This can be your new avatar, but this parrot is a hell of a lot better looking that you I am sure, since you probably resemble a shaved dogs ass walking backwards.

Nice white flag you stupid fuck.

Sudden Sam wrote:Plus the fact is that he'll embarrass Alabamians on a daily basis.

Papa Willie wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:

Sudden Sam wrote:Plus the fact is that he'll embarrass Alabamians on a daily basis.

Sounds like a tall order.

You can bet your life that there have been far more transplants from Wisconsin to end up in Alabama than the reversal. Let that sink in...

Screw_Michigan wrote:Rack Sam for his reasoned and sensible take.

Fuck the rest of you, you know who you are.

schmick wrote:Moore isn't even accused of pedophilia, perhaps the high end of hebephilia but certainly not accused of being a pedophile.

Diego in Seattle wrote:

schmick wrote:Moore isn't even accused of pedophilia, perhaps the high end of hebephilia but certainly not accused of being a pedophile.

Age of consent is 16 in Alabama, imbecile.

schmick wrote:Moore isn't even accused of pedophilia, perhaps the high end of hebephilia but certainly not accused of being a pedophile.

Left Seater wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:

schmick wrote:Moore isn't even accused of pedophilia, perhaps the high end of hebephilia but certainly not accused of being a pedophile.

Age of consent is 16 in Alabama, imbecile.

Anyone surprised Diego knows that?

Diego in Seattle wrote:

schmick wrote:Moore isn't even accused of pedophilia, perhaps the high end of hebephilia but certainly not accused of being a pedophile.

Age of consent is 16 in Alabama, imbecile.

smackaholic wrote:
Age of consent has nothing to do with whether or not something is pedophilia, imbecile.

Puberty is the measuring stick for pedophilia, not age of consent.

schmick wrote:Moore is accused of going after 15 year old girls. Hebophile is an attraction to early pubescent children, 10-13 years old. Pedophile is prepubescent children so 5-9 year olds.