The Power Of Positive Lying

Start your week with a good laugh. Politico reports that on Monday morning

“Remember, Republicans are 5-0 in Congressional Races this year. The media refuses to mention this,” the president wrote on Twitter. “I said Gillespie and Moore would lose (for very different reasons), and they did. I also predicted ‘I’ would win. Republicans will do well in 2018, very well!”

Democrat Jimmy Gomez won the election to fill a vacant House seat in California's 34th District.  The President's assertion otherwise may have been simply a mistake by a deeply ignorant man. However,

Despite Trump’s claims that he predicted the respective losses of Republican gubernatorial candidate Ed Gillespie in Virginia and senatorial candidate Roy Moore in Alabama, the president was outward in his support for both candidates. Trump endorsed both and implored voters to support them via Twitter. In Moore’s case, Trump recorded a robocall on behalf of the GOP candidate and stumped for him at a rally in Pensacola, Florida, just across the Alabama state line.

In Gillespie's case, Trump did not express doubt about the Virginia Republican's candidacy until after his Election Day defeat.

Trump didn't predict that either would be defeated. Had he done so, it would have been a tactical error, especially for a guy who believes in the "power of positive thinking" scam.





Trump didn't predict that either would be defeated. Had he done so, it would have been a tactical error, especially for a guy who believes in the "power of positive thinking" scam.

Trump actually may have precipitated a Moore defeat.  Exit polls showed an even split between voters who approved of the President's performance and of those who did not, while far opted for "strongly disapprove" than "strongly approve."

Moreover, Moore was headed for victory before Trump gave his full-throated endorsement of the disgraced former state supreme court justice on December 4.  Later that day, Chris Cillizza wrote for CNN

In Moore, Trump sees a kindred soul. And now, with Moore bouncing back in polls and seemingly with the momentum in his race against Democrat Doug Jones, Trump wants to be in on the Alabama race so he can claim credit if Moore wins.

Donald Trump may have privately predicted Roy Moore would lose, but if so only because he figured his endorsement would tank the Alabama Republican.  Alternatively, he's a flat-out lying weasel.

Franken Must Go- If....

It was six days- nearly a week- ago that Bruce Bartlett, having had enough, tweeted

The issue is not whether charges against Franken are true; I assume they are & charges against Trump are also true. But I don't hear progressives demanding that Trump resign, only that Franken resign. It's the double standard that the left enforces on itself that drives me crazy.

On Sunday, December 10, Kirsten Gillibrand became the fifth US senator (all Democrats) to call on Donald Trump to resign or consider resigning as President because of the allegations that he has harassed and/or assaulted numerous women. She had been preceeded by Vermont senator Sanders, New Jersey senator Booker, and Oregon senators Merkley and Wyden, though Ms. Gillibrand was notably the first woman to have asked Trump to step down.

Still (as they all realize) Donald Trump won't resign, so their pleas will prove of very limited value. That is, unless they take that emphatic advice from Bartlett, who served Presidents Reagan and Bush 41.  On the same day as his other tweet, Bartlett had remarked "Democrats are so stupid. The obvious thing to say about the Al Franken business is that he will resign the day Trump resigns."

This plan is brilliantly simple. There is no concern that President Trump will call their bluff because Trump still would refuse to resign. Althoug at that point, Democrats would need a response, if Alabama voters do the predictable today (Tuesday), they have one begging to be used: Franken will resign once there is an ethics investigation of Senator-elect Roy Moore.

This would box in Senate Majority Leader McConnell, who otherwise is unlikely to initiate an ethics investigation because of the bad publicity it would engender for the GOP.  He could accept the Democrats' challenge, in which case well-publicized, possibly lurid, hearings would do his Party no good.  Alternatively, he could stubbornly refuse an investigation.  Not only could Democrats then use a Senator Moore as a campaign weapon (which they are expected to do anyway,) but McConnell's refusal would throw upon the issue greater attention because it would be coupled with the Franken matter.

Bartlett believes the Democratic Party is "stupid" because it demanded that one of its own, Al Franken, resign with no questions asked. But when members of the Congressional Black Caucus, singed by pressure on John Conyers to resign, alleged a double standard, other Democratic pols took notice. When that was coupled with a recommendation from seven female Senators that Franken resign, the Party had no choice. The base would not be denied.





But Democratic members of the House and the Senate, especially blacks and women, are not fond of President Trump.  There likely would be little pushback from anyone in the Party if the  resignation of one (of 100) Senators was linked to that of the President of the United States. The Party wasn't necessarily stupid by pressuring Al Franken to go back to Minnesota. Nonetheless, if in the wake of calls for President Trump to resign they don't link the two, Bruce Bartlett's characterization would be proven accurate, and clearly so.




Share |

No Bar To Election

Vox's Jen Kirby notes that the most recent polls in the Alabama Senate race are far more favorable to Roy Moore than ones previously taken and postulates

Several factors might be sending voters back to Moore. The flurry of allegations that followed the Washington Post story, including a woman who said Moore groped her when she was 14 and he was 32 — have died down, and no new allegations have emerged since around November 15.

Moore also laid low for a little more than a week; until Monday night, the candidate hadn’t hosted a public event in 11 days.

President Donald Trump also broke his silence on the Moore situation before Thanksgiving, saying Moore “totally denied” the allegations. He has continued to bash the Democrat in the race, firing off on Twitter that Jones “would be a disaster.”

I hope she was chuckling, or at least hesitating, when whe wrote "several factors might be sending voters back to Moore." We cannot assume voters are returning to Moore when they might have been there all along. They merely might not have been keen on ostensibly telling pollsters- when the report about Moore was the hottest topic- "I'm with the perverted child predator."

Whether Moore is- or was- perverted or a child predator is not the determinative factor.  He has been portrayed in several quarters as just that and even though most Moore supporters likely view the source as the "liberal media," they did not want to be seen associating themselves with such a guy while the news was so prominent.

The other alternative to Kirby's unrealistic assumption is that voters have come back to Moore- but not for the reasons she cites. By one count, since the charges against Harvey Weinstein emerged, allegations have appeared against two men in sports, nine in politics, 15 in media, publishing and business, and 25 in entertainment.

Some of these are relatively obscure. But they include two Democratic members of Congress, which help Alabama voters rationalize- to themselves or otherwise- their opposition to the Democratic nominee for US Senator. They include also well-known individuals such as Louis C.K., Kevin Spacey, Mark Halperin, Charlie Rose, and Matt Lauer.

And the 93-year-old George Herbert Walker Bush.  Although what he appears to have done- or still does- appears to have been far less reprehensible than most of the others, he, too, has gotten some publicity for misbehaving.

The accusations are coming fast and furious. If even a dedicated, elderly public servant can be found to have done wrong, an observation- never uttered in polite company- has taken hold among voters. Everyone is doing it.

If it is perceived as common behavior- and the notion that this conduct is prevalent and tolerated in American culture is being widely propagated- Roy Moore's behavior becomes somewhat normalized. It is seen as regrettable and even appalling. But it is not intolerable, not when his views represent those of a large swath of Alabama voters and his political party is the same as theirs.

When a candidate for President of the United States of America, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, and leader of the free world was found boasting about sexual assault, the American people wrung their collective hands and rendered their verdict.

That verdict was: who cares?  It is a judgement the media, pundits, celebrities, and the American people are loathe to acknowledge. And when the voters of a state are inundated with news of one charge after another, one bad boy after another, it should be unsurprising that they are willing to give one of their heroes a pass. After all: isn't everyone doing it?









Share |

Wishful Thinking

Assume a random selection of twenty (20) individuals believing that life begins at conception and thusabortion should be illegal in all or most cases. Then ask yourselves how many would reconsider- not necessarily change, but reconsider- their opinion if they were told, as Gregg Easterbrook wrote in 2001

What exists just after concption is called a zygote. Research now  suggests that only about half of all zygotes implant in the uterine wall and become embryos; the others fail to continue dividing and expire Of those embryos that do trigger pregnancy, only around 65 percent lead to live births, even with the best prenatal care. The rest are lost to natural miscarriage. All told, only about one-third of sperm-egg unions result in babies, even when abortion is not a factor.

How many anti-abortion rights individuals, informed that most of the time most zygotes do not naturally result in a live birth, will at least reconsider their position?

If you said very few, know that author Michael Wear disagrees with you.  Assessing the Senate race in Alabama, he asks

So, what can Jones do to ensure that Moore does not win in December? In a state where evangelical Protestants account for almost half the total population, it’s pretty clear he needs to win over some of his opponent’s evangelical supporters. But how?

Not through, God forbid, suggesting that he might not have supported Hodges v. Obergefell, in which the US Supreme Court mandated that states recognize same-sex marriage. He argues

In 2006, 81 percent of Alabama voters supported a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, and less than 10 years later their vote was overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States. Jones should be able to affirm that decision, while also making clear that he does not think it mandates the government to exert pressure to change the teachings of Alabama’s churches or faithful.

Jones could state that he opposed the decision but that it is the law of the land, and time for the state to move on. That would win him few evangelical voters but would  not compromise policy because such marriages would continue to be performed in Alabama, as elsewhere. Instead, Wear contends that the solidly pro-choice Jones

could at the very least make solid commitments around supporting adoption and pursuing partnership with pro-life groups to find common ground ways to continue our national progress reducing the abortion rate...

None of this would require Jones to compromise his integrity, though national Democrats and some activists might get queasy if, say, he does promise to vote "present" on abortion.

Guest blogger Tom Hilton on No More Mister Nice Guy remarks

What a lovely notion. But of course, Democrats spent decades going down the rabbit hole of trying to find common ground on abortion, and their efforts were never met with good faith on the other side. There's zero evidence that it would buy us anything this time.

It hasn't convinced evangelical voters in the past and would convince few of them in Alabama. The promise would compromise his integrity and, if he were elected and followed through on this harebrained suggestion, it would enhance the Republican Party's efforts to curtail reproductive freedom.

The vast majority of pro-forced birth persons believe life begins at conception and that permitting abortion except in the most dire circumstances (and maybe not even then) is tantamount to "murder."

They believe there cannot be compromise. Were they a little less zealous (video below from 64/15), they would concede that abortion is- at its worst- killing and not murder, the latter being the illegal termination of human life.

But that's how it is with zealotry. And that's why the answer to the question posed in the third paragraph is "zero or close to it," while Michael Wear believes in magic wands, unicorns, and pro-lifers who will find common ground with those they consider their enemy.








Share |

Evangelical Impulse

Roy Moore stands a little better than a 50-50 chance of being elected senator from Alabama, after which he will not be removed. One indication of the former is that Donald Trump, who demands to be seen as a "winner," gave a shout-out to the former  judge Tuesday.

The reason, obviously, that Moore may be elected is white evangelicals.  Not only does the vast majority support the Republican, but a recent poll found that 37% found they are "more likely" to vote for him following recent revelations about sexual predation.

That is astounding, or at least seems counter-intuitive.  However, Nate Silver, straining as ever to be objective and neutral, "would encourage some caution about interpreting this" and tweets "for most voters, 'more likely to support after allegations' means 'I'm a Moore supporter & don't believe the allegations' and not " I approve of the conduct the allegations allege.'"

No one is suggesting evangelicals actually approve of the conduct the allegations allege. It's simply that the allegations are of little interest to them.

Eangelical organizations generally accept the four-pronged definition of "evangelical," focused on the kingship of Jesus Christ, promulgated by David Bebbington in 1989. That's interesting and  informative, but arguably irrelevant in the context of American culture and inarguably irrelevant in the context of American politics.

Most polling to determine the prevalence of evangelicals- or of any other religious group, including atheist and "none of the above"- relies on self-identification. That makes it a little less startling that, as Baylor University history professor Thomas S. Kidd notes

One study of the 2016 GOP primaries showed that these nonchurchgoing evangelicals were more likely to support Donald Trump — around 53 percent of Trump supporting evangelicals marked that they seldom/never went to church. That percentage dropped to around 36 percent for Trump supporting evangelicals who went to church weekly. Of course, a strong majority of self-identified evangelicals went on to support Trump in the general election.

Around 53 percent of Trump supporting evangelicals marked that they seldom/never went to church.  It's hard to square that with "Bebbington's quadriennial:" a high regard for  the Bible, emphasis on the saving effects of the crucifixion, and the belief that people must be converted and faith inform one's daily actions.

Those beliefs are secondary because the political is now religious.  The right to an abortion is a litmus test for many of these self-styled evangelicals. Support it  and they won't trust you on any issue and will doubt your commitment to Christianity; oppose it and they'll follow you anywhere, even if you're an accused child predator.

Whatever the historical roots of "evangelical," Kidd recognizes, it now has

become more of a rough political and ethnic signifier. What today’s “evangelicals” have in common is not so much Biblicism or action for the gospel, but a self-defined sense of religiosity and a dogged commitment to Republican politics. And being white.

Kidd observes "Other than political allegiances, we don't know much about what the term evangelical means any more." That was more than enough to get Donald Trump elected, and probably will be enough to get a disgraced ex-judge with curious sexual mores elected to the U.S. Senate.

Share |

Rewriting The Gospels

When 70-year-old Roy Moore was accused of pursuing sexual relationships with teenage girls when he was in his early '30s- the least of all his offenses against the common good- Charlie Pierce speculated

I may be entirely too cynical but I think, if Moore has the sand for it, he will follow this up with an explanation of how he had sinned, as all fallen humans do, but that Jesus has forgiven him and washed him in the blood of the Lamb, and now it’s time for him to bring his redeemed hindquarters to godless Washington to show the heathen the path to glory that he’s been blessed to follow. That might work.

A good thought, but one that has been superseded by the safer route of blaming Washington, the Democratic Party, and the mythically liberal media: "These allegations are completely false and are a desperate political attack by the National Democrat Party and the Washington Post on this campaign."

Although the story of forgiveness and redemption almost expected by Pierce might have worked, any resort to religious faith carries risk. And so it was that Alabama State Auditor Jim

Zeigler then compared Moore's alleged actions to those of biblical figures.

"Take the Bible. Zachariah and Elizabeth for instance. Zachariah was extremely old to marry Elizabeth and they became the parents of John the Baptist,” Zeigler told The Examiner. "Also take Joseph and Mary. Mary was a teenager and Joseph was an adult carpenter. They became parents of Jesus."

"There’s just nothing immoral or illegal here," Zeigler said. "Maybe just a little bit unusual."

There has been no accusation of illegality and were there to be so, the alleged incidents occurred a few decades  ago. However, Alabama voters might consider the notion that the behavior was not "immoral" but merely "a little bit unusual" too cute by half. However, more significant- especially in the Bible Belt- would be Ziegler's suggestion that Joseph and Mary were both parents- birth parents, as he told it- of baby Jesus.

The birth of Jesus Christ is omitted in the Gospel of Mark and of John. However, as told in the English Standard Version, according to Mattthew

Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.

In the same translation, though in the first chapter, Luke maintains

In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all went to be registered, each to his own town. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth.

Joseph was not Jesus' father. He was the young fellow's stepfather- a unique one, at that- but not his father, unlike Ziegler's clear implication.

That is of not insignificant. If Jesus Christ were born in the conventional way, to a mortal mother and a mortal father, there was no virgin birth and Jesus would not have possessed a divine nature. Had that been the case, he would not have been born without sin and could not have been the perfect, and only, sin-bearer. Hence, like all mere mortals, members of the clergy or otherwise, he would have been in no position to forgive a person's sins.

Christmas is coming and the least an Alabaman, especially an Alabaman Republican, can get right is the virgin birth.  Jesus carried no DNA from Joseph and Joseph was not his father. Go with Moore's own explanation, demagogically blaming some of the forces which snowflake conservatives feel victimized by.









Share |

A Religious Zealot, And He's Not Alone

As of 2004, Talking Points Memo explains, the Alabama state constitution required "'separate schools for white and colored children"' and allowied poll taxes, a classic scheme to disenfranchise poor black people.  Set to pass, an amendment which would have eliminated the language was defeated, due in large part to the effort of Roy Moore, who claimed "this amendment is a wolf in sheep's clothing and the people of Alabama should be aware of it."

Nevertheless, the changes, as TPM concedes, were "purely symbolic," and right-wing political activism is not illegal or unethical per se. However, Chris Hayes described Tuesday another side to Alabama's GOP senatorial nominee and fierce culture warrior.

Hayes noted that Moore in 2003, then Chief Justice of the state's Supreme Court, founded the Foundation for Moral Law and named himself its President Emeritus. But now The Washington Post, Hayes stated, has found "Moore's wife Kayla, who is now president, was paid a total of $195,000 over three years through 2015." Additionally, it pointed out that Moore "once said publicly that he did not take a 'regular salary' from the small charity he founded."

As a believing Christian, he should have stated he did "not take a small, regular salary." That would have been technically accurate while

It turned out that Moore pulled hundreds and thousands of dollars from his 501(c)(3) public charity. The Washington Post reported that "privately, Moore had arranged to receive a salary of $180,000 a year for part-time work at the Foundation for Moral Law". (and) "he collected more than $1 million as president from 2007 to 2012....compensation that far surpasssed what the group disclosed in its public tax filings most of those years."

But that's not all. The foundation also gave him health care coveraged, covered his expenses. What happened when the charity ran out of money and couldn't continue to pay more salary? Moore in 2012 was given a promissory note for back pay eventually worth $540,000. Keep that in mind when you watch Moore say things like this: "It's been very hard for my wife and myself to wither two, maybe three, months of negative ads we couldn't answer because we didn't have it."





It's unremarkable that an aspiring politician would lie about profiteering off a charity and dishonestly play the victim card while castigating his opponent for negative advertising. But what is remarkabl- and reasonably common is that said politician is no ordinary Republican who invokes religion only when convenient. He's the theocrat who, The Washington Post reported shortly after he won the Senate primary,

unlike any other Senate candidate in recent history, made his belief in the supremacy of a Christian God over the Constitution the cornerstone of his campaign.

“I want to see virtue and morality returned to our country and God is the only source of our law, liberty and government,” Moore said during Thursday’s debate with incumbent Sen. Luther Strange, who was backed by President Trump and the Republican establishment.

The central argument of Moore’s campaign, The Washington Post’s Michael Scherer reported, is that removing the sovereignty of a Christian God from the functions of government is an act of apostasy, an affront to the biblical savior as well as the Constitution. He even carries a pocket pamphlet that he published with a legal theory of God’s supremacy.

Moore’s proud touting of his religious beliefs — which he promoted long before Trump’s rise — has not always seemed like the smartest career move. Twice, Moore was suspended from his job as the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court for refusing to obey laws he felt violated his religious beliefs. Twice, his gubernatorial bids have failed....

The first suspension from the court came in 2003, when Moore disobeyed a federal judge’s order to take down a 5,200-pound statue of the Ten Commandments from the lobby of the state judicial building. Moore had campaigned on the promise that he would install the monument, and declared during his 2001 swearing-in that “God’s law will be publicly acknowledged in our court.”

Maybe unsurprisingly, then, he would not budge on removing the monument.

Following a lengthy legal back-and-forth that attracted national attention, the statue was removed in August 2003 on a federal court order. In November 2003, a judicial panel unanimously voted to oust Moore from office.

After two failed gubernatorial bids, Moore was elected for a second six-year term as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court in 2012. Again, he invoked the Bible during his swearing-in ceremony.

“We’ve got to remember that most of what we do in court comes from some Scripture or is backed by Scripture,” Moore said after taking the oath of office.

Again, the panel ousted him — this time, in 2016, permanently — after Moore reportedly urged state judges to defy the U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage. Moore has compared homosexuality to bestiality and called it “an inherent evil against which children must be protected.”

In a few months, Moore probably will become one of only 100 members of a very exclusive, and powerful, club. By most indications, he is a devout, God-fearing Christian which, we should not forget, is an accurate description of the "exotically devout" man who will become President of the United States if the current president is dislodged from the office he currently holds.

Share |