Roy Moore

Roy Moore Concedes Fondling a 14-Year-Old Would Disqualify a Senate Candidate

That is farther than some of his defenders are willing to go.

|

C-SPAN

In a radio interview with Sean Hannity on Friday, Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore conceded that he may have dated teenagers when he was a local prosecutor in his early 30s but denied that any were younger than 16, Alabama's age of consent. "If you abuse a 14-year-old girl, you shouldn't be a Senate candidate," the conservative populist told Hannity.

As Peter Suderman noted last week, that is more than some of Moore's defenders in Alabama are willing to admit. Regarding the allegations in The Washington Post's November 9 story about Moore's relationships with teenagers, Alabama State Auditor Jim Zeigler told The Washington Examiner, "There is nothing to see here. The allegations are that a man in his early 30s dated teenaged girls. Even the Washington Post report says that he never had sexual intercourse with any of the girls and never attempted sexual intercourse." Zeigler cited biblical precedents for men dating teenagers and insisted "there's just nothing immoral or illegal here…maybe just a little bit unusual."

In an interview with The New York Times, Zeigler conceded that Leigh Corfman's account of Moore's relationship with her when she was 14 is "concerning." But if she is telling the truth, he said, it would simply mean that Moore "went a little too far and he stopped."

As I noted on Friday, the actions described by Corfman, who said Moore took her to his house, where he stripped to his underwear, took off her shirt and pants, and touched her bra and panties, amount to at least two crimes under Alabama law, one a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail and one a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Moore, who was a deputy district attorney for five years, a circuit judge for eight years, and chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court for a total of six years, presumably understands the legal implications of Corfman's story, which is why his only choice is to deny it, as he did in his interview with Hannity.

"The allegations are completely false," Moore said. "I don't know Miss Corfman from anybody. I've never talked to her. I've never had any contact with her. The allegation of sexual misconduct with her [is] completely false."

By saying he never met Corfman, Moore is contradicting not just her but also her mother, Nancy Wells, who told the Post he approached the two of them in 1979 at the Etowah County Courthouse, where Wells had a child custody hearing. "He said, 'Oh, you don't want her to go in there and hear all that. I'll stay out here with her,' " Wells said. "I thought, how nice for him to want to take care of my little girl." The Post confirmed that Wells attended a hearing at the courthouse that day.

One of Corfman's childhood friends, Betsy Davis, confirmed that Corfman had told her at the time that she was dating an older man named Roy Moore and had described the incident in which he took off all of his clothes except his briefs. Another friend also remembered Corfman talking about seeing an older man, although she did not not recall her naming him. Wells said her daughter finally told her about her relationship with Moore during a visit in the mid-1990s.

Moore made much of the fact that Corfman waited nearly four decades before publicly telling her story. But it is certainly understandable that a teenager might have been reluctant to file a complaint against a local prosecutor, even if she understood that the way he treated her was illegal. As an adult, Corfman said, she periodically thought about going public with her account but held back because she was concerned about how it might affect her children, who were still in school, and because she worried that her personal history, which includes three divorces and multiple bankruptcies, would be used against her.

Moore undermined his own credibility by waffling when Hannity asked whether he dated teenagers when he was in his early 30s. "Not generally, no," Moore said. "If I did, I'm not going to dispute anything, but I don't remember anything like that." Regarding Debbie Wesson Gibson, who told the Post she dated Moore when she was 17, he said, "I know her, but don't remember going out on dates. I knew her as a friend. If we did go out on dates, then we did."

Yesterday Theresa Jones, who worked with Moore in the Etowah County District Attorney's Office, told CNN, "It was common knowledge that Roy dated high school girls. Everyone we knew thought it was weird….We wondered why someone his age would hang out at high school football games and the mall."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

130 responses to “Roy Moore Concedes Fondling a 14-Year-Old Would Disqualify a Senate Candidate

  1. Even being friends with teens disqualifies him to me. You shouldn’t trust anyone who willingly interacts with teenagers, aka the scum of the earth.

    1. Teenagers are the scum of the earth?

      1. 100% I’m still conducting research on this but evidence currently supports that teenagers are also the devil.

        1. One-handed research?

          1. No. I use both hands, both feet, every body part and every tool available to seek truth.

          2. The teenagers forced him to do it.

        2. There certainly seems to be no shortage of latter-day Faustii willing to sell their souls for them.

        3. All teenagers are not innocent or victims.

          1. Would I be legally culpable if I did that when I was fifteen or sixteen? Asking for a friend, who might have done it about 45 years ago.
            .

    2. You must not approve of the big brothers and big sisters organization?

    3. Who doesn’t like young girls?

      1. The ones who like young boys.

      2. I don’t. Mature ladies only. Bring on the Milves.

        1. Liar.

      3. Cub scouts. They think young girls have cuties.

        hmmmm Maybe the boy scouts started letting girls joined, because they realized that teenage boys prefer mixed-sex groups.

        1. Especially for camping trips and swimming.

          1. On the other hand, the lack of girls has never prevented sex at scout camp. Some Boy Scouts will be unhappy that they now have to compete with pussy to get laid.

      4. There’s probably a word for it, like genterophile or genterast.

        1. Correct. Gerontophilia. The fetish instead of the person. Really, it was just a guess. And NTTAWWT.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerontophilia

          1. Okay, my spelling was fucked up. A few shots of tequila does that sometimes.

  2. I guess the GOP strategy is to hit rock bottom as fast as it can so they finally have no where to go but up.

    1. Keep voter expectations low. It’s genius!

    2. They must be using a jackhammer now.

  3. Just anti-Christian bashing by the godless leftists controlling the media. We are commanded to be fruitful and multiply and how you gonna do that if you let little girls grow up before you breed ’em? They grow up and turn into women and they start getting funny ideas about the whole barefoot and pregnant thing, start thinking about education and equality and independence and careers and nonsense such as that instead of being a helpmate for their man like they’s commanded by God Almighty Hisself to be.

    1. Maybe there’s something to this Islam stuff. Other than the actual religion.

    2. You joke, but that Duck Dynasty guy actually said some very similar things in all seriousness while encouraging adult men to date and marry high school girls.

  4. The Evangelicals have an outsize influence on the GOP much the same way Iowa corn farmers have an outsize influence on the election. If you’re running a national campaign, nothing matters more than boots on the ground, campaign volunteers willing to go door-to-door, hand out flyers, set up phone banks and mailer groups, organize rallies and meet-and-greet breakfasts, etc, and nobody’s more willing to show up early and stay late doing the scut work than religious zealots. (Tell me Bernie’s college-age shithead supporters aren’t religious zealots.) So you gotta suck up to the Socons unless you’ve got a shitload of money to buy your campaign workers. Most of the economic conservatives could give a shit about gays and drugs and general godless cultural decline but they gotta talk about this shit like they care because they do care about the money. You don’t get early support from the nutjobs and you’re in trouble.

    And Roy Moore’s the snakiest snake-handling religious zealot wing of the Evangelicals. You can’t sway these people with facts or logic or rational argument, “God said it, I believe it, that settles it” is not just an empty slogan for these people, they really do believe they’re on a mission from God and therefore anybody naysaying them must be Satan in disguise. They will cheerfully douse you in gasoline and set you on fire for the greater glory of God if you fuck with them.

    1. True. There is no one I find more pathetic than someone who needs to invent an excuse to handle snakes and set people on fire. A man should have the courage to allow these actions to stand as their own defense.

      1. Also, snakes are good to eat if they’re big enough.

  5. (waves GIVE-A-SHIT meter at article…. needle does not move.)

    1. Morality is not only relative, it completely changes depending on the letter after a person’s name.

      Are you people the traditional values crowd or bad postmodernist professors?

      1. Let’s burn the witch. Somebody said he’s a witch, right? Light the fucker up.

        1. Lock him up! Lock him up!

      2. It’s feminists who freak out over “the sexualizing of young women children

        “Childhood” ends at what, 27 years old now?

        1. It ended when I stopped believing in Santa Claus.

          1. It was fortified when girls stated growing tits.

  6. “Moore…presumably understands the legal implications of Corfman’s story, which is why his only choice is to deny it, as he did in his interview with Hannity.”

    If it happened.

    The girl (now woman) says it happened, and told others it happened. And apparently they had time alone (if we believe the mother) in which it could have happened.

    So at least if she made it up she didn’t make it up recently.

    And Moore courted teenage girls (ending up married to one), though only this one girl says he did any molesting.

    That’s still not proof. Though if it happened, it will be quite a boon to the Democrats, which would be really sad.

    1. The idea of the Democrats reaping the benefit of public revulsion against a sex scandal…that really would take the cake.

      1. They already did that with Bill Clinton in the late 90s; people were pissed at the Republicans for wasting so much time on him getting a blowjob (and trying to impeach him over it) that his popularity numbers actually went up after he was impeached.

        1. Well, who is Bill Clinton in the current scenario?

          1. Harvey Weinstein. New slogan: “I ain’t no pedophile!”

    2. He’d be denying it whether it happened or not. Denial doesn’t mean it happened. I’m gonna deny fingering Ray Moore right now. I hope you will too.

      1. No, it was an alien disguised as me.

    3. Too bad that they don’t accuse Jeff Sessions of this (hint, hint).

      1. Please, speak up!

  7. Who are the 3rd party options, if Moore grosses you out so much you can’t vote for him?

    (I’m assuming the Democrat abortions-for-minors candidate is out of the question)

    OK, here we are:

    “Two write-in candidates for U.S. Senate in Alabama…highlighted that they announced their bids before the damaging claims were reported Thursday.

    “Auburn businessman Mac Watson and Libertarian Party candidate Ron Bishop announced their write-in campaigns late last month….

    “Bishop is a write-in candidate because he couldn’t gather the 36,000 petition signatures to be granted ballot access.

    “Watson, the co-owner of Watsons’ Backyard Living in Auburn, described himself as a conservative who has voted Republican in the past, but wrote in independent candidate Evan McMullin [barf]…”

    1. Oh, and the first thing that comes up on Ron Bishop’s issues page is he’s for legal (though unsubsidized) abortion.

      https://ron-lpalabama.nationbuilder.com/issues

      What a cornucopia of choices for conservatives in Alabama!

      1. So, as among (allegedly) diddling teenagers, killing babies, and voting for McMuffin, which is least objectionable?

    2. In this situation I vote for myself as a write-in. I almost won office as tax assessor like this. It was a draw and I lost by choosing straws.

      1. I really wanted to assess property at zero dollars and see what happened.

  8. The one proven thing against Moore which I dislike is his support for religious tests for Congress – I believe I mentioned this before the current flap.

    Religious tests violate a specific U. S. Constitutional provision, as well as depriving voters of their power to select representatives of their own choice (subject only to the specific disqualifications – youth, alienage, etc. – in the Constitution).

    I was saddened to learn about this because it confirms the stereotype of Moore, and I like to assume such stereotypes are wrong. Not in this case.

    1. Indeed. Although in all fairness Bernie Sanders doesn’t think that anyone who holds religious values should be allowed to hold office so Moore isn’t the only one in favor of such religious tests. It’s more of a difference in what those religious tests should be that is the contention.

      Yuck. So the choice is between militant secularism and militant religious types. No thanks to both.

  9. Oh this is rich, this is.

    “But this time instead of customers – special ops officers from the 11th Precinct showed up. Not realizing they were fellow officers, they ordered the other undercover officers to the ground.

    FOX 2 is told the rest of the special ops team from the 12th Precinct showed up, and officers began raiding the drug house in the 19300 block of Andover. But instead of fighting crime, officers from both precincts began fighting with each other.

    Sources say guns were drawn and punches were thrown while the homeowner stood and watched. The department’s top cops were notified along with Internal Affairs. One officer was taken to the hospital.”

    1. NEEDZ MOAR MACHINE GUNZ!

  10. His defense is that he dated teenagers for the conversation? Is it plausible that his interest in teenaged girls was platonic?

    What is going to be funny is when democrats claim this election is a referendum on Trump.

    1. Sure. He dated them because it removed the possibility of sex. That should be his story, and he should stick to it. Just like Pence refusing to be alone with any women other than his wife.

  11. Republican voters are overlooking a candidate’s child molestation because at least it gets them one step closer to forcing women to give birth against their will. Such wonderful human beings.

    Also probably because they’re all sexual deviants as well, what with all the cousinfucking.

    1. Why don’t you do campaign ads for the Democrats in Alabama? That’s sure to get the Democrat elected!

      1. I’m well aware that Republican voters are whiny little girls who would hand the country over to an aggressively dumb and insane person just because someone called them a mean name.

        1. Wait a minute Tony. You think “whiny little girls” are going to vote for Moore after reading all these stories?

          Or maybe you’re just using “girl” as an insult. That sort of went out of fashion 4 decades ago.

          1. But do little girls not whine?

            1. Big boys also whine, Past Me. Big boys…also whine.

            2. When you grab them by the pussy, they do.

      2. And after all the kind words they’ve had for liberals all these years.

    2. “Democratic voters are overlooking a candidate’s history of sexual predation because at least it gets them one step closer to forcing bakers to bake cakes against their will. Such wonderful human beings.

      Also probably because they’re all Syrian immigrants as well, what with all their cousinfucking.”

      Do you see how bigoted and hypocritical you are now?

      {checks commenter’s handle, sees it is, in fact, “Tony”}

      Oh. Right.

      1. First, I am not some PC ninny who refuses to stereotype people. Stop stereotyping me.

        Second, I’m talking about people who voluntarily associated with one another because of their political beliefs, which are as vile as their rapist leaders are.

        1. “First, I am not some PC ninny who refuses to stereotype people.”

          So, stereotyping Syrian immigrants for their “higher incidence of consanguinous heredity” (I’m sure you could come up a more colloquial phrasing) is A-OK with you?

          “Second, I’m talking about people who voluntarily associated with one another because of their political beliefs, which are as vile as their rapist leaders are.”

          But I thought you *supported* the Democrats.

          1. It’s about punching up vs. down. They may all be meth-addled cousinfuckers, but they do have all the political power right now.

            1. So you’ll switch from yelling about the “cousinfucking hick racists” to yelling about the “cousinfucking Muslim rapists” the next time the Dems control the White House and Congress, right?

              Or maybe a disenfranchised, marginalized group doesn’t stop being disenfranchised and marginalized just because the political party that *nominally* represents them happens to be in power.

              1. “disenfranchised, marginalized group”

                Wait, who is this exactly?

                1. Two groups: Muslims, and “meth-addicted, cousin-fucking” (eg Rust Belt, I assume he means) Republicans.

                  But apparently it’s not “punching down” to viciously mock and collectively slander the latter group so long as a Republican is in office. Or something.

              2. Getting you people to talk like social justice crusaders is one of the funnest parts of my job.

                1. You didn’t answer my question. Will you stop calling the jobless drug addicts of Appalachia “cousinfucking racists” the next time the Dems control the government, or not?

                  And I “talk like a social justice crusader” all the time to this comment section’s right-wing trolls without any encouragement from you. I have the “I got into an argument with Domestic Dissident and all I got was called ‘Obama Momma'” T-shirt to prove it.

                  1. Is cousinfucking a pejorative? I wasn’t even talking about Appalachia people, who probably fuck their sisters.

                    1. Call Syrian immigrants “cousinfuckers” in front of your leftist friends.

                      See if they adjudicate it as “pejorative”. I doubt it’s a verdict they’ll be long in deliberations over.

                2. Job? You’re getting paid? If not, it’s a passtime.

            2. Does jurisdiction matter in this principle, Tony?

              Will you punch up against the Muslim theocrats of Iran and Saudi Arabia?

              Will you punch up against the Communist leaders of China?

              Will you punch up against the Democratic mayor of New York City?

              1. I don’t care as long as it’s funny. Minority groups are not going to advance by telling everyone how delicate their feelings are. That’s just my $0.02.

                But if Republican voters start crying like bitches because someone else took 5 minutes of TV air time away from their whining about their problems, something they’ve been doing nonstop since before I was born, while supposedly believing in manning up and personal responsibility, I’m gonna point and laugh. Because it’s funny, or would be if they didn’t take their pitiful crybaby grievances out on the entire planet in 2016.

                1. As opposed to the leftists who “cry like bitches” and “whine about their problems” without maintaining any pretense of believing in the virtues of manning up and personal responsibility? That doesn’t sound much better to me. But then, neither does your assertion that perceived hypocrisy justifies mocking communities that are currently sustaining tens of thousands of deaths a year from opioids alone.

                  Oh, and I can already hear your response: “Shouldn’ta voted for Jeff Sessions then, should they?” Indeed, they shouldn’t have, just as urban minority populations shouldn’t have voted for the Dems that oversaw their neighborhoods falling apart. And in neither case does that make it “okay” to call poor people with no opportunities nasty names, either. You. Are. A. Bigot.

                  1. As a good liberal I see those people as victims. Victims of poverty, of bad policy, and importantly victims of a shit ton of Republican party state propaganda.

                    But they are the ones who insist that they don’t need any help and people should have personal responsibility. Or are they only referring to the brown people they spend their entire political lives trying to shit on for no reason?

                    1. “Victims” you persist in mocking- and *yes it is mockery*- as cousin-fucking, racist drug-addicts, to which we can now evidently add an assertion they are suffering from False Consciousness.

                      Whereas if *I* were to, oh, I don’t know, maybe refer to *poor urban black people in Chicago* as “coke-addled gangbanging welfare queens”, you would call *me* a racist faster than a P.M.S.-ing viper. And you know what? YOU’D BE RIGHT TO! Because collectives aren’t responsible for individual members’ failings, and those individuals don’t deserve to be crudely dismissed either.

                      But still you insist that your blatant hatred and bias against rural white America is “different”, because they’re hypocrites, or because they vote for mean things to be done to minorities. But hypocrisy is no better than honesty in dependency, and those “brown people” vote to “shit on” rural whites just as often, from discriminatory scholarship laws to environmental regulations that have strangled the Midwest- “shitting on” you are blind to, just as those rural whites are blind to the consequences of immigration crackdowns, and for the same reason: because you live far away, and will never feel those consequences yourself. EVERYTHING you have said about the rural Right, is equally true of the urban Left. You are one.

                      Man.

                      Vs.

                      Pig.

            3. “Punching up vs. punching down” is quintissentiak PC bullshit.

              And no they don’t have ‘all the power’, any more than urban black crackheads had ‘all the power’ when Obama was president.

              Even for you, that concept is dumb. Sharing some accidental characteristic with a person with political power (or even having voted for them) confers no power whatsoever.

              1. Nobody in the Obama administration or the brief Democratic Congress under Obama were doing the constant bidding of black crackheads. Unless you’re referring to sentencing reform, in which case, okay fine, but at least it was good policy.

    3. Sorry, I must have been sleeping when you voiced your disgust over no Democrat anywhere voicing disgust over Clinton’s multiple rapes.

      1. wut wut wutaboutbillclinton??

        1. Yeah I’m growing rather tired of the whataboutism.

          So if Tony never said anything about Clinton’s sexual exploits, that suddenly means Roy Moore’s child molestation is now totes okay?

          1. No. It means Tony’s attempts to use Republican support for Moore as proof that Republicans are worse or less intelligent people than Democrats is hypocritical partisan tripe. Because Democrats are just as inclined to avert their eyes from their candidates’ immoral acts under comparable circumstances.

            1. I just learned from Jon Oliver that whataboutism is a textbook Soviet propaganda tactic.

              And yes you’re still doing it. What about Democrats!

              1. It isn’t whataboutism when you hate both sides, and identify with neither.

                I have used the exact same arguments I am using against you now, against the right-wing trolls in this comment section that are your equal and opposite. I have no tolerance for either the Right or the Left’s idiotic attempts to spin themselves as better than the other. You are both equally terrible.

                1. Equally terrible? What an amazing coincidence consider we disagree on everything.

                  1. Not when one is aware that you are both wrong on approximately 50% of the issues.

                2. Tony doesn’t understand the difference between a whataboutism and an illustrative analogy, you’re wasting your time.

              2. “I just learned from Jon Oliver…”

                This statement is how you can tell someone has Down syndrome.

    4. Granted, I don’t think the Democrats put a cousin fucker in the White House since FDR.

      1. It depends on whether you’re fucking them because you live in an exclusive peer group with a disproportionate number of blood relatives in it, or if the same is true but you’re poor.

        1. More concise Past Me: “Rich people are allowed to fuck their cousins, but poor people aren’t.”

        2. Tony, defend Roosevelts while insulting poor people for (supposedly) doing same thing as Roosevelts, then lectures us about punching down.

          I have to believe if you read your own comments before clicking submit even you’d be embarrassed by them.

          1. Cry some more snowflake. I thought liberals were the ones who can’t take a joke?

  12. Shouldn’t a-ahem-libertarian magazine be defending the right to have relations with a physically developed and otherwise willing partner?

    And especially a magazine that seems to publish a hand – wringing editorial once a week about how unfair sex offender laws are?

    But, hey, don’t worry about intellectual consistency. At least the cool kids will invite you to the correct cocktail parties.

    1. They wrote a whole article about how Roy Moore would be a victim of our harsh sex offender laws if he was caught.

      And even that was was not as fucked up as your opinion that men in their 30s fondling 14 year-old girls should be considered normal.

    2. You can’t envision any kind of spectrum between ruining a guy’s life forever because of public urination and not wanting to elect a Senator who fondled a 14-year-old?

    3. Even libertarians acknowledge the wisdom of statutory rape laws. You could argue for withholding judgment until there is a conviction, but that’s the only argument you can make in Moore’s favor at this point.

      1. I think it’s more that libertarians understand the wisdom of not publicly criticizing age of consent laws.

  13. The important thing is God forgives him because he hates the right people…

  14. Seems to me that 40 years later that there is no way to prove or disprove the allegation. So if one believes in innocent until proven guilty, he should be assumed not guilty. We don’t really even have to go into the concept of redemption which one who assumed guilt might contemplate considering the fact that he has not been accused of any similar crimes since then.

  15. Interesting. According to wiki, this clown won re-election in Chicago while under indictment for statutory rape 20 years ago. He hasn’t been out of trouble since despite Slick Willie commuting a sentence for Bank fraud that he was serving. This is quite a story.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Reynolds

    1. Oh, Mel Reynolds, that scamp!

      Now, where was I…oh, yes, that horrible Roy Moore, that pervert.

    2. The wikipedia page cited this NPR post from 2007.

      That said:
      1995: Mel Reynolds (D-IL) ? convicted of sexual assault, criminal sexual abuse and obstruction of justice. Reynolds was first indicted on these charges in August of 1994, but he was re-elected that fall without opposition. He was convicted of the charges on Aug. 22, 1995.
      Resigned: Oct. 1, 1995.
      Succeeded by: Jesse Jackson Jr. (D) in a special election on Dec. 12, 1995.

      “Sex with a minor” is listed as a different crime on that NPR post for another politician, Donald “Buz” Lukens (R-OH).

      Ummm Wait a minute. This Chicago Tribune post in favor of letting sex offender Mel Reynolds live where he wants gives the following details:

      He was 40 and married. She was 16. It was a crime. Reynolds was convicted in 1995 on sexual abuse and related charges, then sentenced to five years in prison. He resigned his House seat, and his once-promising life more or less spiraled down from there.

      and

      Reynolds did a bad thing 23 years ago. He had a nonviolent, ongoing sexual relationship with a woman old enough to have been married (with parental consent) in 46 states; a woman a year older than Aaliyah was when she married R. Kelly.

    3. If you think that guy’a completely unrelated crimes absolve Roy Moore, let me tell you about this Jeffrey Dahmer guy.

      For that matter, there was Hitler, thus nobody is guilty of anything.

      1. Actually, I’m coming in to see if you’re willing to admit that democrats are scumbags too. You’ve repeatedly made mention that this is a uniquely Republican type of scandal. I’m not trying to absolve Moore, you can see me arguing with John on Friday about how it’s hypocritical to defend him if you don’t believe me.

        But you constantly call people hypocrites and I want to see if you’re willing to be logically consistent in the face of exceptional evidence showing that Democrats are also very scummy.

        1. Tony: “Republicans are worse people than Democrats.”

          All Non-Horrible Human Beings, plus BUCS: “Here is evidence proving that Democrats are as bad as Republicans.”

          Tony: “Any attempt to disprove my point is whataboutism!”

        2. What does Democrats sometimes being scumbags have to do with Roy Moore though? What possible motivation is there to bring it up except to engage in whataboutism and muddy the waters to protect the kid fucker?

          1. Because you asserted above that Republicans are worse people than Democrats. Specifically:

            “Republican voters are overlooking a candidate’s child molestation because at least it gets them one step closer to forcing women to give birth against their will. Such wonderful human beings.”

            *Republican voters*. Not *voters*, just the R ones. But you have now been repeatedly been shown that *Democrat voters* are willing to overlook equally abhorrent conduct under comparable circumstances. Yet you still persist in asserting that this election in Alabama is proof of your adversaries’ depravity, thus clearly implying that you think better of your allies. But that is baseless partisan equivocation.

            1. They are worse but that’s just my opinion.

              1. And if that is your opinion, than it is not “whataboutism” to cite Democratic moral failings in response, merely counter-argument. Thus rendering your previous accusations of “whataboutism” absurd.

                When someone says that Group A is worse than Group B, there are only two ways to argue back: assert that Group A is actually as good as Group B, or that Group B is actually as bad as Group A. And since I would never argue that Moore’s supporters are better people than your fellow leftists, I must then choose the second approach, which I am so fortunate as to be able to provide conclusive evidence of.

  16. Between the violent assault on Rand Paul to the last-minute scurrilous false allegations leveled at Judge Roy Moore, it’s clear that war has been declared on “libertarian-Republicans”.

    1. Since when is this dude a libertarian?

      1. SIV has been pointing out that other than his weird religious convictions–which will not get a hearing in Congress, Moore’s stances look a lot like a libertarian wish list.

        It’s not perfect, but it’s not monstrous.

        1. Supports sodomy laws, supports religious tests for office, supports state-mandated segregation… and still, according to some of you, “libertarian-ish”.

          Gee, no wonder your branding sucks.

  17. Good stuff. I remember Buz. He was quite the douchebag. I would have thought I would recognize Reynolds too given that insane history but I do not recall him.

    1. I am a Libertarian voter I approve this Rich message.

  18. “concedes”

    #FakeNews

    Naturally Roy Moore would bring out the propaganda in Reason’s Progressitarian
    Tiresome

  19. Jacob is over-exercising his dead-horse-beating arm. The guy is as clearly a whack job as George Wallace, no need to belabor the point. To voters residing in that political jurisdiction, the much more pressing concern is: what candidates can be found to run on a libertarian platform as the opposition? Much of what is wrong in Dixieland is the lingering effect of George Wallace’s candidacy and the electoral spoiler votes it gained among–let’s face it–fiscally conservative low-tariff states. Offering them an alternative wields more clout than joining the character-assassination frenzy endemic to kleptocracy political races.

  20. “Roy Moore Concedes Fondling a 14-Year-Old Would Disqualify a Senate Candidate”

    “Roy Moore Concedes That Fondling a 14-Year-Old Would Disqualify a Senate Candidate”

    This is one of those times when omitting the “That” didn’t work as well, especially if the headline gets truncated.

    1. So, speaking of Roy Moore?
      As we all know, there’s controversy as to whether or not he should throw in the towel, at this point, or if it is Moore appropriate to say that “The Captain needs to go down with the ship”? Stay the coarse, as it were! Or even, get coarser!

      It brings up ALL sorts of detailed questions?
      Is there a Cabin Boy involved?
      Is there a Cabin Girl involved?
      Not only, should the Captain go down on the ship, but also?
      Should the Cabin Boy go down on the Captain?
      Should the Cabin Girl go down on the Captain?
      Inquiring minds want to KNOW, dammit!!!

  21. There are already numerous pedaphiles in Congress that are being protected by their own laws that prohibit criminal prosecution of Congressmen and force taxpayers to pay for any civil damages.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.