Roy Moore

Doug Jones Didn't Win Last Night. Roy Moore and Social Conservatives Lost. In Deep-Red Alabama.

Are you listening Republicans? Even in your most-secure strongholds, the culture wars are over and you lost.

|

There's a lot—maybe too much—to be said about Doug Jones' surprising win in last night's special Senate election in Alabama. But nothing is more important than the basic point that the Democrat didn't win the race, the Republicans lost it by running Judge Roy Moore, an actual theocrat who refused to follow the laws of our legitimate secular government when they conflicted with, among other things, his belief that the state should not sanction marriages between same-sex individuals and his "right" to drop a giant monument with the Ten Commandments on court property.

It's hard to wave away the pervy accusations against Moore, which clearly were a major reason so much attention was focused on the battle to pick a replacement for the Senate seat vacated when Jeff Sessions left to become President Trump's attorney general. But it's important to sideline them at least for a while, because everything about Moore was terrible if you believe, as the GOP claims to, in limited government. For Moore, who complained about Sharia law becoming the law of the land in various parts of the United States, who railed against homosexuality with a fervor not seen since Anita Bryant was hawking Florida orange juice, and who openly hated on immigrants like his fickle sponsor Donald Trump, the contemporary world is a fallen, sick place and he rejects it.

And now it has rejected him. To say that an Alabama Senate seat is safe for Republicans is an incredible understatement. You'd have to be, well, a child molester not to pick up such an easy win. But it was more than convincing accusations about Moore pursuing jailbait back in the 1970s and '80s that contributed to his loss. Moore represents a unified field theory against modernity. He counsels women not to run for public office (real ladies don't do that), he questions whether Barack Obama was really born in America (not because of his blackness but because of his foreign-sounding name), he's skeptical of free-trade agreements (why should foreign goods be any less awful than foreign people), and on and on. Pot legalization and abortion are hippie madness and we of course need to spend more on non-gay soldiers and weapons systems. He gestures toward cutting the size and spending of government but with even fewer specifics than "generic Republican." We know precious little about Roy Moore's deep thoughts on actual economic policy issues because he doesn't care about those issues, not because the media focused only on his Reagan-era creepiness.

Moore's loss should be a wake-up call for the Republican Party, which is still enjoying its historical heights of power when it comes elected officials in federal, state, and local governments. Roy Moore wasn't a challenge to longstanding Republican attitudes and strategies but their pure distillation. If Roy Moore can't win in Alabama running as a conservative who cares more about culture war issues than about seriously reducing the size, scope, and spending of the government, nobody anywhere else can either.

The GOP of the future—if it wants one, that is—is going to have drop many of the causes that brought it to power and get serious about delivering a vision of government and society that isn't predicated upon fear of the world and a commitment to maintain absolute control over all of our lives.

Bonus video: 13 Non-Pedophile Reasons You Can Hate Roy Moore

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.

144 responses to “Doug Jones Didn't Win Last Night. Roy Moore and Social Conservatives Lost. In Deep-Red Alabama.

  1. Alabama just wanted that Planned Parenthood Processing Facility.

  2. Is Roy Moore even representative of the average SoCon? He seemed beyond the pale

    1. I would suspect not, but as is often the case, every category and sub category along our political spectrum will always be judged by it’s worst examples. We all know this, so why give the other side a stick to beat you with?

      1. You are correct, but I think the question here is do social conservative voters consider Moore one of their own? I don’t guess much of the 48% of them who pulled the lever for Moore identify very much with him. They were likely voting against the other candidate, which is what everyone does in a general election.

    2. Beyond the pale in what way? Before the November surprise, I think it’d be difficult to differentiate him from Santorum or Huckabee.

      1. Yes, because Santorum and Huckabee were also kicked off the bench twice for disobeying higher court rulings and they were also cartoon versions of what a NY liberal imagines a social conservative to be. I suppose you think President Obama was indistinguishable from Al Sharpton too.

        1. Because he stood up for the Bible and fought back against the Worst Decision in Supreme Court History.

          I picked Santorum and Huckabee as examples of evangelical socons. How do Moore’s views and positions differ from what many of those voters say they believe?

          1. …do you really not understand why it’s different?

            It’s different because the issues had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with anything in this past election in Alabama. Obviously. Clearly. To everyone except you and Nick, I guess.

            The fact is if things had stayed the same from before your ‘November Surprise’ the election would have 100% definitely gone the other way. Duh, McFly.

            Divide and conquer the voting electorate. That was the plan, and it worked.

            I’m not in favor of Moore or Jones in particular, but this should clear as day to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.

            1. And notably your average social conservative, as Just Say’n noted, is somewhere to the left of Moore. There’s a lot of overlap, but Moore was perhaps the most extreme version of that ethos that’s been seen in a long while. So much so that he was indeed kicked off the bench for being blatantly anti-constitutional.

              In some ways you’re right, in that purist SoCon voters might see Huckabee and Santorum as too weak on the issues but that would be like evaluating the entire Democrat party based upon a Seattle or San Francisco City Council member. Sure, there’s overlap, but outside their bubble they are a joke.

          2. He’s free to stand for the Bible or whatever else he wants to AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN. As a judge, he had a duty to uphold the law, and he did not.

    3. Given a lot of southern, religious conservatives I’ve met, other than the child molestation allegations, I’d say the persona he evinces of bible thumping, first the bible then the constitution, damn ferners takin’r jerbs, etc is pretty close to your average southern conservatives. You will not find many who support immigration, free trade, brown people, or limited government for the most part, and I have lived in the south my entire life, except for a few year hiatus to the northeast.

  3. The Pervert Hunter defeated the Pedophile, in what looks like the political equivalent of To Catch a Predator.

  4. Was Luther Strange any better from a non-SoCon perspective? Moore narrowly beat him in the GOP primary, so if Strange was markedly better (from a libertarian perspective) then the split in the GOP is something that cannot be so easily papered over.

  5. That is mostly what Republicans peddle now: fear. Be afraid of the world and wallow in faux victimhood status. And there are too many grifters on the right who are more than willing to sell that message if it means generating clicks and bucks.

    1. That is mostly what Republicans peddle now: fear. Be afraid of the world and wallow in faux victimhood status.

      To be fair, that’s the Coke to the Democrats’ Pepsi.

      1. I want to respond that this makes libertarians the Dr. Pepper of politics, when in my heart I know we are truly the Shasta of politics.

        1. Mr. Pibb, dammit!

          1. Mr. Pibb is a Coca-Cola product; if the LP is Dr. Pepper, then Mr. Pibb is Tea Party Republicans.

            I was going to say something about the Libertarian Party being RC Cola (an objectively superior cola product that nonetheless just can’t get market share), but it turns out RC is owned by Dr. Pepper, so BUCS is right on.

            1. No. Mr. Pibb is libertarian because it’s actually Pibb Xtra now. Libertarians are old guys who think that comparing themselves to soda pop makes them hip enough to endear them to young’uns even though their terminology is decades old.

              1. I prefer to think that if Republicans are Coke and Democrats are Pepsi, then Libertarians are beer.

            1. You can call me MR PIBB!

          1. How ’bout a Fresca?

            1. Fresca is the Constitution Party.

    2. Let’s not reserve this just for Republicans. Everyone is busy peddling fear and victimhood these days.

      1. It’s what selling these days.

        1. Debt is the fear I am selling. Just can’t catch on like scary Muslims or Klansmen. I am thinking I need a marketeer to figure out how anthropomorphize the debt into a scary “other” group.

    3. Be afraid of the world and wallow in faux victimhood status.

      The Dems aren’t any better, especially when it comes to the faux victimhood horseshit.

      The two parties aren’t even offering a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich anymore. More like a choice between a turd sandwich with bits of corn in the turd vs a turd sandwich with bits of peanut in it.

      1. Are you saying the one with peanuts isn’t clearly superior? What the fuck is wrong with you?

  6. not because the media focused only on his Reagan-era creepiness

    The Reagan and Thatcher 1970s? Nick’s civic and historical illiteracy knows no bounds.

    1. And your reading comprehension knows no bottom.

      1. Oh, I know bottoms – heart-shaped ones are my favorites.

  7. “Are you listening Republicans? Even in your most-secure strongholds, the culture wars are over and you lost.”

    If 1% of the voters in Alabama weren’t so turned off by stories about him screwing around with underage girls, would that have meant that conservatives had won the culture war?

    I don’t think so.

    The culture war won’t be over, either, until social just warriors and progressives stop trying to use the coercive power of government to force themselves on the rest of us. For goodness’ sake, if it weren’t for feminists, immigration activists, radical environmentalists, black lives matter, and radical feminists, the Democratic party might not have any constituency at all outside of government employee unions.

    The people of Alabama voted against Roy Moore despite the culture warriors in the Democratic party–not because they endorse them.

    1. For goodness’ sake, if it weren’t for feminists, immigration activists, radical environmentalists, black lives matter, and radical feminists, the Democratic party might not have any constituency at all outside of government employee unions.

      Well, them and all the women who know they and their friends might need an abortion at some point.

    2. You nailed it Ken.

      Moore was simply a bizarre candidate with the worst pre-election PR possible and it still came out a virtual dead heat.
      It disproves every word of the Jacket’s analysis.

    3. I wonder, do other countries vote against politicians, or is this a uniquely American tradition?

      1. It happens in other countries. But mostly in countries that still use a first-past-the-post voting system like Canada and Great Britain. I have several friends in England. They tell me that many voters will always vote against the Conservatives; voting for whichever opposition candidate is the strongest in their district regardless of party.

    4. The culture war won’t be over no matter how many points conservatives and libertarians surrender on. The SJWs will simply open a new front. Culture war and blind anger is just who they are. I swear that most of them wouldn’t know what to do with their lives if they didn’t have some “monster” to battle.

      1. Yeah, John here made that point a while ago, and it’s exactly that. They don’t want to win, they just want to fight, to make society perpetually uncomfortable. Whatever they fight for today could easily be what they fight against tomorrow.

    5. This article will forever be remembered as the moment when Nick jumped the Shark…for what the tenth time? His political analysis appears to be firmly lodged in the Washington D.C. dynamic and has nothing whatsoever to do with the world outside of D.C.

      I’m no social conservative, but this election does not prove what he thinks he does.

      1. It damn well proves whatever he needs it to prove.

      2. Someone certainly jumped the shark here.

        1. Was it you? You never struck me as ‘Fonzie cool’ but maybe that’s just me.

      3. But does it get him an invite to the right cocktail parties?

    6. Ken nails it. Nick’s premise is ridiculous.

  8. “He counsels women not to run for public office”

    And this (if he said it) is supposed to represent the views of SoCons like Sarah Palin?

    “The GOP of the future?if it wants one, that is?is going to have drop many of the causes that brought it to power”

    Yes, plenty of GOP people have been saying this for years. Abandon social issues *such as guns.* Or did you forget that political operatives and journalists view guns as a social issue? The “moderate” position is “common sense gun control.”

    Also abandon support for small Christian business owners – abandon freedom of conscience *and* entrepreneurial freedom in one fell swoop. Or did you forget that this is one of the hottest areas of culture-war battle? But the media reported that Moore wandered around malls with lollipops in his pockets, so logically it must follow that bakeries must cater gay weddings.

    1. You missed Nicky’s point Eid. Open borders and mutts you must embrace.

    2. Eidde, it really doesn’t do much good for us to rant at Reason for being opposed to freedom. They probably always have been. If you pay attention to the articles here, and go back for years, you’ll see that the general trend is to defend and advance progressivism at all costs and to call conservatives dinosaurs.

      It’s not about freedom, it is about tearing down anything that was before their ideology came to power–which you might notice is the exact same mentality as ISIS. They just haven’t worked themselves up to the bombs yet.

      1. Hahaha

        Tell us another one, Tulpa

        1. Yeah yeah, everyone is Tulpa.

          Ever notice how common this “libertarian” news source often has more principled libertarian arguments in its comment section, offered free from its readers than it does from the authors they pay to write?

          1. I think enough people have noticed that since it’s an open secret that people only come here for the comments.

              1. Cool. Maybe reason can spin off the comments to a different site so you mouth breathers can continue to circle jerk about how freedom for “real” libertarians means packing lawn care workers into prison camps & actual readers won’t have to see your idiocy spoil the articles.

                1. lol, yeah libertarians are totally for ‘prison camps’ for lawn care workers. That’s a totally reasonable conclusion…if you’re a lunatic.

            1. The comments are for regulars. The articles are for outreach, mostly aimed at progressives. It sometimes works!

              1. As far as I can tell, it has never worked.

              2. Let’s all go post in the Volokh section. Those authors actually like freedom!

      2. If you think Reason promotes the Progressive movement I suggest you stop reading Breitbart for a while and step out of your dungeon basement occasionally.

    3. Wouldn’t it make more sense for the Republicans to dump any pretense of giving a shit about what Libertarians think on any issue?

      I mean, in the end, they will always vote Democrat if this site is any indication.

      1. Come on, Tulpa, why don’t you troll over at the other site with your real friends?

        Is it because they’d catch you?

        1. Who the blue hell is “Tulpa”?

          1. In ages past, during the Before Time of the Long Long Ago, there was a commenter named Tulpa. It is said he had many sock-puppets, and his arguments were terrible and statist. Or something like that. They say many epic battles were raged in the comments sections in hopes to teach him the NAP, or even to expel him. In the end he returned to comment less and less. Until he was no more.

            I think I saw him a couple of times, but it’s possible what I witnessed was a sock-puppet made to impersonate the Dark One.

            But because of his many sock-puppets, one can never be sure that they are not actually engaging with the one called Tulpa, so even now it is common that someone accuse those they disagree with as such.

          2. What’s a Nubian?

      2. Real Libertarians always vote Republican, I’m sure.

        1. Would Hillary have been more Libertarian than Trump has been?

          Because not single editor would’ve voted for Trump per their pre-election story. All the ones who mentioned a preference said they’d go Hillary.

          1. Since the election is over, why not ask who they did vote for rather than who they might vote for?

            1. Yes, odds of any voting Trump over Hillary is virtually nil. Even though Trumps first year is more Libertarian than Johnson’s would have been.

              1. So when you post:

                “I mean, in the end, they will always vote Democrat if this site is any indication”

                What you really meant was that they won’t vote Trump. And a failure to vote for Trump is a vote for Hillary.

                AND, you still seem to be referring to it as a future event.

                1. Oh hey cunt Sparky is being a cunt and cunting up the board again, about something stupid no less.

                  What are the chances.

                  1. Oh hey cunt Sparky is being a cunt and cunting up the board again, about something stupid no less.

                    What are the chances.

                    So cute. It’s always nice to be appreciated.

                2. What you really meant was that they won’t vote Trump. And a failure to vote for Trump is a vote for Hillary.

                  Most of them wrote they’d vote Hillary over Trump.

                  Nothing they’ve written since then discounts any of it.

                  Ergo, yes, they’d vote for Hillary over Trump.

                  In spite of Trump engaging in the most Libertarian policies in the last 30 years.


                3. What you really meant was that they won’t vote Trump.

                  That is not what is being said. Trump is demonstrably more libertarian than Hillary, which means there must have been some other reason they wanted to vote for Hillary.

                  It doesn’t matter if you like Trump or hate him, or if you agree with him or disagree with him, it is a fact he is more libertarian than Hillary Clinton. So why would an ostensibly libertarian outlet prefer Hillary Clinton, one might ask?

                  I was told before the election that I needed to think in terms of incrementalism, well isn’t that what Trump represents? Are we changing our minds now, and we need to be purists?

                  1. That is not what is being said.

                    damikesc|12.13.17 @ 11:26AM|#

                    Would Hillary have been more Libertarian than Trump has been?

                    Because not single editor would’ve voted for Trump per their pre-election story. All the ones who mentioned a preference said they’d go Hillary.

                    1. So the statements ‘I would vote for Hillary’ and ‘I would vote against Trump’ are exhibiting the exact same sentiment, eh?

          2. On civil rights and immigration? Sure, on the economy no. Not being an Orange Asshole, I’m sure she would be better than we have currently.

            1. She would lose even more on being a Pamtsuited Cunt though. Which is worse.

            2. Also, where in civil rights would that evil cunt be ‘better’? Certainly not on the bill of rights.

        2. Would Hillary have been more Libertarian than Trump has been?

          Because not single editor would’ve voted for Trump per their pre-election story. All the ones who mentioned a preference said they’d go Hillary.

          1. Assuming Hillary would have been a de facto Obama third term, that’s a big fat no.

            Try to imagine Trump saying anything along the lines of “You didn’t build that”.

            Anyway, most of the editors voted for Gary Johnson. Only a couple voted for Hillary. The usual suspects.

  9. Who’s Doug Jones?

    I was under the impression that Roy Moore was guaranteed to win as Deep South republicans embrace the Southern Strategy with a side of child molestation.

    Did that not happen?

  10. This comment thread might get really entertaining, really fast.

    *pops popcorn*

  11. FWIW, if that’s Doug Jones in that picture up there, he looks like the kind of guy you’d expect to see cruising around playgrounds in a windowless van with a tear (and other bodily fluids) soaked mattress in the back.

      1. I think i’d be more upset about Rob Schneider winning an election than whoever this Doug Jones fella is.

    1. …it’s Roy Moore…

      1. I didn’t recognize him. Must be a really old picture. From back when he was cruising around in a windowless van…

        I’ve still never actually seen a picture of Doug Jones then. Are we sure he actually exists?

        1. No, but him existing was irrelevant for his campaign.

        2. It’s Roy Moore’s master plan! He actually ran for both parties, just ditching the cowboy hat and styling differently for his Democratic photos!

  12. Based on the fact that African-American turn-out likely made the difference, my guess would be that Moore’s perceived racism was a major factor in his defeat.

    1. That’s an angle I haven’t heard yet. Was it racism-racism? Or imaginary-perceived racism?

    2. It appears that 90% of the Hillary vote came out for Jones while only 46% of the Trump vote came out for Moore, so it’s more that white conservatives stand home in large numbers.

  13. “Please keep the pritests to a minimum while we execute the wounded.”

    Just realuze Nick, that in the Social Justice revolution, you are a menshevik and will be next against the wall.

    1. Oh, they never realize that.

      As I often said, the mob got Robespierre too, kids.

  14. I hate to break it to Nick but Doug Jones won because Moore was successfully painted as not being a social conservative and by splitting the Republican ticket. I guess that’s hard to understand.

    I have to wonder if he knows any people with those values at all, or what he thinks they are.

    1. Nick is just getting in one more article to show his proggie friends to make sure he gets invites to all the popular Christmas, sorry Xmas, sorry holiday cocktail parties.

      1. Probably, my fianc? is in Washington D.C. this week and her stories regarding what’s being said around the water cooler in the Capitol are pretty telling.

    2. He lost because more democrats showed up, and some republicans had a conscience and either stayed away, wrote someone in, or I’m sure a few voted for Jones, but not a lot, and 2/3 of the white vote was for Moore.

  15. AL lost in every respect last night. While not seeing another frightening neocon get into office is always good, the alternative being another dipshit, more of the same democrat, is not going to result in anything positive for their economy or ours. Democrats have been a one trick pony for 50 years. SPEND.

    What the idiot campers will not realize for another decade at least is that repubs and dems are the problem.

    All this election proved is that the divide and conquer tactics of the two party system won again.

  16. This is the Nick Gillespie of hot takes. It is so profoundly wrong that it must signal the end of the Baby Boomer generation or something like that. Jones won because Republicans and social conservatives didn’t vote for Moore yesterday. It would appear that they actually displayed for principles than a man who was no doubt shouting ‘Libertarian Moment’ yesterday

    1. Exactly. Having another dem in office is a guaranteed vote for all of the things that are broken about this country.

      There is not a dem on earth that is not a brainwashed moron who will always lean left to their own ignorant detriment.

      While elected repubs are also basically big spending leftists, at least there are a few americans, THAT ARE NOT DEMS, who understand the value of free markets and less government. There is not a dem on earth who understands that simplicity nor would ever vote for limited government and fiscal responsibility.
      That’s not because they all believe in total marxism, it is because they are so ignorant and brainwashed, they have been coached that capitalism is actually Marxism, i.e. eventual government murder.
      Leftists are morons who don’t know history. This new guy is a leftists and will prove to be corruptible like the rest of them. And so would have been Roy Moore.

  17. Also, I teally do not understand why being a “birther” rates so high for the Reason contributors as an indictment of anybody (rather than an additional bit of weirdness). Obama had a unique personal history compared to any othet natuonal candidate in long while, i.e. his fathet was a foreign natuonal who remsined a foreign national all his life and was a high official in his home country.

    1. Because Obama is their hero.

    2. The birther conspiracy was a distraction from legitimate criticisms of Obama, which was the worst thing about it, IMO.

      1. Which may be a legitimate point, but that is not indicated in Gillespie’s reasoning.

  18. I would not say that “social conservatism” lost. What lost was kooky paranoid nutty politics.

  19. Zman gets it right.

    Gillespie? Well, he’s Gillespie. Nuff said.

    1. But the squirrels don’t…

      http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=12320

      1. Serious question. Do you actually believe this? View all of politics through the lens of identity?

        1. And here come the appropriate voices to scream at anyone mentioning a “white identity” as described in the link. As usual, the point goes right over chemjeff’s head.

          1. What point am I supposed to have gleaned from that article? That identity politics is the correct way to view the political landscape?

            1. Basically. White folks decided to play the game everybody else is playing.

              1. Pretty much.

                The oft repeated mantra of ‘Diveristy is our strength’ demands that we view things primarily through a lens of race and gender before any thoughts of merit are even considered.

                The concept of a color blind, or gender blind, society is utterly lost in the modern era. Racism is the name of the game on pretty much every level, and no one blinks an eye.

                1. And the only solution for the identity politics issue is to burn the whole damned thing down.

                  As a white person, I’m irritated beyond words that colleges have actual courses on how bad white people are because…we’re white. Fuck that noise. If that was done for any other ethnic group, who’d tolerate it?

                  I’m irritated that if a white person wears a sombrero, people whine and cry…on the internet that was made by white culture, on computers made by white culture, used by electricity made by white culture.

                  If others want to play the race game and spend all of their time teeing off on me, expect responses in kind. Just taking it is a fool’s errand.

                  1. ‘White Culture’ is just as meaningless of a term as ‘Brown Culture’. It does one thing and one thing only, and that is cheapen the contributions of any culture who’s members happen to have a certain concentration of melanin. That is it. That is the one thing.

                    And yes, what would we call that in literally any other scenario? Racism.

                    Last I checked, the goal was to reduce racism not increase it as some sort of bizarre intergenerational revenge fantasy.

                    1. As a Dutch-American, I want all you Anglo motherfuckers to get off of my land. My ancestors actually paid for it from the Indians, and yes I do actually have a copy of the deed from the 17th century.

            2. The point you missed chemjeff was that the only group of people forbidden from having a “racial identity” and thus forbidden from voting based on that racial identity is white people. And that the moment there’s even a discussion of the concept people crawl out of the woodwork to screech and tear down the concept.

              True to the predictions of the article, you immediately came out to tear it down. Fulfilling the prophecy.
              It’s almost like only one race is forbidden from organizing and voting based on racial interests… just like the link said…

              1. No one is ‘forbidden’ from thinking in racial identity terms. You are free to hang out with the Richard Spencer’s all you want. (Sounds like you are already halfway there.) But white identity politics doesn’t get a lot of traction in the west because – well what’s the point? To show that you are permitted to? Minority racial identity groups arose because they were fighting what they perceived to be race based injustices against them. I don’t agree with all or even most of their tactics or arguments. But the rationale is fundamentally different than the one for a white identity group.

            3. White Culture’ is just as meaningless of a term as ‘Brown Culture’.

              You may want to pretend so, but reality disagrees. There are different trends in cultures, and much of it appears upon study to be race-related. That doesn’t mean there are no individuals, but general trends matter, especially in a democracy where the MAJORITY VOTE matters.

              And yes, what would we call that in literally any other scenario? Racism.

              Last I checked, the goal was to reduce racism not increase it as some sort of bizarre intergenerational revenge fantasy.

              This is where you just try to shame the evil white folks back into line. How dare they start to notice reality!?

              What happens when a popular/powerful/wealthy negro runs against the “interests” of his race? He’s called a race traitor. Same with other minorities. The ONLY people who believe the goal is to reduce racism are whites. The people interested in an intergenerational revenge fantasy are the coloreds you’re so desperately trying to defend.

              Look at South Africa. Tell me that it’s going to be a good thing for white people to be a minority in the US. Tell me how we should be blind to those sharpening the knives…

              1. Yes, because both a White Russian and a White Amish in Pennsylvania have the same culture and interests.

                it’s a bullshit term to collectivize people. I specifically used the phrase ‘Brown Culture’ to illustrate that there is no such animal. You’ll hear it as ‘Mexican culture’ or ‘Arab culture’ but those things do not necessarily relate to each other in any way, shape, or form.

                I could say the same of ‘Black culture’. Are you talking about Nigerians, or are you talking about American’s, because the two interests have very little, if anything, in common.

                I’m not ‘defending’ anything, I’m pointing out a deeply flawed argument.

  20. I guess that Nick and Ken Shultz are the last two people to actually believe in what the GOP says about smaller govt vs. what they actually do about it.

    There is only one smaller govt party in this country and we all know how well it is doing.

    1. We also have a pretty good idea how long it would remain a small government party if it ever actually gained power, too.

      1. You’re right about that dick. As soon as the LP actually rises to political power, it will become the GOP of the 90s.
        On the path towards total corruption and abandonment of principles.

    2. There is only one smaller govt party in this country

      The Constitution party?

  21. Roy Moore wasn’t a challenge to longstanding Republican attitudes and strategies but their pure distillation.

    Given that you truly believe this, Nick, I have to wonder what benefit your analysis has on any issue, anywhere, ever.

  22. “… Moore, who complained about Sharia law becoming the law of the land in various parts of the United States, who railed against homosexuality…”

    In other words, he’s famous for _actively promoting_ shariah law, as long as it’s the law of _his_ religion. And he lost because he was accused of violating one of his religion’s shariah laws. Calling this a loss for social conservatives is ridiculous. Social conservatives _won_ by the defeat of someone accused of violating a law that they had imposed.

    1. Hehe I had this conversation with a friend. “So bud what’s the difference between Sharia law and the fact that Moore want’s to toss the Constitution and return to Biblical law” and he shut up. At least for a while.

  23. What drives me nuts is how evangelical Christians glommed onto this hypocritical Pharisee. It’s like they’ve never even read the Bible that they thump.

    Roy Moore has set back the reputation of Christianity in America by at least fifty years. And the evangelical right just laps it up. The man is a Pharisee, he is everything Jesus warned his followers about regarding false prophets. But the evangelical right has stopped worshiping Jesus and now worships elected Republicans. It’s a false Christianity. When the Anti-Christ comes, assuming the post-millennialists win the pool, he will come from the ranks of the evangelical Christian right.

    1. What drives me nuts is how evangelical Christians glommed onto this hypocritical Pharisee. It’s like they’ve never even read the Bible that they thump.

      Roy Moore has set back the reputation of Christianity in America by at least fifty years.

      What drives me nuts is that Christians base their vote on how they think their enemies will perceive them. People like you. It’s foolish.

      The (pro-Moore) Christian response should have gone like this: A) He’s our guy B) We’re all sinners C) Ergo he’s a sinner. D) What matters is whether or not he will support our policies.

      Leftists: BUT HE IS A SINNER AND IF YOU VOTE FOR HIM THAT MEANS YOU VOTE FOR SIN AND YOU DON’T BELIEVE IN THE THINGS YOU SAY YOU DO

      Christians: See (B) and (C) above.

      Leftists: You’re setting yourselves back 50 years!

      Christians: Well, seeing as we’d like a lot of cultural norms and laws to go back to how they were in the past, that seems like it’s achieving our goals. Thanks for the positive analysis.

      1. As someone who sits to the right of Attila the Hun, I strenuously object to being called a leftist.

        1. I betrayed you

    2. I think it’s completely appropriate to broadly generalize ALL Christians in this country based on a small subset of voters in Alabama who may or may not be Christians… Totally reasonable. Also, it’s totally valid to assume all the reasons why any individual voter might have voted for Roy Moore. Brandybuck has this all figured out.

      1. I’m painting only the evangelical Christian right. And I’m basing it on direct experience with them. I get the newsletters declaring that Trump is God’s choice for Alabama. I talk with the people who sincerely believe that Jesus votes Republican. I’m not an outsider. I happened to be there as a kid when the Moral Majority started. This particular branch of protestant Christianity has traded away religious faith for partisan politics.

        It’s one thing to say we gotta vote for Trump to keep Hillary out of office, or vote for Moore because otherwise Democrats will eat our children. But it’s quite another to frame it as a religious sacrament.

    3. The ones who are dead-serious about their faith? They stayed home yesterday. That’s what they do when their preferred candidate turns out to be a Pharisee. They don’t make a big fuss, but their absence speaks loudly for them.

      Same thing happened to a bunch of unsavory Republicans in the ’06 House elections.

    4. So, I just read “chemjeff” chastise somebody about judging all Muslims based on the “actions of a few,” so I’m wondering why he hasn’t done the same to you.

      1. Guess what I actually work for a living. Shocking isn’t it.
        Of course it is wrong to judge all based on the actions of a few, whether Muslims or Baptists.

    5. No he hasn’t, no one gives a hoot about Roy Moore except a -1 to the Senate tally. Everyone knew he was a kook, but he was the Republican’s Kook. If you want to look at a setback to respectability of the Republicans look no further than Benito Dorito in the oval office.

  24. What’s this “Reagan-era creepiness” stuff?

    Roy exuded pre-MLK-era creepiness.

    1. Let’s be honest. Roy exuded creepiness in general.

      1. you mean pre-Civil War. He referred to the Antebellum period as a time when people were last truly happy, including the slaves.

  25. I hope you are right but I fear the harrassment allegations were a sigificant factor, making conclusions about trends questionable at best.

  26. That’s weak. You really think there aren’t plenty of Republicans who believe all those things and still get elected? With the jailbait accusations, he lost by less than 1%. In the absence of the jailbait accusations, he wins easily. I don’t think there’s any way reasonably to argue otherwise.

    Apart from which, Mr. Gillespie, I would be slow if I were you to embrace the Left’s position in the Culture War. It’s that very “victory” that is now forming the basis for their grotesque ambitions to leap ahead and run everyone else’s life in terms of getting people fired, run out of business, jailed and so on. And it’s that “victory” that forms the basis for the bizarre rationalizations used by liberals on the Supreme Court to justify their persecutions and programs. (Libertarian end result or not, do you truly imagine that “equal dignity” is a real thing?)

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.