A well-timed attack

Bookworm gives her reasons for being suspicious of the allegations against Juge Roy Moore.

1. The timing is suspect. Although Roy Moore has been a controversial figure in the public eye for forty years, this apocalyptic story was never even whispered about before. Instead, it hits now, right in the middle of the sexual harassment zeitgeist. More than that, though, although sexual harassment has been at the top of the news for weeks now, this unexpected narrative “coincidentally” erupted just when it was too late to remove Moore from the ballot and substitute another Republican candidate. In other words, rather than appearing to be a legitimate complaint, it appears to be a classic October surprise — even though it actually happened in November.

2. The story is almost forty years old. As I mentioned with regard to Trump and the stories about him, there is something of a pass for old acts. After all, that’s why we have a statute of limitations for most crimes other than murder: memories and, in the case, mores change. Even assuming solely for the sake of argument that the charges are true, the reality is that, back in 1979, we were in a very different moral cycle. In hippie territory, everyone was having free love, including young teens. And in deep South territory, people still weren’t that far away from Jerry Lee Lewis’s 13-year-old wife. While that 13 year old raised eyebrows, viewing young teens as viable wives or girlfriends wasn’t alien to Southern culture.

3. Paul Mirengoff, no friend of Moore, points out that the woman making the charges is apparently emotionally unstable. More than that, she has a habit of accusing men of sexually harassing her. Maybe they did, especially since she was a vulnerable, suicidal, teenage drug and alcohol addict — or maybe she’s a few cards short of a full deck. This is not a credible witness.

4. I simply don’t believe the WaPo’s reporting in this instance. As I mentioned above, the stories about Hollywood and other media are Progressive on Progressive attacks, so the political angle is absent. Here, however, we’ve seen for the past two years that the WaPo functions as the media arm of the Democrat Party (and, when necessary, of those in the GOP, such as McConnell, who are still fighting a rearguard battle against Trump and Trumpism). When a media outlet is that manifestly partisan, why in the world would people believe it when it publishes a well-timed attack (see point 1, above) to destroy the political opposition?

Read more here.