Let's tell the truth...
“willing now to send a falsely accused pedophile to the Senate rather than a baby-killer.”
Anyone who’s dismissive of Moore on “accused pedophile” grounds should explain to me why they do not demand repeal of the statute of limitations. Two obvious reasons occur to me:Those two reasons play into each other: If it really doesn’t matter that much anymore, and even if the defendant is guilty as charged you’re pretty certain that he isn’t going to reoffend, why bother trying really hard to prosecute the case? And if it’s really difficult to get to the truth of the case, why would you want to go to that trouble when the defendant is not really the same person by this time anyway?
- It gets harder and harder to conduct a fair trial and come to the truth of a matter with the passage of time, the fading of memories, and the reduced availability and even death of significant witnesses. And
- As Hillary disingenuously said, “At this point, what difference does it make?” People do change over the decades, sometimes for the better.
Add to those considerations the fact that what is really happening is that the attacks on Moore are designed to prevent the people of Alabama from expressing their political identity/preference, and I simply reject the idea that it is necessary to let an “October Surprise” be dispositive - in this case or any other.
What is "plausibly accused"? I get "plausibly innocent or plausibly guilty" but plausibly accused?
Anyway, yes, I am willing to send a plausibly accused pedophile (whatever that is) to the Senate rather than a Democrat, because a Democrat is even lower than a guilty pedophile.
Go Moore and Alabama will rise again.