DiogenesLamp wrote: “Lying accusations followed by massive media amplification with a big helping of Republican backstabbing added into the mix.”
Do you think those would have been effective against either of the two other republican candidates?
The problem with Moore wasn’t the ‘backstabbing’ or the ‘allegations’. The problem was his history of being a nutcase.
Yes, though not as effective. Luther Strange would have been portrayed as a corrupt collaborator of the deposed governor who dropped a criminal investigation in exchange for being appointed to the Senate Seat.
Mo Brooks I thought had been more or less immuned, and then this showed up.
Maybe Mo Brooks would have sneaked through, but Luther Strange would have been hammered.
I think the attack on Moore was going to be the most effective effort because people want to believe that bible thumpers are hypocrites and evil people. It makes people feel good to claim this because it allows them to rationalize all of their own bad behavior and habits.
People wanted to believe that some creepy old religious nut was a child molesting rapist. It suited their biases against a hated class anyway. Also the media people pulled out all the stops to play up this angle, and they wouldn't have had such sensational material to work with had the nominee been Luther Strange or Mo Brooks.
The problem with Moore wasn’t the ‘backstabbing’ or the ‘allegations’. The problem was his history of being a nutcase.
That is demonstrably incorrect. He has always been known as a nutcase. The people of Alabama were okay with his nutcasery. They liked his religious stands. What they didn't like was the entire national media weapon portraying him as a child molesting rapist. *THAT* is what they objected to, not his religious nuttery.
You are blind to the objective truth because you want to believe what fits your biases.