I think this is a fairly accurate take, and I'd like to hear RP or OCF provide their perspective on it:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/13/167607...

He said nothing about centrism. He posted an opinion piece and asked for opinions from folks here.

I think this is basically true. It's undoubtedly politics.

But in this case the political move also happens to run parallel to the ethical/moral standard we all should uphold.

This entire national discussion centered around accusations against Franken, Moore, etc. is about setting the bar for Trump. The RNC's support wasn't about Moore as a candidate, or even about their feelings on the veracity of the claims against Moore. It was about setting the tone of the national conversation that's inevitable about Trump's past sexual improprieties. It was one party -- the Democrats -- trying to set a standard of decency (and gaining politically in the process) and another making it very, very clear that politics take priority over decency.

Victim blaming will continue to be the norm, credible accusations will be ignored in favor of claiming a media witch hunt, and so on. That's the GOP's standard on a Russia investigation that's led to three arrests. The FBI and CIA and Media are conspiring to take down the President. It's their standard on Trump's sexual assault claims, in which 20 women and dozens of media organizations joined forces to take down Trump. Hell, it's even the playbook for elections. Roy Moore was cheated by illegal voting, Trump says however many million illegal votes were cast for Clinton, etc. and the media and the Democrats are lying if they say otherwise. No evidence has to be shown. You just have to loudly, and angrily insist there's fraud, or that the FBI is out to get you, or whatever.

So yes, the Franken resignation and moral high ground Dems are staking on this issue is a political move. That doesn't make them any less right, it doesn't make Roy Moore or Donald Trump better people, and it doesn't mean that voters who support them aren't making a moral decision.

At this point, we shouldn't be surprised. The entirety of this conversation has been about conservative posters being unwilling to engage in conversation. They shoot the messenger when Colin Kaepernick's the messenger -- because of his methodology. They shoot the messenger when it's David Roberts, because of previous opinions. They won't engage in a conversation about why they support Roy Moore and Donald Trump because Bill Clinton was the President 30 years ago.

As I pointed out earlier, 71% of Roy Moore voters believed the allegations against him were made up. There may have been some percentage of his voters who felt that due process was warranted, but 71% decided they knew the answer already. That's not due process, it's blind loyalty.

The evidence against Moore is overwhelming. Maybe not airtight. But very close to it: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/... . Do you think that Moore's voters digested all of that information and decided the allegations were completely made up? Or do you think it's much more likely that they don't actually know the details and calling the allegations made up is just an easy way to justify their vote?

As for the timing of the accusations against Trump, I've asked others who question his accusers to actually engage on the specifics of each accuser's claim. I've also pointed out that many claims against Trump pre-date his candidacy. They've decided not to do so. But I'm sure you will, right? Because this is about due process and examining the facts and not just another convenient way to avoid a conversation that you don't want to have.

It's really easy to adopt a blanket excuse like "the timing seems suspicious" until you look at the details. So it's not surprising to me at all that none of Trump's supporters seem interested in doing so.

Some of the "evidence" against Moore is sketchy at best, namely that coming from Gloria Allred.

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/11/16/allred-on-wheth... /

Now, whether or not Moore had a habit of chasing teenage girls back in the 70s? Most people have no idea if that's true. If you're a conservative living in Alabama, and your candidate gets a slew of attacks just before an election, you probably smell a Democratic rat.

That's some solid due process. Ignore everything but the one piece of evidence you have a rebuttal to.

You're a truth seeker of the highest order.

Anytime you want to examine all of the evidence and make an argument that Roy Moore and Donald Trump are innocent victims of a Democatic/Media witch hunt, I'm happy to have that conversation. Let me know. Feel free to start by responding to all of the evidence against Moore, instead of just posting a Breitbart link about a lawyer you distrust. You're responding to "sketchy evidence" with a link to a news source that's run by a Roy Moore campaign advisor. And you're the one using scare quotes around the word evidence?

I'm confused as to why the word evidence is in quotes. And the link you shared (interesting that somebody opposed to reading a slanted viewpoint shared a Breitbart link) says that the woman's lawyer wants it verified by an independent source. I'm not sure what about that is salacious. She doesn't know definitively anything about the information, but she is willing to have it verified. I think that seems like rather level-headed thinking rather than being boisterous and accusatory.

As to whether Mr. Moore had a habit of chasing teenage girls...this is a man who said that he first noticed his wife when she was a teenager and remembered her from a dance. This is a man that numerous sources have said was banned or asked not to go to a mall because of his encounters with teenage girls. This is a man who wouldn't definitively answer on Sean Hannity's radio show whether he dated teenage girls. I think you'd have to be pretty blind to the truth to assume there isn't enough smoke to have a fire.

Again, this is the easy stuff. We're anti-sexual assaulters. We're anti-sexual molesters. It's not partisan. It's not controversial.

Think of it this way. If you're in a leadership position, and you hear these things about a possible job candidate, are you going to hire them? I'd imagine the answer would simply be, "No". Know that this was a job interview and yet 48.5 percent of Alabama voters wanted this person hired for the position.

Please tell me you at least see the irony of wanting to discredit claims made decades later but are happy with viewing Juanita Broaddrick's claims against Bill Clinton as having merit. Broaddrick first gave a sworn affidavit in 1998 denying the charges but then she aired the story in Dateline in 1999 for an alleged assault from 1978. I'm not discrediting the claims, I just find the differing litmus tests interesting.

Where did I bring up Clinton or Broaddrick? Or are you conflating people on here?

Is the editor of Slate a campaign advisor to Doug Jones?

And again, dispute the facts. We always end up in the exact same place; me asking you to engage around facts, you refusing. It's happened on three different topics in this thread alone.

Until you do that, all of your 'due process' garbage is just avoidance and you know it.

Edit: And it's because I'm not a judge thatI feel comfortable making assessments based on the evidence I have available. My opinion carries no weight. I'm not held to the standard of a judge and neither are you. The only reason you're pretending that's the standard of this conversation is because you know there's no rational way to interpret the evidence we do have that supports the opinion you're blindly supporting.

Further, you're not even asking the right question. You're not judging whether or not Roy Moore should go to prison. You're judging whether or not he should be a US Senator. We have more than enough evidence to answer that question definitively.

You're harping on about due process and then asking me to choose a single piece of evidence against Roy Moore rather than reviewing all of the evidence and the story it tells? I'm not sure you understand what due process is.

I posted the Slate article. It lays out much of the evidence, and numbers it and everything. You're welcome to address the points in it, and as asked, address the points in this Washington Post article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/... /.

You call them left-wing narratives, and say that I have no insight. I'm citing the sources that I used to inform my opinion. I've asked you, repeatedly, to address them. I see all sorts of smoke, hear recordings of Trump saying sketchy things, and I think "huh, there's probably some fire there." You read those things and think "well, I need to have witnessed these things personally to have an opinion, unlike liberals." And then you put the word evidence in scare quotes and post articles insinuating victims are lying. Because, you know, you care about due process and uncovering the truth. Just like all people who put evidence in scare quotes and claim not to have opinions.

Knock yourself out. Address the claims. There are 20 accusations against the President, and 6 Roy Moore accusers. You're into due process. Give them their due process.