FIRST ACCUSER IN: A long list of questions concerning Roy Moore!


And also, concerning ourselves:

Should Roy Moore have dated Gloria Deason in 1979, when she was 18, then 19, years old?

Should Deason's mother have thought that relationship was OK—indeed, was hugely desirable? Should she have hoped that Moore might end up marrying her daughter?

A few more questions for now:

If Alabama voters are trying to decide who to vote for next week, should they consider the fact that Moore, who has been married for 32 years, dated Deason for several months in 1979? Should that seem like a relevant fact?

And also this, a question about us:

Is it wise to build our politics around such questions as these?

In almost twenty years at this site, we've rarely asked such unusual questions. We ask them today because of the Washington Post's November 10 front-page report, in which Leigh Corfman became "first accuser in" with regard to Moore.

In that report, Corfman accused Moore of surreptitiously "dating" and then molesting her, back in 1979, when she was 14 years old.

That's a very serious charge. We now ask several more questions:

Does the apparent fact that Moore dated Deason that same year sensibly serve as "supporting evidence" with respect to that alleged very serious crime? If Moore dated someone who was 19 years old, would that tend to support the claim that he criminally assaulted someone else who was 14 years old?

Putting it a different way, should a sesnible voter consider Deason's report at all? Also, was it good journalistic practice when the Washington Post reported that Moore apparently dated some young women who were 17, 18 and 19 years old in such years as 1977 and 1979?

Roy Moore dated Deason in 1979! Once again, we present the Post's full account of the matter:
MCCRUMMEN, REINHARD AND CRITES (11/10/17): Gloria Thacker Deason says she was 18 and Moore was 32 when they met in 1979 at the Gadsden Mall, where she worked at the jewelry counter of a department store called Pizitz. She says she was attending Gadsden State Community College and still living at home.

"My mom was really, really strict and my curfew was 10:30 but she would let me stay out later with Roy," says Deason, who is now 57 and lives in North Carolina. "She just felt like I would be safe with him. . . . She thought he was good husband material."

Deason says that they dated off and on for several months and that he took her to his house at least two times. She says their physical relationship did not go further than kissing and hugging.

"He liked Eddie Rabbitt and I liked Freddie Mercury," Deason says, referring to the country singer and the British rocker.

She says that Moore would pick her up for dates at the mall or at college basketball games, where she was a cheerleader. She remembers changing out of her uniform before they went out for dinners at a pizzeria called Mater's, where she says Moore would order bottles of Mateus Rosé, or at a Chinese restaurant, where she says he would order her tropical cocktails at a time when she believes she was younger than 19, the legal drinking age.

"If Mother had known that, she would have had a hissy fit," says Deason, who says she turned 19 in May 1979, after she and Moore started dating.
Trigger warning! Given our knowledge of American culture, we don't find that report to be gigantically shocking. That said, we restate our basic question:

Almost forty years later, should a sensible voter consider that matter in deciding how to vote? Also, does the apparent fact that Moore dated Deason in 1979 actually support the claim that he criminally molested Corfman that same year? Or does that assessment perhaps represent a bit of a moral stampede?

We're inclined to ask those questions, and quite a few others, for several reasons. Let's start with this:

We can think of a million reasons why we ourselves wouldn't vote for Roy Moore. But how odd! We've rarely seen those reasons discussed in the last month.

Instead, we've seen endless discussions of matters like Moore's dates with Deason. And uh-oh! As is typically the case at such times, those discussions have often been less than fully edifying. Some basic facts have been massaged to support the interpretation our upper-end press corps prefers.

Alas! When our press corps stages stampedes, our journalists tend to disappear actual facts while also inventing bogus facts. Consider the current matter:

As if by rule of law, pundits have refused to say that Moore "dated" Eason (and other young women in their late teenage years) in 1979. Instead, reporters and pundits routinely say that say that he "pursued" these young women.

This word choice builds an air of menace around these past events. It has also produced some extremely peculiar accounts of the accusation with which Moore stands charged.

The word "dated" has been disappeared. Beyond that, we're fairly sure we've never seen a single pundit mention the fact that Deason's mother enthusiastically supported this romance, seeing it as a possible route to marriage.

Deason's mother "thought he was good husband material!" As if by rule of law, this fact has been disappeared when pundits and reporters pretend to discuss this topic.

Nor was it just Deason's mother. In the original Post report, the Post quoted a second woman saying she dated Moore at that time, when she was just 17. This second woman, Debbie Wesson Gibson, said her mother was over the moon about the fact that Moore was asking her daughter out.

“I’d say you were the luckiest girl in the world,” Gibson says her mother told her.

These women didn't find it strange that Moore was dating their daughters. But as is typical when pundits stage their group stampedes, our pundits have completely disappeared this fact about the attitudes of these young women's mothers.

At times like these, our reporters and pundits virtually always behave this way. It seems to be a cultural imperative.

Our view? As a general matter, we don't think it's a great idea for women as young as 19 to get married. Beyond that, we don't think it's a great idea, as a general matter, for women who are 19 to date or marry men who are 32.

That said, the average age of first marriage for women was still 20.3 as of 1970. (It's much higher now.) Beyond that, the union of a younger woman with an older fellow was a bit of a cultural ideal in American popular culture during the decades in which the mothers of these young women formed their ideas on such matters. And as any number of insulting Hollywood films suggested, these cultural views may have been especially prevalent in the South.

We regard those as interesting anthropological facts. We also think the current stampede about Moore's dating behavior in 1979 is an interesting anthropological event, one which sheds a lot of light on the habits, behaviors and capabilities of us modern liberals.

Good God! Over the past thirty-plus years, while Moore has been married to his wife, we liberals have displayed an astonishing level of political incompetence. Among other thing, we've displayed amazingly little facility for discussing matters of substance.

Our haplessness has known no bounds. This helps explain how the Republican Congress can be on the verge of passing the tax bill they are currently moving, even as we focus on Moore's past dating behavior.

We liberals! Despite our persistent claims of intellectual and moral brilliance, we never quite got around to explaining how the Social Security trust fund works. For that reason, large percentages of Americans were declaring their belief that Social Security "wouldn't be there for them" as of the mid-1990s.

We've never bothered explaining our nation's astonishing level of health care spending. For that reason, this remarkable looting continues, victimizing red and blue voters alike.

We don't know how to discuss the progress displayed in the public schools, nor do we seem to care about such matters. Meanwhile, we're so dumb that we've never been able to build a world in which the current GOP tax proposal would have been unimaginable on its face.

Above all else, we don't know how to talk to the people who vote against liberal candidates and oppose liberal proposals. We think of the character in Jim Sheridan's beautiful film, In America, who is losing his soul in the face of his grief about the death of his young son. At one point, he makes this speech:
JOHNNY: You know, I asked [God] a favor. I asked him to take me instead of him. And he took the both of us. And look what he put in my place!

I'm a fucking ghost. I don't exist.

I can't think. I can't laugh. I can't cry.

I can't feel!
That character couldn't function at all. (Eventually, he is saved by the wisdom and persistence of his young daughter.)

That character couldn't function at all. That character was a great deal like us, except he possessed self-awareness in his despair and we modern liberals don't.

We modern liberals function extremely poorly. In our own view, this latest semi-stampede is a fascinating example of same.

Leigh Corfman accused Roy Moore of a very serious crime. Assuming her accusation is accurate, we're glad she did. We're glad she decided to push back against Moore's denials last week.

Leigh Corfman accused Moore of a serious crime. But Gloria Deason didn't.

We liberals, along with our mainstream pundits, can't seem to tell the difference. In our view, this helps explain why our large continental nation is currently coming apart.

Was Deason "second accuser in" against Moore? Was she an accuser at all?

We'd say that she was not. Tomorrow, we'll start a new award-winning series, in which we'll examine some cultural history of the land in which we all live.

As we offer this cultural history, we'll be waiting for the tax bill to pass, and perhaps for Moore to get elected. On the brighter side, the cultural history we'll be presenting will at least be interesting—an interesting distraction from our latest defeat or defeats.

We liberals are skilled at losing fights. It seems to us that this current matter helps show how we do it.

Starting tomorrow: The Parochials


  1. "For that reason, large percentages of Americans were declaring their belief that Social Security "wouldn't be there for them" as of the mid-1990s."

    Dear Bob.

    People declare this belief because they don't trust the system. They don't trust you, collective you, your 'tribe'. For a bunch of very good reasons. And for a very long time.

    And the alleged inability to explain "how the Social Security trust fund works" has nothing to do with it - you're just being a typical lib-zombie here.

    Why don't you start from the beginning, from you (your 'tribe') being minions and asslickers of global capital?

    And you don't have to take my word for it, Bob; it's been said a million times already. See here, for example.

    1. "They don't trust you, collective you, your 'tribe'."

      Then they are, yet again, showing why liberals call them "fucking morons".
      Social Security might not be there for them, if they continue to vote Republican. Just like their home my not be there when they get home from work, if they let pyromaniacs house sit for them.
      The key to making sure Social Security will be there for them is to stop voting for Republicans who don't want Social Security to be there for them.

      BTW, Mao, how about Trump's big, fat, wet kiss to the establishment? Want to bet he signs the massive tax cut for the elites, despite all your 'gaslighting" that he's for the little guy (who he stiffed for 5+ decades as a shitty businessman)?

    2. Экспертное мнениеDecember 4, 2017 at 12:26 PM

      "Правда.Ру" попыталась узнать мнение Ксении Собчак, которая сейчас себя позиционирует в качестве кандидата в президенты России.

    3. Mao, thanks for the reference to Mike Whitney's essay in Alexander Cockburn's blog. I hope he's wrong about Michelle Obama being the Dems 2020 nominee; I think Rosalind Carter should be chosen instead (Eleanor Roosevelt no longer being available). But, my suggestion is that you check out the excellent essay in the same site by Tom Engelhardt, "A President Made for a Zombie Apocalypse World" - perhaps an antidote to your craven Trump sycophancy.

    4. You're welcome.

      You'd be a real peach if you managed, at least once in a while, to concentrate and stay on the subject, instead of fantasizing about my humble persona.

    5. The subject being what? I thought it was the sine qua non problem - global capitalism - and we now have this POTUS - and a lot of us get stuck on how he is supposed to cure this big problem, rather than make it worse than ever. Which dumb me thought was the subject we were on. Or was it that future crackpot US senator?

    6. The subject is that Trump is working for the establishment.
      Your "humble persona" = "trolls be trollin'."

    7. Is it not clear? The subject is the essence of the comment you're replying to.

      Concentrate. Focus. Address the subject. Keep your urge to express your disdain for the commenter under control. And then, with a bit of luck, one of these days you may have an actual online conversation with someone...

    8. Mao, I'll (try to) bite - and stifle the urge to express disdain. The comment said a few things, and sorry if this is disdainful, not very clearly. You say that the democrats failure is due to being minions and asslickers for global capital. That's easy to say, but raises lots of questions, e.g., there is a further out left wing "tribe" that didn't care for Clinton or Obama - how is the Breitbart crew superior- is it because of the added demagoguery and wedge issues (e.g, guns, persecution of Christians) that got results while the leftists, who are maybe purer, have little chance?; what is the solution to the depredations of global capital? Is it high tariffs, no multi-state trade pacts, oust undocumented aliens (never mind cruelty aspect of it), and restrict immigration and foreign work visas; what are the potential bad consequences of all that? how do you know the good will outweigh the bad, or even that it will lead to terrible consequences? what is the basis for saying democrats are worse than republicans in this area?

    9. "the leftists, who are maybe purer, have little chance?"

      This, I hope, was offered as a point to argue, not a fact to be taken as moot. Because, of course, it's incorrect in every particular:

      -Leftists? We don't have those really at all in US politics. The only representative example pertinent to the US electoral process might be Bernie Sanders, a self-declared socialist certainly, but worlds away from being the type of wild-eyed idealist and potential totalitarian mentally conjured by the term "leftist."

      Purer? The Devil's Dictionary defines this as "a slur, used by the mainstream to lose every elected office in the country under the pretense that they are somehow pragmatic."

      -Little Chance? Yes, the compromised, sclerotic and dinosaur-dominated Democratic Party could not actually nominate Bernie Sanders in 2016, but the state-by-state polling made very clear one thing: if nominated head-to-head against Trump, Sanders had a much BETTER chance than Clinton.

    10. "Concentrate. Focus. Address the subject. Keep your urge to express your disdain for the commenter under control. And then, with a bit of luck, one of these days you may have an actual online conversation with someone..."

      Thanks. Currently I can only reach Russian bots, like the one named Mao Cheng Ji online

    11. Mao,
      In exchange for what? We both know you and David in Cal will still refuse to make an argument in good faith.
      Seems like you want me to waste my time, while you still sling bullshit by the shovelful. Fuck that shit.

    12. "there is a further out left wing "tribe""

      I don't think it exists anymore. Haven't noticed it.

      I'm pretty sure these days is just globalism vs. anti-globalism. Welcome to the 21st.

      "what are the potential bad consequences of all that"

      I dunno, no more cheap junk made in China?

      On the other hand, once the domestic workers don't need to compete against Bangladesh and Vietnam, then it should be possible to resurrect the traditional right-left politics again.

      "what is the basis for saying democrats are worse than republicans in this area?"

      All politicians are scum. But liberals are ideologically inclined to individualism, cosmopolitanism, universalism. Globalism is natural for them.

      There used to be a strong labor faction in their party (Dennis Kucinich, most recently), but now it's all gone. It's the Clinton-Obama-style DLC shit all the way. Serving the banksters, silicon valley, the multinationals.

    13. "There used to be a strong labor faction in their party (Dennis Kucinich, most recently), but now it's all gone. It's the Clinton-Obama-style DLC shit all the way. Serving the banksters, silicon valley, the multinationals."

      Ok. So how does voting for, and supporting, Trump fix that? He (and the entire Republican Party) is even further in the bag for the global elites (see the Tax Reform Bill, which is a massive giveaway to the global elites)?

      You would have thought after Republicans ran the economy into the ground in the first decade of the century, we'd be done with this crap. Instead, Republicans, and their propaganda mouthpieces in the MSM, blamed the economic crash on black people getting mortgages (and the Republican voters, who aren't at all bigots, donchaknow, ate that up), while accusing those who wanted to hold the bankers and global elites accountable for the epidemic of fraud (which crashed the work's economy) of "criminalizing success".

      Try to answer those questions in good faith, if you can.

    14. So far, Trump appears to be doing what he promised, following the platform that got him elected.

      TPP is killed, NAFTA is being renegotiated (something Obama promised in 2008 and dropped into the memory hole as soon as he got elected). ISIS is gone (see the Russian MoD announcement today). The corporate tax is being lowered, ostensibly to attract domestic investment; we'll see.

      If he succeeds in creating whatever the number of solid factory jobs he promised, he'll be golden.

      What is your specific, factual concern? Without zombie talking points, if possible.

    15. "Trump appears to be doing what he promised, "
      Really? How would you know? In fact, when do you know when to take what he says "literally"m, and when not to?
      "ISIS is gone"
      Great. Now let's use the money we were going to use dealing with them, and instead use it to give the rest of us non-Establishment types Universal healthcare. Unless the Establishment types tell Trump "No", of course.
      "What is your specific, factual concern?"

      I'm not sure that tossing a grenade into a centuries old conflict is the brightest move a President can make.

    16. "What is your specific, factual concern?"

      Price in the EPA.
      DeVos in the Department of Education
      Tillerson as Secretary of State
      Wall Street as head of the US Treasury
      Gorusch on the Supreme Court
      A somnambulant as head of Housing and Urban Development
      All for the reasons that each and every one of theses Establishment elites are working for a guy who the trolls and Russian bots insist is really anti-establishment (ALL facts to the contrary).

    17. Are you concerned that Price, DeVos, and other managers are planning to sabotage Mr Trump's agenda, the agenda he was elected to implement?

      If you have any proof of this horrific conspiracy, you must alert Mr Trump immediately...


      If Truly you Are In Need Of A PROFESSIONAL LEGIT HACKER Who Will Get Your Job Done Efficiently With Swift Response, Congratulations, You Have Met the Right HACKERS.

      • We are a Team Of Professional HACKERS , a product of the coming together of Legit Hackers from the Dark-Web, (pentaguard,CyberBerkut, RedHack , Black Hat, White Hack ) we have been existing for over 12years, our system is a veryStrong and decentralized command structure that operates on ideas and directives.

       • Frankly speaking, I always give a 100% guarantee on any job we are been asked to do, because we have always been successful in Almost all our jobs for over 12years and our clients can testify to that .To hack any thing needs time though, but we can provide a swift response to your job depending on how fast and urgent you need it.Time also depends on what exactly you want to hack and how serious you are.Enough time with social engineering is required for hacking.So if you want to bind us in a short time, then just don't contact us because We can't hack within 30minutes,*sorry*.Basically, time depends on your luck.If its good luck, then it is possible to hack within 30minutes but, if it is in the other way round, it would take few hours.I have seen FAKE HACKERS claiming they can hack in 30min, 20min , but there is no REAL HACKER who can say this (AVOID THEM).
      Please Note : we have only one contact email :

      We will be happy to have you join over 2000 satisfied clients around the world to use our services.

      There are so many Reasons why people need to hire a hacker, It might be to Hack a Websites to deface , retrieve information, edit information or give you admin access Some people might need us for Hacking any smart phone giving you access to all activities onthe phone like , text messages , call logs , Social media Apps and other informations.Some might need to Hack a Facebook , gmail, yahoomail, Instagram , twitter and every other social network Accounts, Some might need to Hack into Court's Database to Clear criminal records.However we can also Hack into school's websites (server) to change grades without any trace, Also Some Individuals might want to Track someone else's Location probably for investigation cases.
         All these Are what we can get Done withing few hours.

      ★ Hacking and sales of Programmed credit cards & CREDIT CARD TOP-UP
      ★ Sales of untraceable phones (even the pentagon can not track our phones)
      ★ Sales of Tutorial packs for Beginner Ethical Hackers.

      ★ You can also contact us for other Cyber Attacks And Hijackings, we do almost All.

      ★Contact Us for Your Desired Service Via:

      ★We Treat Every Request With Utmost Confidentiality★

  2. "We can think of a million reasons why we ourselves wouldn't vote for Roy Moore. But how odd! We've rarely seen those reasons discussed in the last month"

    Quite true...if you read only the Daily Howler, you would not have seen those "other" reasons discussed. However, elsewhere, in the real world, including in this comment section, those "other" reasons have been widely discussed.
    Those "other" reasons include Moore's dangerous religious radicalism, which leads him to disregard federal law as a sitting judge. And his followers LOVE that about him. And they are no more likely to react favorably to that criticism from the left as the sex allegations. They hate liberals, Bob. They see Moore as a crusader for Christian dominionism.

    And as has been pointed out many times to you, those other women (mostly called conservative I might add) came forward because they felt troubled about what had happened and wanted the public to know what had happened. That's in the original Post story. It's newsworthy. And it isn't the legal dating of teenagers that anyone is upset about. Only a twit would make that argument.

    I wish you, Bob Somerby, would explain how you think Moore's supporters can be reached. Unfortunately, that is a lot harder than carping about the failures of liberals. And, no, the "love ethic" won't work; you're dealing with an opponent (the Republican Party) who shoots to kill, and they're quite happy when Democrats oblige them by standing stupidly by expressing the "better angels" of their nature. Liberals become easier targets that way.

    By the way, "Bob", what are those "million" reasons?

    1. The problem with the Alabama voters is that no further complaints about Moore's behavior have surfaced. Remember the "this is just the tip of the iceberg" comments from the "liberal" press? Where's that iceberg?

      So the voters down there are more than skeptical. I think repeated complaints-- and ones that were more grave than just minor petting, which (sorry) is the worst that Moore has been accused of --- would change many of their minds.

      Until then, MSNBC keeps calling him a "child molester," which is both unfair and antagonistic. And it's obviously backfiring.

    2. Just add Moore's sex stuff to the long list of horrible traits of this man. His religious and judicial perversions are on full display. Those alone should "change voters' minds." So, how many cases of molestation/sexual assault would convince the good voters of Alabama, if two aren't enough? Would 3 do the trick? 4? 15?

    3. There's one. Not even two now. The Allred client fell part with the obviously doctored yearbook signature, which (at least) was later amended to include those dumb initials. Even Allred refuses to back her up now. She also didn't come off convincing (she was terrified he'd "hurt her family."

      As Bob points out, and quite well, none of those other women are making accusations of sexual misbehavior. You'd never know this though watching TV or reading the papers.

      The guy dated younger women. Big whoop. He didn't even do much with them, either, from the stories going around. Certainly nothing to warrant all the hysteria and self-righteousness (and hypocrisy) from "the North."

      I think Alabama voters right now think these accusations are at least overblown, and they give him the benefit of the doubt. Further and continued revelations would probably change many of their minds, but where are they?

      If the guy was that bad, there'd be lots and lots of stories. So...where are they?

    4. You crack me up, Bob!

    5. There are lots and lots of stories. Some of them come from his colleagues in the DA's office. Some come from mall security.

      What woman wants to put herself in the public eye after all these years over someone they may care very little about? Others may want him to be elected. But there are certainly others out there.

      The challenge would be to find a woman closer to his own age who he dated during that same time period.

    6. Not much to his dating it seems. These supposedly appalling acts are about a 1 on a scale of 10.

      But, the scolds continue their work -- antagonizing any possible support but that of an elect few.

    7. These will be about 1 on a scale to 1,000,000 next to the appalling acts Roy Moore's religious nonsense will provide in Congress.
      Roy Moore is a piece of shit, who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the levers of governmental power, even if he chased adult women.

  3. Somerby doesn’t mention the wine bought for an underage teen. He also doesn’t mention the 16 year old who says he physically attacked her while offering a ride home, the one whose yearbook he signed. And Somerby has never mentioned the former police and security guards who said their job was to keep Moore from bothering teen girls at the mall and high school activities. Somerby leaves out so many details in his effort to make Moore appear innocuous.

    1. I don't see Somerby as trying to make Moore appear innocuous. I see him as suggesting ways in which the media can refrain from overstating facts, which leads to cries from conservatives about "fake news" and "liberal bias," both of which undermine our democracy.

    2. Conservatives cry "fake news" when a news story is 100% factual. It's more outraged talking point than reality. I can't help noting the potential ambiguity of your comment: "cries from conservatives about "fake news" and "liberal bias," both of which undermine our democracy":
      This can be interpreted as saying that "fake news/liberal bias" AND conservatives crying about that (fake tears?) both undermine our democracy. And that would also be true.
      By the way, does fake news/conservative bias also undermine our democracy?

    3. The yearbook accuser has fallen apart -- even her attorney Allred won't back her. She had a disastrous interview with Wolf Blitzer a couple of weeks ago.

      And Mateus is a wine. So what? Big frigging deal.

    4. 35 year old gossip isn't news

    5. Johnny, how does one overstate a fact?

    6. @12:10 - Fake cries of "fake news" and "liberal bias" undermine our democracy. So does a press that pushes narratives rather than focusing on the facts.

      @12:55 - Wow, you really got me. If you want to parse comments like that, you can find someone else to engage with.

    7. Every one of the "fake news" criers is against bringing back the "Fairness Doctrine". I suppose if you can't add 2+2, you might wonder why?

    8. (moron who's cool with even a slight possibility of GOP cronies enforcing their own take on the "Fairness Doctrine")

  4. Atrios offers some words on the liberal New York Times:

    At some point Occam's Razor applies in explaining why the Times covers things they way they do. They like Republicans. They like racist conservatives. Their "liberalism" is simply a marketing tool (not that I have ever really thought the Times was liberal over and above rich New Yorker liberalism which isn't really liberal, but their readers think it is).

    1. A sober, thorough analysis of The NY Times would be interesting and valuable. It would need to go deeper than The Howler wants to go. (And minus the snark.)
      At any rate, the Times views its news reporting as impartial. This from its mission statement: 'The goal of The New York Times is to cover the news as impartially as possible — “without fear or favor," in the words of Adolph Ochs, our patriarch — and to treat readers, news sources, advertisers and others fairly and openly, and to be seen to be doing so.'
      Its op-ed pages? I don't have the facts right now. I guess they have a reputation as being "liberal", but I doubt Clinton, Gore, or Hillary thought much of their liberalism.
      Two things that suggest themselves: 1) The Times may try to appeal to a broader readership by offering both sides of an issue. They do have to sell papers, or subscriptions. 2) Most large media orgs lean rightward. That's a natural thing given the nature of corporate culture in the US.

      Interesting link, by the way.

  5. As someone who actually gets to vote against Moore, I can honestly say his dating habits have no bearing on my decision. The guy is just awful on too many other levels.
    OTOH: If his dating habits inspire people who oppose him, but would not have gotten out to vote because they felt it was pointless, to get out an vote, then "yay."
    It's not ideal, but as they say, "Politics is not beanbag."

    1. Plus, he's one of these [courtesy of Charles Pierce]:

      "This was not a Trump bill. This was a Republican bill, a kind of culmination of everything the party has stood for since Ronald Reagan fed it the monkeybrains in 1981 and the prion disease began slowly devouring the party’s higher functions.

      It is purely supply-side in its economics, purely retrograde in its attitude toward the political commons, and purely heedless in its concern for anyone except the donor class who keep the party alive.

      This is why the Republican party chose to ally itself 50 years ago with the sad detritus of American apartheid. This is why the Republican party set itself against the expansion of the franchise. This is why the Republican party set itself against any form of campaign-finance reform, and cheered the decision in Citizens United.

      All of these dynamics were in play long ago, back in the days when Donald Trump was a Democrat. The assault on the idea of a political commonwealth began back then and it rarely has abated. The only way what happened Friday night could have been avoided is if Hillary Rodham Clinton had been elected in November of 2016 ...."

  6. I think it's hilarious that people in Alabama are more progressive about teenage dating (which is what we used to call it) than the MSNBC crowd.

    Really, is Moore accused of anything very terrible? His sexual relationships with these women seem mighty paltry. Certainly not enough to get hysterical over.

    A couple of questions. Did Moore know his 14-year-old accuser was indeed 14 at the time? No one seems to have asked. It DOES make a difference. She appears to be the only one - no one else has come forward.

    And exactly what is a "sexual predator" anyway? Not only was Moore decidedly chaste compared to what I saw in the 70s, but the only sexual predators I knew back then were women, if predation means constant attempts at dating and sex. They had more opportunities, for one.

    But, one will ever mention this on TV. How come?

    1. Good parody of Bob Somerby! Thanks for the laugh.

    2. "Not only was Moore decidedly chaste compared to what I saw in the 70s."

      Still butthurt because women got to decide who they want to have sex with, I see.
      Your misogyny? You're soaking in it, Madge.

    3. lol "troll harder" 2:35

    4. Did Moore know his 14-year-old accuser was indeed 14 at the time?

      It's funny. Implicit in this question is an admission that Moore is lying. How can anyone answer that question when Moore repeatedly denies it happened?

      I think it's hilarious that people in Alabama are more progressive about teenage dating (which is what we used to call it)

      We used to call it robbing the cradle and chasing after jailbait.

    5. We still call it statutory rape. Men who do this are called sexually inadequate. The ones who pick young-looking girls are probably pedophiles, not naive men who forgot to ask their date’s age. Look at the pictures of these kids.

    6. statutory rape

      Yes, agreed. Hence, "jailbait".

    7. How come there are so many female teachers having sexual relations with their high school students now? What *are* they teaching in Universities these days?

    8. There are no allegations of statutory rape against Moore.

      I hate the guy. But this constant nuttiness about sex and "sexual predators" is losing it for many people.

      He bought her wine. The horror!

    9. He took her to his house where he spread a blanket on the floor, took off her clothes down to her underwear, took off his clothes and began to fondle her sexually, at which point she freaked out and asked to go home. No older woman would call that a date. He is taking advantage of a child.

    10. She wasn't a child. She was a teenager. Post pubescent.

      I have a problem with her story as well. If she freaked out at the touching, why didn't she freak out about him first undressing her? It's not consistent.

      And again, did he know she was only 14, or did she imply differently at the time? No one seems to have asked.

      It doesn't make it right, but it does make it DIFFERENT. And he did comply with her request.

      And again as well, where are all the other younger underage girls that the media promised us would come forward, that "tip of the iceberg"?

    11. "And again, did he know she was only 14, or did she imply differently at the time? No one seems to have asked."

      I tend to agree. If Moore knew she was 14, he'd have dumped her for a younger model.

  7. "We can think of a million reasons why...."

    Yet you never manage to state them. About anything.

  8. When older men date children, it frequently leads to child pregnancy and marriage. The United Nations is working worldwide to end child marriage before age 18. Our State Department had a policy of making 18 the legal age but that is not true within the US.

    Here is an interview with activists working to end child marriage in the USA:

    Somerby sounds like he is working up to explaining why Moore's dating habits are perfectly normal and no big deal. Somerby is wrong. Marriage before age 18 hurts women and girls just as surely as pussy grabbing and sexual assault do, and it is time for it to stop.

    Moore is being made an example because what he did was wrong, whether legal or not. It is wrong because it hurts people.

    1. anon 4:28, Moore is execrable, though dating a few 18 years olds, relatively chastely, with in some whose mothers ok'd it, was not immoral, illegal and didn't hurt anybody. Moore didn't marry anyone under the age of 18. TDH is not apologizing for Moore. Unfortunately, you suffer from being thuddingly dense, lacking in the capacity to think critically.

    2. Other great ideas:

      No working on screen, in the theater, or as a musician until you're 18. Anywhere in the entertainment industry. It is a corrupt, disgusting and misogynistic industry that is more dangerous than even college campuses for women. That we allow our children to be pawns of BIG MEDIA is deplorable.

      Take away children of those mothers who have given birth before the age of 18. You're right, they can't sign contracts and are not allowed to bring legal action in their own name. Putting children in charge of children is insane. Take them away and give them to a family member of age, if they pass certification and drug tests, or some sort of foster home or orphanage with similar qualifications.

      Ban dropping out of school until one is 18. We're paying for your education Kiddo, you're going to get it whether you like it or not. Corollary of this is for a complete ban on children in the labor force. They are better off in government schools than letting the free market exploit their labor.

      Being that they have few little rights they probably shouldn't be allowed a contract of purchase either. From bubble gum to video games, corporations are taking advantage of our little ones and their money. All assets possessed by those under 18 should automatically be put in their own 529 account. This would be a boon to our failing public university system, which has suffered cuts from moron asshole lying sacks of shit Republican state legislatures. It's a win-win.

    3. How did this blog become infested with pedophiles?

    4. AC/MA Moore did marry someone he first met when she was in high school.

      I’m clearly not talking about girls over 18, but you call me dense. Moore harassed younger teens. The press doesn’t mention it much but Corfman attemped suicide at age 16. This kind of older male attention is bad for young girls. Pedophiles try to pretend kids have rights that are being abridged but that is self-serving garbage, just as the “she wanted it” excuse given by rapists stinks.

    5. You're mentally ill.

    6. No one dated "children."

      Most of the allegations against Moore -- and there aren't many -- involve legal behavior. And pretty chaste ones as well. There are only two incidents/allegations of misconduct. The most serious of them so lacks credibility (the attempted rape) that even her attorney has backed off. Seen Gloria lately on TV?

      There's a million reasons to be against Moore. The sex stuff is the least of it -- and there's not much sex to them anyway! That's the real joke of it all, and it's why he's been garnering sympathy from Alabamans.

    7. You are wrong about this. You ignore the girl he had called out of class in high school so he could ask her out (after stalking her) and the people who complained about him bothering teens at the mall. Fortunately in CA these days we have anti-stalking laws. He was a 30 year old “bothering” young girls. The power differential is what makes this wrong. There is nothing innocent here.

    8. I don't believe that story about calling out a girl from class, because NO school would allow such a thing, even back then. Especially back then.

      If so, people would be doing it all the time. Instead, the procedure in ALL schools is to take a message at the office, then send a monitor down to hand it to the student for them to call back AT BREAK, if even that.

      The only exception would be if the caller lied about their identity as a family member, and then claimed it was an absolute emergency. No such claim was made about Moore, and even then the process is to have the student call back immediately-- not have the caller wait around for however long it takes to locate the student.

      That aspect of the story had me very doubtful about the rest of it. And btw, California has no such law about going to the mall to "stalk" teenagers, whatever that means.

      Do you know what stalking is? It's not anything that Moore was ever accused of.

    9. Ca passed its anti-stalking law in 1990 and now all states have them. Ca’s are toughest. It prohibits repeatedly following and harassing another person.

  9. My first response to:

    “That character was a great deal like us, except he possessed self-awareness in his despair and we modern liberals don't. We modern liberals function extremely poorly.”

    was: “Who the fuck do YOU think YOU are Bob Somerby to tell ME that I don’t possess self-awareness in my despair, that I function extremely poorly. Speak for yourself.” And I have experienced a bit of despair recently, like watching two youngish human beings--one very beloved to me--die in a three-day period. Maybe that's why I took this so personally. Many of you have had similar experiences and do have beaucoup self-awareness, as evidenced by many thoughtful comments by many obviously self-aware commenters. So many of you have bristled against these odd, repetitive, snarky attacks by this odd-and-growing-odder man, as he wastes his wit and talent. For many, it’s really hard to believe he’s not scolding them. We have implored him: you’ve made your point (talking heads on cable news should not call two allegations of sexual misconduct five allegations of sexual misconduct or pretend to be outraged by behavior they would tolerate or defend if done by a liberal); now, what next! I’ve got sad news for you: probably only more of the same. The big unaddressed, unanswered question is how does this make us win? Don’t expect the merest tackling of this. Most of us have turned this cable crap off, or at least the worst of it (including the horrendous and destructive Fox News which Bob, to the dismay of many here, seems to let off the hook ala Neville Fucking Chamberlain). And who on God’s green earth would buy (or check out) and read a book written by Mika Brzezinski? As our blogger used to say: Egad! Good Grief! Jesus, Mary and Joseph! But then, a light shone in, angelic music engulfed the room. It occurred to me that Bob’s assertion was an exoneration of sorts, confirmation that I am not (and neither are a lot of you) considered qualified to be a member of the tribe that Bob incessantly castigates, a tribe he routinely admits he himself populates: “we modern liberals,” “we fiery liberals.” We are excluded and always have been. He’s not scolding us. I’m literally honored not to be numbered among Bob’s tribespeople, excluded by self-awareness in my despair, excluded by my willingness to move on from Maddow et al, excluded by my refusal to watch it, defend it or especially harp on it. By Bob’s definition I’m not a modern liberal, not a fiery liberal. Whew! I’m not a member of Bob’s tribe. Whew! I’m glad Bob acknowledges his own inclusion in the tribe he so stridently and ponderously attacks.

    1. "If you are required to interact with hardcore Trump voters, point out how they personally will suffer as a result of republican policies."

      This won't work. Yeah they may get food stamps or medicaid, but there's a decent chance they don't want to be. Try persuasion by supporting a self actualizing policy that the left has that doesn't involve being dependent on welfare or a hand out. Which policies would those be? What are you offering them?

      "Don’t mention how they are destroying the planet for our great-grandchildren because they don’t give a shit."

      They don't give a shit because they don't believe the left. They don't believe that the left has the best interest of their great grand children in mind. Does the left in other aspects? They may think they do, but there's a good chance the left would disagree with them fundamentally on whats best for their progeny in many aspects. Why should this one matter over any of the others? In a future where there is minimal mitigation of immigration, their great grand children may very well be worse off anyway. Are your arguments otherwise as convincing as the ones about global warming? They don't trust you, why should they?

      "Prepare yourself with facts and lock eyes with them because generally speaking they behave like bullies and deep-down bullies are cowards."

      I'm interpreting this as: "Be aggressive, that's what they respect" There are certain corners of the deplorable internet that perceive women the same way. Maybe they have a point. Also, clearly facts don't matter at this point. They don't trust you enough to believe in them. Work on your trust.

      "Bob would recommend singing Kumbaya to them but let’s agree to disagree with him on this one."

      Points for hyperbole but Bob's starting point would just to be reasonable adults trying to empathize with a fellow human. Bill Clinton was pretty good at that, despite his faults. Clubbing them over the head might make you feel better but its a also a great way to alienate large segments of the population.

      BTW you're mentally ill too, take a breather DUDE

    2. take your pills, you're cursing again

    3. "They don't trust you, why should they?"
      Not my respect for people of color, that's for darn* sure.

      *That's for you, 7:26.

    4. Thanks Greg.
      Looks like we're going to need to burn Wall Street to the ground, sooner than later.

    5. Greg,

      Your truth-telling is refreshing. So few people partake these days.

      In the meantime, rather than attempting arson on stone buildings, mm can probably recall Schopenhauer’s concept of the Better Consciousness: “a consciousness that lies beyond all experience, and thus all reason, both theoretical and practical.” He advocates art, especially music to get there. I always return to the Beatles and Zeppelin but many folk rockers are effective too. Radiohead and Grunge (especially Alice in Chains) are OK but never go beyond 2000. Stay in the past. Play it loud. I've heard some people use cannabis. And if you don’t already indulge, try oil painting. Interestingly, he advocates a morale life and good works to round it out. Work in a soup kitchen—you’ll have an ever-growing customer base. It’ll be interesting to count how many of the customers have “Don Jr for President” vs. “Chelsea’s for Me” buttons on their dirty coats. Timothy Leary said that if youth is wasted on the young, senility is wasted on the old. He said it was better than LSD. So, you have that in your back pocket. Lavish your grandkids with your love and time as they’ll otherwise have it rough until the time—by necessity—that mm is proven right. It’ll probably be too late though.

    6. You need to but you never will because you are addicted to greasy food, convenience,your phone and all the deadening culture it beams into your glassy eyes. Burn down Wall Street? Be honest. You can't even get yourself to the gym. You are trapped. You are not even an individual. You are a piano key.

      Thank you.

      Drive through.

    7. Thanks Dude. Sounds good. I like Mass in C Minor or Apples in Stereo or Harvey Milk or whatever. Madonna.

      I know people love weed but it is part of the problem and one of the worst drugs ever created. In India where it comes from they used to only give it to the lowliest street sweepers. Now, our zombie populace actually embraces it which says a lot.

      MM should try to understand Faust.

    8. "burn Wall Street to the ground, sooner than later."
      And replace it with what, exactly?

    9. Thanks guys, Greg and Greg. Very entertaining. I'm not much into old German philosophers, never had much use for them. Keep it up.

    10. "And replace it with what, exactly?"
      Beyond the river of tears for the poor global elites from Conservatives? Gondolas.

  10. the left: totally cool with 18 year olds in porno movies and other heavily sexualized media, freely available with minimal hassle to children and adults alike for FREE on the internet. but try to date one, woah there pardner. that's not just creepy, it's pedophilia!

    lol gtfo

    1. Life is so unfair to pedophiles!

    2. "18 year olds in porno movies and other heavily sexualized media"

      I'm pretty sure God digs the sexualized world, with all the pro-creation jazz in the Bible.
      Moore and his fellow God-botherers read the book wrong. Again.

  11. Oops. Dating those teenagers was no big deal, right? Moore denies knowing any of them. One of them produces evidence showing he DID know her (she is one not claiming any misconduct by Moore). Why would he feel the need to lie, if it was all hunky dory? If he lied about that, did he lie about Corfman too?

    Text from the Post story:

    "Debbie Wesson Gibson, who says she dated Roy Moore in 1981, recently found a high school graduation card she says he gave her at the time and inscribed to her. Moore, who is running for the U.S. Senate, said recently of Gibson and eight other women who have accused him of inappropriate relations, “I do not know any of these women, did not date any of these women and have not engaged in any sexual misconduct with anyone.”

    The woman was angry that Moore, from the pulpit of a church, was making this statement, basically calling her a liar.


  12. The reason it seems like a stampede is women traditionally have been told to shut up about this stuff and called liars. Is the daily howler afraid of women? We're just asking questions folks!

    1. No, it's just another media sex scandal. That's why it's become a stampede.

      Happens all the time. McMartins, anyone?

    2. McMartins was about the suggestibility of preschool age kids improperly interviewed. Are you suggesting that women are like preschoolers?

    3. hmm how do you feel about priming and stereotype threat?