The only way to defeat Roy Moore

Moore denies everything — but without specifically denying much of anything. In one interview, he said that while in his 30s he did not “generally” date teenage girls. He added that he cannot “remember dating any girl without the permission of her mother.” How weaselly does all of this sound?

.. Having Moore in the Senate would probably mean more grief for Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) than losing the seat to Moore’s Democratic opponent, Doug Jones.

..  Moore pulled this off by positioning himself as the self-anointed voice of Christian grievance and resentment. “Populist” is too neutral a description. Moore is really a tribal leader, claiming that his followers are the only true Americans — while disqualifying his opponents as illegitimate.

.. The problem with tribalism is that it is absolute. In Rwanda in 1994, you were either identified as Tutsi or as Hutu; there was no in-between. For Moore, you are either among the good people or among the evil.

.. Moore’s philosophy is properly seen as Manichaean, not Christian; it has no room for universal love. The fact that most of his supporters, thus far, are sticking with him — enough to cow the state Republican Party into sticking with him, too — means he has convinced many Alabamians that child molestation is a lesser sin ..

.. Successful demagogues can use tribal enmities to blind their followers to such moral and logical contradictions. Some of Moore’s followers have told reporters they believe all the accusers are lying for partisan political reasons, which seems unlikely given what we know about the women’s politics; most describe themselves as conservative and several said they voted for President Trump.

Some Moore supporters charge that the women are seeking publicity, which is ridiculous; reporters sought the victims out and convinced them to tell their stories, and the women must have had some idea of the kind of vicious attacks that would follow.

.. Moore uses his angry Christianity as a tool of self-aggrandizement. He uses the trust and passion of the Alabamians he defrauds to sully the reputations of women who bravely testify to his allegedly vile and creepy behavior. He rages about filing lawsuits, but don’t hold your breath. Lawyers for potential defendants can’t wait to see what the discovery process might unearth.

.. He can be defeated — but only if Alabamians decide that honor, integrity and morality are more important than tribe

The Hollywood Conspiracy of Silence

It’s nearly impossible to believe the big stars who say they didn’t know about Harvey Weinstein’s revolting acts.

Accepting the 2005 Oscar he won for gaining a few pounds and being tortured in Syriana, George Clooney made the case for Hollywood as America’s moral conscience:

.. How can Clooney, Meryl Streep, and their peers continue to claim America’s moral high ground when they simply shrugged at what was going on with their pal Harvey Weinstein?

.. Pitt had once threatened to give Weinstein a “Missouri whooping” after the producer sexually harassed his then-girlfriend Gwyneth Paltrow in the 1990s.

.. Another Ocean’s buddy, Matt Damon, personally called up Sharon Waxman, then a New York Times reporter, to intercede against a story that would have been unflattering to Weinstein.

.. Did Damon also never talk to Pitt on the set of the Ocean’s movies? Or on the set of The Departed, which Pitt produced and Damon starred in? Or maybe in between takes on Happy Feet 2, in which Pitt and Damon played a zany pair of gay crustaceans?

.. Entertainment reporters, tending to be both a) in awe of their subjects and b) unschooled in Washington-style spot-the-loophole weasel talk, haven’t quite nailed down what either of them knew.

.. “I did five or six movies with Harvey. I never saw this. I think a lot of actors have come out and said, everybody’s saying we all knew. That’s not true. This type of predation happens behind closed doors, and out of public view.” “I’ve never seen any of this behavior — ever,” Clooney told The Daily Beast.

.. Of course Damon and Clooney never saw the misbehavior. When Weinstein wants a tête-à-tête with Ashley Judd in his bathrobe, Damon and Clooney aren’t going to be invited along. The question is, did they know what Weinstein was up to?

.. “I had no idea that it had gone to the level of having to pay off eight women for their silence, and that these women were threatened and victimized.” The comment seems to be limited to “these women” — the eight who were paid off. Like a politician, Clooney is answering a question nobody asked. Did he know Weinstein was inviting actresses to business meetings that turned into bedroom meetings that turned into sexual overtures with career implications?

.. Could news of such revolting acts really never have reached Clooney’s ears? It seems more likely that Clooney was part of a conspiracy of silence.

.. Movie Clooney is very interested in exposing the pernicious actions of oil companies (Syriana), chemical companies (Michael Clayton), TV hucksters (Money Monster), McCarthyism (Good Night, and Good Luck), and the masterminds of the first Gulf War (Three Kings). Real-life Clooney plugs his ears when people in Hollywood gossip about a subject that has evidently been a hot topic of conversation since Pauly Shore was considered a movie star. Weinstein’s habits were such an open secret they were joked about on 30 Rock and at an Oscar press conference.

.. Power, to Streep, is someone like Weinstein, someone who could cast her or not cast her, possibly even influence the hiring decisions of others. And Weinstein’s skill in campaigning for Oscars is unparalleled. He was widely credited for winning her a third Oscar for The Iron Lady, notably by Streep herself, who said in her acceptance speech, “I want to thank God — Harvey Weinstein.”

.. The message could hardly be more clear to them that Weinsteinian behavior is simply the price that must be paid.

.. “Evans wanted to be an actress, and although she had heard rumors about Weinstein she let him have her number.” Would Streep have us believe that aspiring actresses still in college knew more about industry players than she did?

.. Think of all of the hundreds of actresses, and thousands of other industry people, Streep has worked with over the years. None of this ever came up?

.. For Clooney or Damon or Pitt or Streep to pick up a phone and call a reporter to speak about Harvey Weinstein’s predatory behavior all these years would have taken a minimal amount of guts. It could have cost them gigs, or awards. The Weinstein debacle has implicated more or less everyone in Hollywood who knew about the abhorrent behavior and remained silent, which must mean just about everyone in Hollywood.

From now on the leading Hollywood personalities deserve nothing but derision when they pretend to be courageous truth-tellers. They are neither.

Parents should be repulsed by Trump’s playing of the father card

“The president weighed in just as any father would, based on the limited information that he had,” said White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, effectively confirming The Post’s report that President Trump personally drafted Donald Trump Jr.’s misleading statement about his meeting with a Russian lawyer proffering dirt on Hillary Clinton.

.. “As any father would.” Fathers are supposed to teach their children the difference between right and wrong. My father taught me not to lie. Donald Trump Jr.’s father taught him to shade the truth — in this case, so much that it was in total eclipse. “The statement that Don Jr. issued is true. There’s no inaccuracy in the statement,” Sanders said. No technical inaccuracy, perhaps, but little actual truth.

“Primarily’’ was the tell, the classic Trumpian hedge behind which Sanders so unconvincingly hid.

.. Fathers are supposed to put their children’s well-being above their own; that selflessness is the essence of being a parent. Trump Jr.’s attorney, Alan Futerfas, told The Post that he and his client had been “fully prepared and absolutely prepared to make a fulsome statement” about the meeting. Then the president intervened, dictating edits in the statement to his aide Hope Hicks, and gambling foolishly that the real facts wouldn’t emerge.

.. When, inevitably, they did, it made Trump Jr. look bad — “If it’s what you say, I love it,” he told the Russian attorney of her Clinton offer — but also provided evidence of some willingness on the part of the Trump campaign to collude with the Russians. Whose interest was the president so frantically scrambling to protecting here, his son’s or his own?

Why the 9 Sentences After Agreeing 100%?

Jonathan Karl asked Donald Trump whether he would be willing to testify under oath contradicting James Comey’s claim that Trump asked him to pledge his loyalty.

MY QUESTION IS ABOUT WHAT TRUMP SAID AFTER “AGREEING” TO TESTIFY:

  • What did Trump mean by the 9 sentences of weasel words that followed his agreement to Testify under Oath100%?
  • It seems needlessly complicated when, if he meant to agree, he could have stopped talking after “100%.”

WHAT THE MEDIA REPORTED:

Karl: So, [Comey] said those things under oath. Would you be willing
to speak under oath to give your version of events?

Trump: 100%.

TRUMP’S ACTUAL FULL ANSWER:

Trump: 100%. 1

  1. I didn’t say under oath — 2
  2. I hardly know the man,
  3. I’m not going to say I want you to pledge allegiance.
  4. Who would do that?
  5. Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance, under oath? 3
  6. I mean, think of it.
  7. I hardly know the man.
  8. It doesn’t make sense.
  9. No, I didn’t say that, and I didn’t say the other.

Full Transcript

Notice the 9 sentences of *weasel words* that didn’t get reported
because they weren’t a good soundbite.

Trump acts as if he’s answering his own invented question:

  • Did Trump ask for Comey’s loyalty, and
    did he have Comey place his hand on a Bible (pledge allegiance under oath)? 4
  • It doesn’t seem like these weasel words are accidental because
    its not credible that Trump misheard the question that way.

How does this make any sense?

  • Trump wasn’t under oath. He was just answering a reporter’s question; and lying doesn’t seem to be against his principles, so why add the weasel words?
  • Trump has established an expectation of testifying, regardless of weasel words5
  • By employing weasel words, he adding to his risk, because the
    weasel words confirm to a savvy audience that he intended to mislead.
  • So what purpose do the weasel words serve?

My theory: “Donald does Deception as a Sport”

  • It seems to me that Trump wants to be able to tell himself that
    he didn’t lie because what he said was technically not untrue,
    although highly deceptive.
  • Maybe “Donald does Deception for Sport”.
    • Trump wants to tell himself that he “cheated fair and square”.
    • The weasel words are his way of telling himself that he technically gave the press and public a chance, but he outsmarted the losers.

What’s your Theory?

  1. Are these 9 sentences of weasel words just accidental?
    • If Trump really meant to affirm, he could have simply said: “Yes. 100%” and left it there.
    • Or is this just a Trump brain fart?
    • What’s Your Theory?

Suggestion:

  • Next time reporters might try reading Comey’s statements verbatim (without tripping up) to see whether Trump’s tactics change.  My suspicion is that when Trump says “I didn’t say that” he means that you didn’t pin him down with the exact words.

I’ve posted more on my blog:  openpolitics.com

Tim Langeman
Akron, PA
717-723-9898 (cell)
timlangeman@gmail.com


  1. This is a perfect soundbite that Trump knew would get picked up by all the news shows, but the remainder of his answer does not make for a good soundbite, so he knew it would get ignored.

  2. Why would Trump say this? It sounds as though he’s deceptively trying to give a soundbite-perfect answer, and then immediately negate it.

  3. Why would Trump say this? It sounds like he is implausibly pretending he heard the question wrong: “Did Trump ask Comey to pledge his loyalty, with Comey’s hand on the Bible.”

  4. Line #5: “Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance, under oath?”

  5. If Scott Adams is right, I don’t expect him to actually testify, just as he hasn’t released the tax returns he previously offered. Likely he will back away from his original remarks, perhaps saying that his lawyers don’t recommend it, or even saying that Mueller’s staff is partisan and out to get him.  He himself recommended that Bill Clinton take the 5th.  But he made it sound as though he wants to testify, which is what he wants people to believe.