In a way, I sympathize with Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama. I understand how incredibly valuable it is to have a seat in the U.S. Senate, and I wouldn’t want to concede one to the Republicans, especially in a dark blue state. The issue is amplified by the fact that the Republicans currently enjoy a narrow 52-48 majority, and we should keep in mind also that John McCain is very ill and that Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi has missed time recently because of poor health. The Republicans want to pass a tax bill through the Senate that is dependent on them having fifty seats, at a minimum, and losing the Alabama seat would get them down to a very uneasy fifty-one. Besides these factors, though, I can understand where Brooks is coming from when he says this:
“America faces huge challenges that are vastly more important than contested sexual allegations from four decades ago,” Brooks said in a text message to AL.com. “Who will vote in America’s best interests on Supreme Court justices, deficit and debt, economic growth, border security, national defense, and the like? Socialist Democrat Doug Jones will vote wrong. Roy Moore will vote right. Hence, I will vote for Roy Moore.”
I could say all the same things about Sen. Bob Menendez who is currently on trial in New Jersey for corruption. He may well get off, or at least get a mistrial based on a hung jury, but if he were to be convicted and forced to resign from the Senate, I’m sure the person Gov. Chris Christie chose to replace him would “vote wrong” from my perspective on a whole lot more things than Menendez would.
Personally, though, I’d prefer to see Menendez convicted because I think what he’s done is every bit as wrong as what Virginia governor Bob McDonnell did, and I think the Supreme Court was wrong to overturn McDonnell’s conviction. Still, I’m impure or partisan enough to hope that, were Menendez found guilty, it would be incoming Democratic governor Phil Murphy who would appoint a replacement for Menendez. I definitely understand the sentiment in favor of finding some way to save the Alabama seat for the Republicans.
Where I differ with Mo Brooks is, first, that I want Menendez held accountable for his actions and I’m upset that the Supreme Court’s leniency in the McDonnell case might prevent that from happening. In other words, my sense of right or wrong isn’t compromised by any sense that I need to be a team player.
Secondly, while I might want to avoid the worst consequences of having a bad senator in the Democratic Party, I believe the party and the country are better off in the long run without Menendez even if his replacement would potentially “vote wrong” or even prevent the Democrats from winning a majority.
Thirdly, in the end, I’m more willing to take the worst consequences than I am to tolerate abhorrent behavior. And I’m willing to stand on those principles even in a contested case where the worst allegations are about a misuse of office rather than sexual assaults against teenage girls.
I could definitely make an argument that preventing a horrible tax bill is more important than the fate of a single senator. I could say that we need a “good vote” on climate change or to save our health care system or on judicial nominations. But I’m not willing to make those arguments because we need to put good governance first, and we can’t overlook criminal behavior just because we think it’s advantageous to our other political interests.
To be honest, I think I’m being very generous here, because I’m making an equivalency that doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny. Nothing Menendez has done is remotely comparable to what Roy Moore is convincingly accused of having done. But that’s kind of the point. I don’t need the crime to be cruel and vicious and aimed at children to feel compelled to condemn it and call for accountability.
So, my sympathy for Mo Brooks is actually quite limited. I agree that the ways in which our policies are decided are of great importance. I’m highly vested in how these things turn out. But the idea that I’d support someone who harms children just so I could have a better chance of prevailing in the political realm isn’t anything I can or will countenance.
Mo Brooks makes a different calculation, and I think we’re all entitled to judge him negatively for it.
He’s a terrible human being.
I personally would rather see Menendez get off than lose the seat (if it came to that), but that’s only because I care about preserving accomplishments like the ACA and I’m aware of the lives that would be lost and the untold suffering that would result if the Republicans succeeded in taking it down.
In my view this is no less a moral choice than yours even though I am on that slippery slope of letting the ends justify the means.
Well, you’re closer to Brooks than I am.
I think its work interrogating WHY it looks like Menendez is going to get a hung jury. Is it because there are jurors with your attitude? Or maybe pay-to-play is now considered the baseline political OP.
Booman seemed to think the state has a very solid case for bribery. If the situation is now that you can’t get a conviction anymore in a trial with political repercussions, we’re in a bad place. How’s it going to work when the shoe is on the other foot?
How long before we’re back to Emmet Till?
Before I presumed the jurors were nullifying the law, I’d presume they’re enforcing it. The Supreme Court made it really hard to prove bribery. One needs a clear quid pro quo.
x 10^23
.
>>> THIS <<<
The issue is hypocrisy. If this stuff isn’t relevant, fine, but then neither were Lewinsky, Jeremiah Wright or Hillary’s speaking fees.
You can’t pick and choose; you can’t have it whichever way is convenient. Either you believe in “disqualifying” but unrelated-to-governance transgressions or you don’t.
Ummm, No.
Hillary’s speaking fees are not in any universe remotely like sexual assault, corruption or bribery.
I am married to an amazing woman who is still haunted by childhood sex abuse that happened 50 years ago.
Fuck Mo Brooks and any other idiot who thinks we should ever look away from what these abhorrent predators do to the children among us. Statutes of limitations may prevent criminal prosecution, but it is NEVER too late to to hold these beasts accountable.
Booman, you are 100% correct – Mo Brooks is “a terrible human being.”
No doubt about that. That wasn’t the issue Martin raised but I can relate to what you’ve said, having myself been molested when I was 15. It’s not just girls. Happens to boys too. Really messed me up for a long time. I’m fortunate in that it didn’t cripple me for life. At around age 28, I had a big breakthrough and it’s been just an asterisk, a bit of historical flotsam ever since.
So it’s an excellent time to come to terms with all of Bill Clinton’s scandals by weighing the weight of the allegations differently, acknowledging the massive break in traditional norms the Republicans pulled in invading what had been considered a politican’s private life.
And insisting that the standard now apply to all, especially Republicans. Will the Weinstein moment reach politics? Will it even reach Hollywood?
Oh please. They go to bed every night praying there is no babies mama.
I haven’t been following the Menendez trial much. Wasn’t the jury re-set on Monday because one of the jurors had a two week vacation? The new juror might tip the balance, no?
I’m not willing to put bribery on the same scale as sexual predators of minors. I see the GOPedophiles getting all high and mighty right now, but haven’t they re-elected people who were caught doing worse? Seems to me that only Democrats suffer true loss of careers for wrong-doing.
They are hung. A juror was replaced because she had a long planned vacation. She said she would have voted to acquit, and that a majority agreed with her.
The jury sent a message that they were hung, and the judge gave them the weekend off to rest, and to come back Tuesday and try again.
I’m not sure I like the phrase ‘get off’. We won’t know until the jury is released, but apparently the defense case resonated, the prosecution case did not. That sounds like how a trial works.
.
. . . probability I’ll steal that.
Hope you don’t mind.
I stole it from twitter; it’s yours for the taking.
“I voted against a Democrat who molested teenage girls thirty years ago. As a result, we lost a crucial senate seat that allowed for the passage of a law that stripped millions of their health insurance so that already very rich people could get yet another tax cut. Millions of families are now suffering. But hey, my conscience is clear.”
Ha! That’s not something I would ever say – I would consider it downright immoral. Public policy that affects the lives of millions of people is simply far more important than one man’s lurid past.
If I were a conservative Republican in Alabama, and I believed Democrats were the devil’s agents on earth, hell-bent on destroying America, I’d hold my nose and vote for Moore. But I believe the exact opposite – that Republican policies do nothing but serve the interests of the rich and powerful at the expense of everyone else. Moreover, the GOP abets an authoritarian administration that is undermining our democracy – its norms, value, institutions, and the very rule of law. These things are just bigger than the moral transgressions of one man. My goodness, it’s not even close. I’ll vote for just about anyone, no matter how awful, who votes against a GOP agenda and administration that pose an existential threat to our country.
The only way I wouldn’t vote for such a man is if Dems enjoyed a safe majority, I couldn’t rely on him to vote correctly, or his election would cause more harm to my party’s political fortunes than his vote in the Senate would help them. But in a 52-48 Senate – nah, this is an easy choice.
Your post brings to mind this old bumpersticker.
Which was around during the race between Edwin Edwards and David Duke in Louisiana. Edwards was a crook. Sometimes you just have to go for the lesser of two evils.
I can’t believe any Democrat is still talking about the possibility of Chris Christie selecting the replacement for Menendez. There is currently a Democratic governor elect waiting to take over the office in about 2 months. If Menendez were to be convicted he would have to be insane, as would the Democrats, to not say he will resign, but not until the new Democratic governor elect takes office. Do you seriously think that the Republicans would ever let a Democratic governor with a 14% approval rating about to leave office in about 60 days select the next Governor for any given State. And yet Democrats are actually speaking, of the actual possibility of letting an outgoing Republican governor with a 14% approval rating select the next governor. When in the world are Democrats going to stop playing by a different set of rules as the Republicans? You can’t expect to win elections when you keep strictly adhering to norms and rules and guidelines, while the other side does whatever the hell they want all the time.. It’s the equivalent of being in a boxing match, And your opponent keeps hitting you below the belt, and the ref simply is never calling it. At some point you have no choice but to also hit back below the belt. So please stop this nonsense They consistently act like atrophied weaklings. If Menendez is convicted either say you’re staying in office while you’re appealing, or you’re simply going to resign but not resign until January when the Democratic governor elect waiting in the wings can select the next Governor. End of story.
Here here.
It’s unbelievable and almost unforgivable that any Democrat would even contemplate letting Christie seat a Republican senator. This one is a non-brainer.
“yet Democrats are actually speaking, of the actual possibility of letting an outgoing Republican governor with a 14% approval rating select the next governor.”
Hi – I cannot find any Democrat saying this. I would like to know who said this and why. You’re right it makes no sense.
This is why I hate partisanship and why I consider myself an independent, even though I’m probably far more liberal than you are. If Menendez is guilty, he should be convicted and I don’t give a damn if Christie gets to pick his replacement.
The biggest threat to American Democracy is the system of legalized bribery that forces every politician to weigh the interests of the billionaire class above the interests of the rest of the country. The Supreme Court decision in the McDonnell case is just the latest example in a disturbingly rapid escalation in government sanctioned-corruption.
The Republican party is now completely overcome by it. They backed the nomination of a sexual predator to the presidency, because “he’ll pass our agenda”. It’s become obvious that many in the Republican leadership knew of Trump’s collusion with a hostile foreign power, supported him anyway, and continue to protect him now.
And now they’re not sure whether it’s better to have a pedophile in the Senate, or a Democrat?
Let’s not go down that road. The only way to ensure that politicians will “vote right” is to get the crooks out of the party.
Yup.