Krashlia wrote:Why is the Alt-Right not obsessed with Ray Moore? Is it le ephebophilia defense?
CNN
compiled comments from Moore and his supporters. And I think they can be sumarized into the following main arguments:
1) There was no child molestation. Moore and some supporters have characterized the stories as a smear campaign by the enemy. People who believe this have nothing to obsess over regarding Moore because to them nothing actually happened. On a similar note (and one which I'll revisit in a moment), an Alabama GOP chair argued that the 14-year old wasn't really molested, even if something did happen. From the article: "'It was 40 years ago,' he told the Star. 'I really don't see the relevance of it. He was 32. She was supposedly 14. She's not saying that anything happened other than they kissed.'"
The accuser
also claimed that Roy Moore touched her in graphic ways she was uncomfortable with, moved her hand to make her touch him, and removed his clothes, but the chair conveniently left that out.
2) Moore is the more moral candidate. Moore described himself as being in a "'spiritual battle' in which Democrats and the media seek to silence him," which by default casts that Democrats and the media as immoral. Alabama's state auditor invoked Joseph and Mary (of baby Jesus fame) to suggest that dating a 14 year-old would be okay biblically. Joseph was an adult carpenter and Mary was young. This of course ignores the fact that Mary was supposed to be a virgin (as late night comedians have hilariously pointed out). It also ignores the fact that what Moore is being accused of is unwanted sexual contact, not simply dating young people. But even then, one supporter argued, "And if it has happened, I believe the good Lord has forgiven him and he has the right to continue to prove himself."
3) Even if he is guilty, it was a long time ago, which relates to the defense made by the GOP chair in Point 1. I think this also partly relates to something I stated earlier. The accusers may have been underage when the alleged offenses occured, but they're adults now, so to condemn Moore wouldn't be protecting children from him. Moreover, the claim is that Moore may have been bad in the past, but isn't now and, again, at least isn't a liberal. I think the following quote from the article captures that: '"Whatever he did 40 years ago is irrelevant to the person he is now,' Word said. 'He could be the single most conservative in the US Senate. If anyone is going to work to clean up the mess ... it's him.'"
That last defense is very telling. That would mean a possible child molester is still better than a Democrat. In that sense, I think part of this just boils down to a matter of "moral right wing versus immoral left" (a point which IamNotCreepy brought up earlier). And that ultimately boils down to minimal groups and tribalism.