"More than once" isn't a lot, given how much this has been talked about. Personally, I heard way, way more of the pragmatic justification and/or disbelief in the accusations.
You say "conservative agenda" like people did this over carried interest or something. It's pretty clear it had more to do with abortion. And while you may not personally find that to be the moral imperative that it is for many pro-life people, it's pretty understandable that they do.
Again, I find that sort of decision to be horrendously myopic, and I think Moore is a buffoon and a disgrace to public service. But a lot of people felt they were choosing between an evil policy and a terrible person, and given that belief I don't think it's reasonable to pretend they were giving some full-throated endorsement to this guy.
I'm not sure why I'm piping in here. Maybe because I'm frustrated at the work place and need a vent. Still, this may not be the best topic to jump into!!!! I'll (try to) tread lightly.
Reading through my reply here I should point out that I'm not referring to media. Just us simple folk in the south.
As far as conservative agendas go with regards to this senate election, I do not think those who voted for Moore had an
agenda. Or at least not one that rises to what I read as potential conspiracy-level manipulation, even in the lightest definition. I am speaking of the individual voter level and not the national level talking-heads, be it the politician or pundit. That is another level and another matter. I do believe many votes were made for party label and justified as opposition to the "evil" of abortion, regardless of whatever other issues were on the table. And it was as simple as that.
I agree that it would be unfair to take a vote for Moore as a default
endorsement of pedophilia (or whatever). Similarly, I would like to believe that a vote for Jones is not an inherent endorsement of "killing babies". Unfortunately, my experience has shown me that the latter is absolutely true, at least in the social cross-section that I deal with here in the state of Alabama judging by commentary and frustration leading up to the election. A friend of mine recently said, "If you wear a Doug Jones shirt in public, I have the right to scream baby killer at you in public." Yes, that is anecdotal, but that comment is more accepting than a legitimate discussion on hypothetical situations where one must confront one's moral standard to question what, if anything, would be an acceptable level of compromise to cross those lines. Just in discussion! "Could I kill a man?
Never! Well, to defend my family? Maybe. Probably." There is a range of possibilities between a yes or no answer. To dismiss that outright, I find it convenient and lazy.
Personally, I cannot even begin to relate to how one can distill all potential matters of concern down to
vote = complicity to murder, as if nothing else exists. That, to me, is as arbitrary as claiming I hate fruit because I would not eat a plum. It bothers me, deeply.
I do understand the emotional power of the topic. I understand the faith in the issue. I understand the moral and ethical dilemma of the action. And I can absolutely understand how this one topic alone can be enough to validate one's voting preference---
if honest consideration has been given to other weighing points but still choosing this principle over all others. That is a subtly that is continually lost in debate. I use that term lightly as my experience shows that
debate quickly devolves to argument, at which point I have to give up. What I have difficulty understanding is how this voice can be so loud as to drown out a gradient of contexts from one extreme to another effectively grouping anything outside of this position as evil, while at the same time judging party-line internal conflicts of morality as
not as bad. Why can there be no conversation or reflection? We all have principles, I believe. Those other principles are not void simply because one's principle may not be as strong as another's.
That is what I experience though. Whatever thought processes one takes to reach such a conclusion is mind boggling to me, yet so many around me follow that path.
Putting Moore's allegations aside, I believe there was enough conflict in his politics and his agenda (as a politician, not as as voter) to draw, at the very least, doubt in his competency as a national leader. Much of that appears to have been swept under the rug due to the volume of 1) opposition to allegation and judgment, and 2) hard line moral stances on abortion.
Side note: I am sorry to put so much emphasis on abortion. That really was not my point in this reply. I kind of see the word as a variable for my opinions above, where I could replace that word with any number of other wedge issues and draw similar conclusions. It is not the topic so much as it is the method of validation that I see play out in those around me that I am trying to highlight.
Yeah. I'm pretty sure I'm well off topic at this point. I'll close it out and submit. Time to go home now anyway, so yay!!!