It’s been 11 days since Alabama’s special Senate election was rocked by allegations that Roy Moore sexually abused a 14-year old girl when he was in his early 30s.
Wagons were circled, denials were issued, and other accusers have come forward since then.
So how well are some of Alabama’s most influential institutions handling this controversy?
Final grades cannot be issued because this disaster is far from over, but since we’re one-third of the way between when the allegations first surfaced and the December 12th election, let’s hand out some progress reports.
Who: Moore’s campaign.
What: C+
Why: They’re doing pretty well considering the circumstances.
— There’s a strong argument that the campaign should receive an F because of the way it’s mishandling the candidate and his surrogates.
— But we should remember what they’re up against: The candidate isn’t known for delivering well-polished speeches or handling the media very well.
— Moore makes it worse with every interview (his interview with Sean Hannity is when he lost my support because he couldn’t categorically deny dating high school girls when he was in his 30s. Surely a man would remember such a thing).
— And the people who are speaking on his behalf, known in political circles as surrogates, are complete disasters.
Who: Moore’s surrogates.
What: D (with an “Unsatisfactory” note for behavior).
Why: For making awful moral equivalencies.
— Our state auditor defended the allegations by invoking the Holy Family, saying that Joseph was much older than Mary (for the record, Joseph’s age is never mentioned in scripture or tradition … wait … having to bring their names into this makes me want to punch something).
— Moore’s lawyer told a Canadian-born television anchor that his “background” should help him understand the justification for older men dating teenagers (the reporter’s parents were from India).
— Then there was that near wrestling match his preacher/surrogates started with the press last week in Birmingham (and not with the national press corps. These were our local guys, folks we know and who are decent people).
Who: Washington’s Republican establishment
What: F
Why: They won’t shut up.
— Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his campaign fund are partly responsible for digging this hole … and they won’t stop digging it deeper.
— They swamped the only conservative who could have defeated Moore in a runoff, U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks of Huntsville, and then ran a series of terrible ads that turned voters against Sen. Luther Strange.
— Now, every time McConnell and others in Washington say something bad about Moore, a few dozen undecided voters switch to the judge’s camp.
— A guy told me last week that he can’t stand Moore, thinks he’s guilty as sin, but is going to vote for him just to send a message to McConnell and his gang.
— That message? Stay out of our business.
Who: Alabama’s Republican establishment
What: I (for incomplete)
Why: They won’t speak up.
— Aside from a few exceptions (Sen. Richard Shelby, the Greater Birmingham Young Republicans, the Young Republican Federation of Alabama Steering Committee), most of the party’s leaders are trying to have it both ways — not calling the accusers liars but not withdrawing their support for Moore either.
— Some aren’t even commenting at all (letting people know their thoughts at such an important moment should be expected of anyone wishing to assume the mantle of leadership within our movement).
— They could end up with a pretty good grade, though.
— As additional accusers step forward, then more of our movement’s leaders may feel compelled or confident enough to … well … lead. Stay tuned.
Check back tomorrow for progress reports on the national media, local talk radio, and Alabama’s voters.
(What grades would you have given? Take this article over to Facebook and tell your family and friends)
