GA-SEN 2022 Megathread: Werewolves and Vampires

[Frodo]

Following the 2016 Post-Access Hollywood Trump playbook, the Christian Right is taking a strictly transactional stance, making clear it doesn't care about the allegations so long as Walker delivers the goods if he is elected:

Walker’s Christian fans unfazed by abortion revelations
The anti-abortion GOP Senate nominee's supporters say they care more about his policies than about his behavior.

[Frodo]

I will say though, that Republicans, in justifying their continued support for Walker, have brought up the examples of not only Menendez, but also Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton. Their reasoning is this: Why should they abandon Walker (and Trump) over concerns about their moral character when the Democrats did not abandon Kennedy or Clinton? Why should they turn over when Democrats have stood firmly behind their own candidates who have been accused of moral impropriety? What comparison can be drawn between how Democrats have responded to scandals like this, involving their own candidates, and how Republicans have responded?

There is an easy answer to that -because they are (supposedly) morally superior to us, why shouldn't Democrats demand that Republicans live up their own claims and standards? Beginning with the alignment of the Christian Right to the GOP, Republicans have been claiming that God is on their side, even that He is a Republican, placing themselves on a moral pedestal from which they have been claiming moral superiority over the Democratic Party for electoral gain.  Is it therefore so unreasonable to judge them accordingly, to expect that Republicans should be held to a higher moral standard than Democrats?  

For them, politics is a game of winners and losers, and it is more important to win than it is to lose. Hence, why white evangelicals held their noses for Trump and will hold their noses for Walker, because they see policy priorities - such as proscribing abortion - as more important than the morality of their candidates. But how justified can this stance be? Does this mean Republicans are hypocritical? Or that they are realistic?

It means that evangelicals have become morally bankrupt in their desire to retain power and influence over the direction of the United States, driven perhaps by desperation in the knowledge that the country is moving past them.  So they back morally compromised candidates like Donald Trump that they may not have stooped to in earlier decades when they were more confident they stood for the 'silent majority'.  

[Frodo]

I will say though, that Republicans, in justifying their continued support for Walker, have brought up the examples of not only Menendez, but also Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton. Their reasoning is this: Why should they abandon Walker (and Trump) over concerns about their moral character when the Democrats did not abandon Kennedy or Clinton? Why should they turn over when Democrats have stood firmly behind their own candidates who have been accused of moral impropriety? What comparison can be drawn between how Democrats have responded to scandals like this, involving their own candidates, and how Republicans have responded?

There is an easy answer to that -because they are (supposedly) morally superior to us, why shouldn't Democrats demand that Republicans live up their own claims and standards? Beginning with the alignment of the Christian Right to the GOP, Republicans have been claiming that God is on their side, even that He is a Republican, placing themselves on a moral pedestal from which they have been claiming moral superiority over the Democratic Party for electoral gain.  Is it therefore so unreasonable to judge them accordingly, to expect that Republicans should be held to a higher moral standard than Democrats?  

For them, politics is a game of winners and losers, and it is more important to win than it is to lose. Hence, why white evangelicals held their noses for Trump and will hold their noses for Walker, because they see policy priorities - such as proscribing abortion - as more important than the morality of their candidates. But how justified can this stance be? Does this mean Republicans are hypocritical? Or that they are realistic?

It means that evangelicals have become morally bankrupt in their desire to retain power and influence over the direction of the United States, driven perhaps by desperation in the knowledge that the country is moving past them.  So they back morally compromised candidates like Donald Trump that they may not have stooped to in earlier decades when they were more confident they stood for the 'silent majority'.  

“I demand that you live up to your own self-imposed standards! The ideals that I don’t agree with and actively oppose. You better follow those! I would totally do the same thing. I’d even vote for nice gentleman Mitt Romney for president if he was facing a democrat that had objected in 2000/2016 or had an affair!”

I expressed my displeasure at this situation and no longer support Walker, but let’s not kid ourselves. A good chunk of democrats here have no standing other than that they like things that hurt republicans and help democrats gain power.

Republicans did that to themselves the moment they began parroting the rhetoric of the Christian Right.  I understand they are irritated they are being called out for their hypocrisy and double-standards, but that's their problem.  Not ours. 

The rest of your post isn't worth responding to. 

[Frodo]

I will say though, that Republicans, in justifying their continued support for Walker, have brought up the examples of not only Menendez, but also Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton. Their reasoning is this: Why should they abandon Walker (and Trump) over concerns about their moral character when the Democrats did not abandon Kennedy or Clinton? Why should they turn over when Democrats have stood firmly behind their own candidates who have been accused of moral impropriety? What comparison can be drawn between how Democrats have responded to scandals like this, involving their own candidates, and how Republicans have responded?

There is an easy answer to that -because they are (supposedly) morally superior to us, why shouldn't Democrats demand that Republicans live up their own claims and standards? Beginning with the alignment of the Christian Right to the GOP, Republicans have been claiming that God is on their side, even that He is a Republican, placing themselves on a moral pedestal from which they have been claiming moral superiority over the Democratic Party for electoral gain.  Is it therefore so unreasonable to judge them accordingly, to expect that Republicans should be held to a higher moral standard than Democrats?  

For them, politics is a game of winners and losers, and it is more important to win than it is to lose. Hence, why white evangelicals held their noses for Trump and will hold their noses for Walker, because they see policy priorities - such as proscribing abortion - as more important than the morality of their candidates. But how justified can this stance be? Does this mean Republicans are hypocritical? Or that they are realistic?

It means that evangelicals have become morally bankrupt in their desire to retain power and influence over the direction of the United States, driven perhaps by desperation in the knowledge that the country is moving past them.  So they back morally compromised candidates like Donald Trump that they may not have stooped to in earlier decades when they were more confident they stood for the 'silent majority'.  

“I demand that you live up to your own self-imposed standards! The ideals that I don’t agree with and actively oppose. You better follow those! I would totally do the same thing. I’d even vote for nice gentleman Mitt Romney for president if he was facing a democrat that had objected in 2000/2016 or had an affair!”

I expressed my displeasure at this situation and no longer support Walker, but let’s not kid ourselves. A good chunk of democrats here have no standing other than that they like things that hurt republicans and help democrats gain power.

Republicans did that to themselves the moment they began parroting the rhetoric of the Christian Right.  I understand they are irritated they are being called out for their hypocrisy and double-standards, but that's their problem.  Not ours. 

The rest of your post isn't worth responding to. 

You’re directing that at me but I’m not irritated because I am in agreement that Walker is not fit to be a senator. I was jesting because a huge number of democrats would never vote for a respectable or well-behaved republican over a scandalous or incompetent democrat. They believe that electing democrats is a matter of life and death. I disagree but that is their right. All I’m saying is that everybody has that right.

You are certainly correct. The vast majority of Democrats would still vote for a controversial candidate, even if such candidate (like Walker may) loses thanks to more moderate members of the party and to independent voters who couldn't stomach such a candidate's scandals.

We are not the ones with a holier-than-thou stance putting ourselves on a pedestal claiming that God is on our side.  The onus is therefore on Republicans, not us.  I make no apologies demanding they live up to their own rhetoric. 

[Frodo]

Georgia deserves better representation in the Senate than a brain-damaged idiot who embodies all the worst stereotypes Republicans have about black people who they are merely trotting out as a fig-leaf to hide their racism.  

[Frodo]

https://twitter.com/bluestein/status/1586846185859465216

Naturally. 

[Frodo]

Walker is viewed as the pro-life and pro-family candidate even if he has a somewhat questionable past because his opponent is a pro-choice pastor. That's why the race is still a tossup.

His past isn't "questionable". He physically and emotionally abused his ex-wife, impregnated multiple women while he was married and then paid for abortions, had a child out of wedlock and then was an absentee father, and, last but not least, appears to have been a terrible father. In no way, shape or form could he be described as a "pro-life" or "pro-family" candidate - he's literally pro-abortion and hates family.

He was saved by grace.  The old Herschel is dead.

Like Donald Trump?