GOP lawmaker backing Moore: Conservative agenda is ‘vastly more important than contes
GOP lawmaker backing Moore: Conservative agenda is ‘vastly more important than contested sexual allegations’
By Rebecca Savransky - 11/14/17 08:54 AM EST
3 AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to Facebook
Share to Twitter
Share to Google+
http://thehill.com/sites/default/fil...?itok=Dv1OK3dw
© Greg Nash
Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) said he plans to vote for Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore in the Alabama Senate race because of the importance of the conservative agenda.
"America faces huge challenges that are vastly more important than contested sexual allegations from four decades ago," Brooks told AL.com in a text message.
"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."
His comments come as Moore is facing increasing pressure to step aside in the Alabama Senate race after multiple women accused him of sexual misconduct.The Washington Post reported last week that a woman accused Moore of initiating a sexual encounter with her when she was 14 and he was 32.
On Monday, a woman came forward and accused Moore of sexually assaulting her in a diner parking lot when she was a teenager.
Moore has denied the allegations and indicated he plans to stay in the race.
Brooks said as an attorney, he knows "accusations are easy."
"Proving them to the satisfaction of a judge, a jury, or here, voters, is another thing," he said.
"I do not know enough of the evidence to know with confidence what the true facts are."
He added: "There are millions of people in America who would lie in a heartbeat if it meant adding another Democrat to the Senate."
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign...more-important
Where I Think America Went Wrong!
Quote:
"America faces huge challenges that are vastly more important than contested sexual allegations from four decades ago," Brooks
told AL.com in a text message.
"Who will vote in America's best interests on Supreme Court justices, deficit and debt, economic growth, border security, national defense, and the like?
I don't think this is what the Founders intended. The failure, in my opinion, is "political parties"! There is no mention of political parties in The Constitution! There is no mention of a division in Congress of a "left side of the isle" or a "right side of the isle".
The Constitution provided for representatives of the people. One Congressperson for a limited number of citizens. That representative was to represent all of their constituents, regardless of their political leanings.
Likewise, each state was allowed two Senators who were to represent all of the people of their state regardless of their political leaning.
And of course, the President, who is the only person elected by all of the citizens of the United States.
Parties were a convenient way to assess the groupings of candidates into categories. However, we know virtually no two humans agree on everything. Somehow over the years, we started electing parties rather that representatives. Isn't that how the British government works? People elect a party, the party elects a Prime Minister, and the country is primarily run by that party. Our country was supposed to be different, with the government being a compromise among all the various political views.
The solution would be to treat the parties as lobbyists. Any candidate, once elected would have to sever ties with any political parties. Representatives should be barred from block voting. Each should act as a individual.
Unfortunately, getting there would be impossible. Parties are currently in control. And neither is about to give up their power. It is a Mexican Standoff. I would not like either party to be solely in power if the other took that first step to give up power. So I fear we are stuck in this death spiral from what was supposed to be democracy.
In this case, the article by Rebecca Savransky, suggests that it is better for the country to have a criminal in office, than for the opposition party to gain the upper hand. We should never have been brought to this choice.