A daily roundup of the biggest stories in right-wing media.
Conservatives continued their commentary on the various sexual misconduct scandals swirling around Tuesday. At the Federalist, D.C. McCallister sought biblical justification for supporting “morally questionable” politicians like Alabama Senate candidiate Roy Moore:
To vote for, associate with, or even advocate for a person working in the secular arena who will bring about the “greater good” despite being personally immoral, pagan, or the member of some “unapproved” Christian sect (as the Catholics once were in America) is justified. To refuse to do so out of fear of God’s judgment on our nation is fusing the city of man and the city of God in a way that God didn’t even do.
It also ignores that God’s purposes are manifest through fallen men, whether they’re in the church or in the world. Think of all the secular leaders we’ve had in America and consider their fallenness. Read the histrionics of Christians in the days of Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson over the “evil” men who were infecting our “holy nation.” Have we declined because of these fallen, deeply flawed leaders? Did we suffer as a nation for putting a Catholic in the presidency with John F. Kennedy? Some purist Christians would say “Yes!” Are they right? Did we suffer as a nation because, theologically (and morally) speaking, JFK was “unfit” for the presidency? I’d say no.
Ben Shapiro critiqued this take at the Daily Wire. “I think Denise’s best argument is her first: that there are character flaws that matter, and ones that matter less; that there are ends that justify certain means; that an evil outcome may be so immediate as to justify using bad men to stop it,” he wrote. “But she doesn’t stop there. Instead, she makes the argument that a politician’s character ought not to count unless it’s so clearly disqualifying that no sane person would see the benefit to voting for him or her. That’s short-sighted, and un-Biblical.”
At National Review, Conrad Black defended Roy Moore, Al Franken, and Charlie Rose:
If Moore has been an upright, sexually unoffending man for 38 years (during which time he has often been an election candidate), his alleged conduct with Ms. Corfman, though outrageous, was not an assault and is not really relevant now; and his denial is not completely incredible. Franken has not admitted the allegations against him, but has apologized, and the photo is not out of character: It is absurd and not amusing, but what is claimed should not force him out of the Senate. (Nor can the instant dismissal of Charlie Rose by CBS and PBS be justified. His recollections are different from those of the complainants and no one seems to be claiming an assault.)
It is good that women should not be afraid to complain if they have been genuinely subjected to harassment (an offense that will require much more careful definition), so that men know that improprieties will, at the least, lead to severe embarrassment (as Moore and Franken are going through). But men (and women) have a right to be tasteless, stupid, and offensive without having their careers abruptly terminated with no deliberation or mercy.
Also at National Review, editor Rich Lowry condemned Democrats for defending John Conyers. “Whatever Democrats say about sexual harassment should be affixed with a giant asterisk,” Lowry wrote. “If it doesn’t suit their political and ideological interests, generous exceptions can and will apply.”
Hot Air’s John Sexton commented on a column by New York Times opinion editor Bari Weiss, which made the case against believing all sexual misconduct accusers. “It’s much easier to be a ‘believe all women’ cheerleader,” he wrote. “But as even Lena Dunham recently found out, there’s a big downside to that. It means your male friends can be accused and you’re not in a position to ask for even the most basic fact-checking. As NY Times author Bari Weiss concludes, ‘Trust but verify’ is a better approach for everyone involved.”
In other news:
Many outlets covered President Trump calling Sen. Elizabeth Warren “Pocahontas” during an event honoring Navajo code talkers on Monday. RedState’s Jim Jamitis argued that “Pocahontas” isn’t a racial slur, but criticized Trump anyway. “Trump is still out of line,” he wrote. “It’s not because of racial insensitivity or slurs, but because he took an event that was intended to honor American veterans and heroes and used it as a platform for his poo-flinging monkey routine. He dishonored men who made a critical and unique contribution to the defeat of the Axis Powers during World War Two.”
Rush Limbaugh defended Trump:
The Drive-Bys are collectively once again making fools of themselves trying to claim the word Pocahontas itself is a racial slur, when it’s not. And they also look stupid by not understanding or asking about what this really is about. We have a United States senator, Elizabeth Warren, who made up her heritage in order to get a job at Harvard. She claimed she is 1/64th Cherokee, and the evidence for it is that her mother or grandmother or somebody had high cheekbones like the Indians did.
Now, why isn’t that the real outrage? Somebody lying about being something that they are not. All Trump is doing is pointing it out, and you can see this is not done. The left does not have their sacred cows attacked like this. And when it happens, they lose it. They go bananas. So what the reality is is that a day after all of this nonsense, it is being driven home to many people that Elizabeth Warren lied about her heritage to gain status in the world of the academy, which is obsessed with identity politics.
The Daily Caller and the Gateway Pundit resurfaced a September interview with a descendant of Pocahontas who said she was not offended by Trump’s frequent use of the taunt and said that Pocahontas would have been “very proud” of him. From the Daily Caller:
It turns out that an actual descendant of Pocahontas does not take any offense to President Donald Trump jokingly referring to Elizabeth Warren as “Pocahontas.”
In a September interview with Sky News, Debbie “White Dove” Porreco said that Trump once asked her if it offended her that he used the name “Pocahontas” to refer to the Democratic senator.
“I know that he uses ‘Pocahontas’ sometimes with Elizabeth Warren,” Porreco explained. “He said, ‘well does that offend you when I use that?’ And I told him no, it doesn’t offend me.”
