The Denver Post’s editorial board lavished undeserved praise on Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado yesterday, excessively lauding Gardner’s belated call for the U.S. Senate to expel Alabama’s Roy Moore if he survives the sexual molestation scandal currently waylaying his campaign and wins:
We’re pleased to see Colorado’s junior senator, Cory Gardner, use his prominence among Senate Republicans to present a clear, moral argument against the accused child molester. Those inflamed by the politics of the scandal should consider his wisdom. As head of the Republican’s Senate campaign arm, Gardner announced last week the group would cease fundraising efforts for Moore’s Senate bid and said that if allegations of molestation were true, Moore should drop out of the race. This week Gardner stood with multiple accusers and argued that if Moore refuses to step aside and goes on to win in the special election next month, the Senate should expel him.
Always tripping over themselves to shield Sen. Gardner from criticism, the Post completely glosses over the politically toxic delay between last week’s “if true” deflection of the story by Gardner and his harder line taken this week. That initial response, echoed by many other Republicans, was roundly condemned as inadequate–and it was that condemnation which forced Republicans like Gardner to take a stronger position.
Not really what you’d call a profile in courage.
With that said, the real problem with this overly-generous editorial may not be evident until after Roy Moore wins the Alabama Senate race. It’s a matter of record that Sen. Gardner called for Donald Trump to pull out of the presidential race in October of 2016, after the Access Hollywood recordings of Trump bragging about committing sexual assault became public. But when Trump emerged victorious on Election Day, Gardner ditched his supposed convictions and embraced the President-elect with his trademark smile.
A poll follows–is there any reason to believe it’ll be different this time?
And why is that exactly?
Opinion piece in the WSJ this morning that states: constitutionally, they cannot expel.
I believe the voters of Alabama can be trusted to make this decision.
And make it they will.
Lemesee, lemesee, if I can find it . . .
. . . oh yeah, it’s been awhile, but here it is . . .
from the 21st-Century Asshat-to-English Dictionary . . .
. . . kinda’ what I thought from Fluffy.
Moderatus, is child molestation a family value?
Holy mackerel. The WSJ has no idea what it's talking about. The Senate couldn't constitutionally refuse to seat Moore; the Supreme Court's holding in Adam Clayton Powell's case takes care of that. However, refusing to seat and expulsion are two different animals. The Constitution expressly authorizes each house of Congress to expel members. Takes a 2/3 supermajority, and it hasn't happened in 150 years, but it's fully constitutional.
In any event, the answer to the poll question is no, the Senate will not expel Rapin' Roy. It's heinous, but it also draws a big red circle around the fact that the U.S. is in a state of inexorable decline. Within five generations, the rest of the world will be carving up the U.S. and distributing the pieces among the civilized nations, kinda like what the Europeans did with the Ottoman Empire in the 18th-early 20th Centuries.
Jim Traficant was expelled in the early 2000s.
Yep, that was sloppy wording on my part. Should've made clear that no senator has been expelled for 150 years.
Article 1, Section 5 called and said the WSJ was full of shit.
The senate has expelled 15 members in its history. True, most expulsions were for being Confederate traitors. But Packwood was on his way to expulsion when he resigned.
The article doesn't say that. The title does. I think that's the paper, not the author.
Stay the course Judge Pederast. They'll thank you.
All I said was that Alabama voters understand this better than we do.
Yeah. People are speaking up on him because they finally felt they could come forward.
You won't tell us what YOU think about what Roy Moore was said to have done.
The people of anywhere understand things better than you, Fluffy . . .
You do understand that if Moore wins, every single GOP candidate in every single race in the country in 2018 will be asked whether it appropriate for a 32 year old man to date a 14 year old girl.
Right, Moddy. Because they elected this asshat to the Alabama Supreme Court again after he had to be removed for violating the rule of law. Eff you, and eff Alabama if they again elect this pedophile disgrace
If Moore is elected, then expelled, Alabama's Republican governor can fill the vacancy, with big luther, beauregard or some other non rapist. Yes, they will expel after about six months of hearing and investigation.
If Moore is elected, McConnell would have a pretty strong hammer to get him to trade votes to stay in office or just let the Kabuki Theater "investigation" proceed.
Is McConnell corrupt enough to do that? Is Moore? Does a bear crap in the woods?
Oh to have a fly on the wall transmitting to a recording device!
Beauregard will probably be looking for a new job by then.
Would Cory Gardner lie?!?
Do scorpions sting?
Could it be that Cory just wanted to give Roy a push after he saw his internal polling numbers? NRSC polling gives Doug Jones a 12-point leaf, per Politico. The GOP has 27 days until the election. They need to have a plan with everyone on board by then. (There is no early voting in AL, and absentee voters must provide a reason for requiring a ballot, so they can mostly afford to spend the time to get it "right".)
Expulsion for alleged actions from 40 years ago, disclosed to the people before they vote, would make for an interesting argument among Senators — should they act in judgment when the voters did not.
More to the point, it would take a 2/3rds majority (67 — or if Moore is not allowed to vote in his own case, 66 of 99 plus Veep Pence). I'm wondering whether Democratic Senators would be willing to support such a move to disenfranchise voters. Why should they displace one suspect Senator to allow the Republican Governor of Alabama to appoint another and schedule another special election? It isn't like the Republicans are consulting with them or asking them to participate in other business of the Senate.
But it's still morally the right thing for Democrats to do, and the smart thing politically if it succeeds, because it gives them an official moral standing to go after Trump, and to be more aggressive in cleaning up after the harassment and abuse going on within Congress to this day.
But wouldn't it be so nice to hang this disgusting kiddie diddler around Mitch McConnell's neck for the next 3 years? All under the guise of respecting the will of the voters.
Democrats can accomplish that anyway if Senate Republicans decide to back down. There would need to be at least 19 Republican votes to expel, and likely the support of a majority of their caucus.
No point in gumming up the works – it might actually make the Democrats look like abuse suporters, since Repubs would need Dem votes to expel…
True. Enough Senate Republicans may vote against expulsion especially if the White House is whipping votes to respect the voters of Alabama's wishes which is apparently the party line they're putting out now.