I know on the surface it means ‘if true’, but keep in mind about half the republican party believes a long list of absurd lies that either aren’t supported or are contradicted by facts.
Obama was responsible for Katrina
Obama is a Muslim
Obama was born in Kenya
America had the best health care on earth before the ACA
Obama embarrassed America, but Trump gave us dignity
Economic growth was terrible under Obama, great under Trump
Millions of people voted illegally in 2016, but they didn’t vote in the right states, costing Hillary the election
etc
So I don’t put a lot of stock in people like that, or their political and media leaders pretending they suddenly care about facts. Especially considering that the WaPo story involved 30 witnesses, and the paper sought out the victims, they didn’t seek out the paper. Also it has now come out that one of Moore’s coworkers in the district attorney’s office admits it was an open secret that Moore dated underage girls.
I’m assuming the ‘if true’ is a dog whistle way of republican media and political leaders saying ‘it is only true when right wing media admits it is true, until then disregard it’. So as long as every media outlet reports it, but it isn’t being reported on Brietbart, Fox news, talk radio, etc. their listeners should disregard it.
Thats my impression of what they are really saying.
I guess I’m confused. I’m not going to suddenly believe that a party that spent the last 8 years saying Obama was a pro-terrorist Muslim from Kenya, suddenly cares about facts. There has to be some other ulterior motive for what these people mean when they add the qualifier ‘if true’ to a story that has dozens of witnesses.
It means “If you can prove it is true on your own in a court of law, with as little help and as much resistance from us as is humanly possible, ask us again.”
Here’s what I think the, “if true,” language means in realpolitik terms, because it doesn’t mean anything in real world terms. There is no statute of limitations in Alabama in cases of sexual abuse with a minor, at least according to this website. But even if there ever is a trial (unlikely after all this time), it’s certainly not going to occur before the election, so there won’t be any absolute adjudication of Moore’s guilt or innocence before people have to vote.
I think establishment Republicans want to continue to appear to support Moore if it looks like he is the most likely Republican candidate to win, but they want him to step aside for someone preferable if they can shame him into it. They don’t really care if the allegations are true. They only care that Moore has an (R) next to his name. But McConnell doesn’t want him. Not at all. He’d prefer a write-in (R) like Luther Strange, someone who will reliably support the (R) agenda as dictated by McConnell. But if that doesn’t work and Moore wins, then the, “if true,” allows McConnell down the track to say he’s now “convinced” of Moore’s pedophilia and hold a vote to deny Moore the seat. Then Moore could be replaced with another (R) more to McConnell’s liking. Maybe even give the seat back to Sessions. I’m already hearing that notion floated.
It’s a risky calculus that might work – and apparently anything is better than a Democrat.
Frankly, even if polls show Doug Jones ahead on the day of the election, I doubt that will be the result. I can easily see Alabamans publicly excoriating Moore right up to election day, but then vote for him once they’re alone in the voting booth.
TL;DR: Republicans are keeping their options open.
It means the folks using that phrase want to slut-shame 14 year old girls and call them whores, evil little strumpets who seduced and corrupted a fine man like Mr. Moore.
Some prominent Republicans have already said that Moore should withdraw from the election immediately, like John McCain and Mitt Romney. Among the ones would have said that Moore should withdraw if it’s true are Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, Cory Gardner, and Jeff Flake. Were any of those among the ones who claimed that Obama was a Moslem, etc.? My impression was that most prominent Republican politicians simply never mentioned those absurd claims about Obama. They didn’t do anything to refute those claims either though. They simply ignored the claims, desiring not to turn away the voters who believed such bizarre things. A few prominent Republicans explicitly denied the stupid claims about Obama. McCain told someone who asked him a question at a rally that of course Obama wasn’t a Moslem and that the questioner was being ridiculous to say such a thing.
Heaven forbid we take someone at their word these days. Best to go immediately to the most unfavorable interpretation you can think of. If those other guys appear to be taking even a baby step in the right direction, it’s obviously a dog whistle to those heading the opposite way.
Aspenglow: My actually thinking on this matter is very close to yours. We should keep in mind, as you point out, that folks like Mitch McConnell were not fans of Roy Moore before this latest info got out.
It means, “We know you can’t prove a 30 year old allegation, and since we’re too chickenshit to take a position that might hurt the party we’re going to weasel our way out of answering the question.”
I think a lot of Republicans are waiting to see which way public opinion (and the election polls) go. If Moore survives this, they want to be able to claim they never doubted him and are happy to see him vindicated. If Moore falls, they want to be able to claim they never supported him and are happy to see him gone.
Thats a good point. I get the impression that is the line Hannity was trying to walk when I watched his show Friday. He was trying to see if he could line himself up to still support Moore if it all blew over, while also trying to appear like he distanced himself if the allegations were valid.
I think they’re trying to wait this controversy out. Hoping more collaborations and victims don’t come forward, or the public stop caring so they can go back to supporting Moore.
When the same people sat by and did nothing, if not openly inflame the most irrational conspiracy theories they could think of for 8 years suddenly claim that an article with 30 witnesses needs verification to determine if it ‘is true’, there is obviously a different motivation. I never heard GOP voters or politicians say ‘if true’ when accusing Obama of being a Muslim antichrist from Kenya who supports Al Qaeda.
“If true” is a weaselly way to call the accusers liars, ignoring the fact that these women stand nothing to gain by lying, yet a strong chance of losing everything by telling the truth. If it wasn’t coming from slime like McConnell, I MIGHT sing a different tune. But the Senator of Turtles has proven, time and again, that nothing matters but the ®. They want to have their cake and eat it too. Unfortunately, a portion of the population hear them say “if true” and automatically think that there’s a strong chance the accusations are false. If there are dozens of independent corroborations of multiple acts, it’s highly unlikely those accusations are completely false, though they’ll never be proven in a court of law.
Don’t forget, those that are arguing that Moore should face no consequences for his actions unless convicted are the same ones that voted against Clinton for rumors and innuendo.