VIDEO: President Trump endorses Roy Moore for the U.S. Senate

President Trump decided to weigh in on the U.S. Senate race in Alabama. He not only endorsed Roy Moore but defended him against the unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct nearly 40 years ago.

Watch this Washington Post video of President Trump responding to reporters on November 21st, 2017 about Roy Moore:


Alabama Senate hopeful Doug Jones defended man with ties to KKK, Holocaust deniers | Fox News

Witnesses: We never saw Roy Moore, Nelson at Olde Hickory

RELATED VIDEO: Judge Roy Moore’s Spokesman on Mitch McConnell, the establishment, the main stream media, fake news and Alabamans.

Feminists Own Words Condemn Them

As waves of sexual assault and harassment allegations roll in — and the media, liberals and feminists hyperfocus on the allegations against Roy Moore because of the opportunity to flip a very solid Republican Senate seat — it’s worth revisiting what leading feminists said on the exact same issue in 1998 when it was Democrat President Bill Clinton’s position at stake.

This is important because there are a stunning number of people today who seem to have amnesia about the Clinton years — or young people today who were never taught them.

The context is that just a few years earlier feminists ardently supported the less-than-credible allegations made by Anita Hill that almost sunk the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court. They jumped in to support Anita Hill ostensibly because any woman alleging sexual harassment or worse must be believed. But in reality, it seems it was only a partisan attack against a conservative justice. Worse for Democrats, a conservative black justice. Thomas was brilliant in his defense, and his labeling it a “high-tech lynching.”

Fast forward to 1998 and Bill Clinton. Please read these in light of how both Anita Hill a few years earlier and the Roy Moore accusers today are treated by some of the same feminists.

⇢ “We’re trying to think of the bigger picture, think about what’s best for women,” said Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation. When conservatives called hypocrisy on the feminists, Smeal said: “It’s a twofer for them. If they can get the president, great. And if they can get feminism, even greater.”

⇢ “It will be a great pity if the Democratic Party is damaged by this,” feminist writer Anne Roiphe told Vanity Fair’s Marjorie Williams in 1998. “That’s been my response from the very beginning — I just wanted to close my eyes, and wished it would go away.”

⇢ “We do not know what happened in the Lewinsky case,” said Kathy Rodgers, executive director of the NOW’s Legal Defense and Education Fund. “The only thing that is clear is that the facts are not clear.”

⇢ One feminist infamously said she would perform oral sex on Bill Clinton as long as he kept abortion legal up to nine months. Some campus extremist? Hardly. Nina BurleighTime magazine’s White House correspondent when Clinton was President. She wrote: “I’d be happy to give him [oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal.”

⇢ “If anything, it sounds like she put the moves on him,” said Susan Faludi, a feminist author, said of one of Clinton’s prominent accusers.

⇢ Bill Clinton’s “enemies are attempting to bring him down through allegations about some dalliance with an intern…. Whether it’s a fantasy, a set-up or true, I simply don’t care,” said high-profile feminist Betty FriedanOr true.

⇢ After 60 Minutes interviewed Kathleen Willey that Clinton had manhandled her in private when she was seeking a job, Anita Perez Ferguson — president of the National Women’s Political Caucus, said the charges were more “quantity rather than quality, in terms of my feelings…There’s no question that it’s disturbing…. But to come to any judgment now is definitely not something that I think is timely.”

⇢ “What is important for the American people to know is that there is a process in place to deal with these allegations,” said California Sen. Barbara BoxerSo let’s not be Roy Moore-like hasty.

⇢  “Not so many years ago, a woman couldn’t be a White House intern,” Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun said in an an amazing attempt at distraction on Meet the Press.

⇢ And finally Rep. Nancy Pelosi complained that Special Prosecutor Ken Starr was causing “humiliation” by calling Clinton’s female victims before the grand jury.

There is an obvious trend here. Against Republicans, feminists say the accusing female must be believed. Against Democrats, not so much. That’s not a philosophy, that’s straightforward partisan politics. And it makes their words today truly incredible.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.

VIDEO: Case Against Roy Moore Exposed as a Lie, former Waitress Disproves Accuser’s ‘Facts’

Here is an MSNBC interview with Janet Porter discussing the facts in the Roy Moore allegations:

The Janet Porter Report released the following press release on November 21st, 2017:

Former Olde Hickory House waitress disproves the “facts” asserted by accuser Beverly Nelson, who is represented by abortion-activist Gloria Allred in the effort to defeat Judge Roy Moore for the U.S. Senate.

Rhonda Ledbetter, who worked at the Olde Hickory House from 1977-1979, explained that the “facts” in Nelson’s story are simply untrue:

  •  “First, Nelson said she was 15 years old when she started working there but you had to be 16,” said Ledbetter.
  • “Second, Nelson said the restaurant closed at 10:00 p.m. but I know the earliest it closed was 11:00, though I believe it was midnight,” Ledbetter stated.
  • “Third, the area wasn’t dark and isolated as she described. Rather, the building was right off the busy four-lane highway and people and cars were always around…anyone in the parking lot was visible from the road,” she explained.
  • “Fourth, the dumpsters were to the side of the building, not around the back and there sure wasn’t room to park in between the building and the dumpsters,” Ledbetter said.

Ledbetter’s statements were confirmed by Renee Schivera, who worked at the Olde Hickory House in 1977, and by Johnny Belyeu, Sr., a former police officer with the Etowah County Sheriff’s Department, who was a regular customer at the restaurant.

“As the tangled web of lies unravels, Judge Roy Moore is being proven innocent,” stated Janet Porter, President of Faith2Action, who has known Judge Roy Moore for nearly 20 years.

“If the people of Alabama want to prevent child abuse and sexual assault they will vote FOR Judge Roy Moore and run from his opponent,” stated Porter.

  • “While Judge Roy Moore is a champion for the rights of children in the womb, his opponent supports the ultimate child abuse–taxpayer funded abortion until the moment of birth.” explained Porter.
  • “Unlike his opponent, Judge Moore stands for the Second Amendment so we can defend ourselves against sexual predators,” stated Porter.
  • “Judge Moore will protect our daughters, while his opponent will open the door of your daughter’s bathroom and locker room to every male who claims to ‘identify’ as a girl–literally putting out the welcome mat to predators,” she added.
  • “While Judge Moore wants to protect our borders from those who would enter our country illegally, his opponent said building a wall was ‘too expensive,'”said Porter.
  • “Most importantly, Judge Roy Moore will vote to confirm pro-life judges on the Supreme Court, but, if elected, his opponent will be the deciding vote to block them,” stated Porter.

“If we allow the establishment and the media to steal this election, we are handing over not just a Senate seat, but the Supreme Court along with it,” stated Porter.

EDITORS NOTE: Titles are for identifying purposes only.

VIDEO: Kellyanne Conway indirectly endorses Judge Roy Moore for U.S. Senate

Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway indirectly endorsed Judge Roy Moore for the U.S. Senate. In the below video Conway focused on Judge Moore’s opponent calling him “doctrinaire liberal” who is weak on crime, borders and who will raise taxes. She said, “Doug Jones in Alabama, folks, don’t be fooled.”

Below is the full interview on Fox & Friends:

RELATED ARTICLE: Witnesses: We never saw Roy Moore, Nelson at Olde Hickory Restaurant

VIDEO: Alabama Governor Kay Ivey voting for Judge Roy Moore in Senate Race

Multiple media outlets are reporting that Alabama Governor Kay Ivey told reporters that she will vote for Judge Roy Moore in the December Senate election to replace Jeff Sessions.

Governor Ivey said:

Yes, I’m proud to vote [for the Republican nominee Judge Roy Moore]. And I hope every Alabamian will be proud to cast their vote… Everybody needs to make sure they vote on December 12th. I’ll cast my ballot… The United States Senate, in my opinion, has to have a majority of Republican votes to carry the day when they have to consider other major decisions.


Report: Roy Moore Fundraising Surges Since Attacks – Breitbart

Alabama Senate President Del Marsh: Roy Moore Allegations Could Be Part of a ‘Washington Conspiracy’

Alabama GOP stands solidly with Roy Moore

The Alabama GOP released the following statement on U.S. Senate nominee Roy Moore:

Alabama Republican Party Chairman Terry Lathan made the following statement regarding the U.S. Senate election:

“On Wednesday evening, the Alabama Republican Party Steering Committee, comprised of 21 members, met to discuss the events and circumstances regarding the December 12 U.S. Senate race.”

“The ALGOP Steering Committee supports Judge Roy Moore as our nominee and trusts the voters as they make the ultimate decision in this crucial race.”

“Judge Moore has vehemently denied the allegations made against him. He deserves to be presumed innocent of the accusations unless proven otherwise. He will continue to take his case straight to the people of Alabama.”

“There is a sharp policy contrast between Judge Moore, a conservative Republican who supports President Trump, and the liberal Democrat who will fight and thwart the agenda of our president. We trust the Alabama voters in this election to have our beloved state and nation’s best interest at heart. Alabamians will be the ultimate jury in this election- not the media or those from afar.”

“We are very grateful for the multitudes that have reached out to us with support and prayers. We ask God to guide us, politically and personally, with His mighty strength and wisdom. In turn, we also pray that justice and truth will prevail for all involved in this situation.”

RELATED ARTICLE: Ryun on Roy Moore: ‘I Strongly, Strongly Suspect’ McConnell Camp ‘Planted Story’

RELATED PODCAST: Breitbart News Daily – Ned Ryun – November 17, 2017

VIDEO: Judge Roy Moore’s letter to Sean Hannity on ‘false allegations’

Judge Roy Moore sent a letter (below) to Sean Hannity addressing the allegations of sexual harassment made against him. Hannity shared the letter on show with viewers. Here is Sean Hannity’s response:

RELATED ARTICLE: Ryun on Roy Moore: ‘I Strongly, Strongly Suspect’ McConnell Camp ‘Planted Story’

Full text of Judge Roy Moore letter to Sean Hannity:

Dear Sean:

I am suffering the same treatment other Republicans have had to endure.

A month prior to the general election for U.S. Senate in Alabama, I have been attacked by the Washington Post and other liberal media in a desperate attemp to smear my character and defeat my campaign.

Over the last 40 years I have held several public offices, including Deputy District Attorney, Circuit Judge and Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. In addition to running five statewide and three county campaigns for public office, I have been involved in two major controversies that attracted national attention, one about the Ten Commandments and the other the sanctity of marriage.

The Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission, Courr of the Judiciary, and Attorney General have investigated, scrutinized, examined, and vetted me, not to mention every opposing candidate against whom I have run.

I have been married for almost 33 years to my wife Kayla. We have four children and five granddaughters.

We are in the process of investigating these false allegations to determine their origin and motivation. For instance, we have documented that the most recent accuser, Beverly Nelson, was a party in a divorce action before me in Etowah County Circuit Court in 1999. No motion was made for me to recuse. In her accusations, Nelson did not mention that I was the judgge assigned to her divorce case in 1999, a matter that apparently caused her no distress at a time that was 18 years closer to the alleged assault. Yet 18 years later, while talking before the cameras about the supposed assault, she seemingly could not contain her emotions.

My signature on the order of dismissal in the divorce case was annotated with the letters “D.A.,” representing the initials of my court assistant. Curiously the supposed yearbook inscription is also followed by the same initials – “D.A.” But at that time I was Deputy District Attorney, not district attorney. Those initials as well as the date under the signature block and the printed name of the restaurant are written in a style inconsistent with the rest of the yearbook inscription. The “7’s in “Christmas 1977” are in a noticeably different script than the “7’s” in the date “12-22-77.” I believe tampering has occurred.

Are we at a stage in American politics in which false allegations can overcome a public record of 40 years, stampede the media and politicians to condemn an innocent man, and potentially impact the outcome of an election of national importance? When allegations of events occurring 40 years ago — and never before mentioned during a 40-year career of public service — are brought out and taken seriously only 30 days before a critical election, we may be in trouble as a country.

I adamantly deny the allegations of Leigh Corfman and Beverly Nelson, did not date underage girls, and have taken steps to begin a civil action for defamation. Because of that, at the direction of counsel, I cannot comment further.


VIDEO: Over One Million Illegals Voted for Hillary in 2016

This is why the party of treason is hellbent on opening the floodgates to haters, jihadis, etc. That’s their constituency.

“I say every vote that’s illegal is a civil rights violation.” Indeed.




Fitton went through the numbers during a talk last Saturday for a conference hosted by The Remembrance Project, a group dedicated to “educating and raising awareness about the epidemic of killings of Americans by illegal aliens – individuals who should not have been in the U.S. in the first place.”

“President Trump, I don’t know if he’s right on the specifics, but he’s right generally about the outrage of alien illegal votes here in the United States,” Fitton said. “I don’t know what the numbers are, but I can give you a guess. …

“Probably about 44 or 43 million noncitizens reside in the United States. Of those, how many are illegal? Ten, 20, I don’t know. None of them vote? None of those people vote? Forty-three million people here and none of them vote,” he continued.

“Now President Trump would say 5 or 6 million voted. The left would say none of them voted. My guess is it’s somewhere in between,” he said. “I say every vote that’s illegal is a civil rights violation.”

Fitton contends the problem is big enough to sway the outcome of elections.

“By my estimation, we had about one and a half million illegal alien votes in the last election,” he said. “One (to) 1.4 million by my guess. And of those that register to vote and then vote illegally, about 80 percent vote for Democrats, 20 percent for Republicans. So the president got some votes … but 1.1 million by that calculation voted for Hillary Clinton. And that’s just a rough, back of the envelope, estimate.

“So we really face a crisis in this regard. You know, it’s one thing to lose your country because you have no borders, it’s another thing to lose your country because you have no vote,” Fitton said.

Fitton pointed out that other policies moving, or not, through Congress are irrelevant if “your vote doesn’t count, if elections are stolen through illegal votes.”

Fitton contends “we need to certify citizenship before we allow someone to register” to vote, rather than voter ID laws that require driver’s licenses or other identification easily obtainable by illegal immigrants.

Fitton’s estimate of illegal immigrant voters who participated in the 2016 election is much more conservative than other researchers. Just Facts, an independent think tank, released a report in June that puts the figure as high as 5.7 million noncitizen voters, according to The Washington Times.

Just Facts analyzed data from a Harvard/YouGov study conducted every other year with a sample size of tens of thousands of voters, including those who admit to voting illegally.

Just Facts President James Agresti told the Times he estimates that in 2008 as many as 7.9 million noncitizens registered illegally to vote, and between 594,000 and 5.7 million actually voted.

“The details are technical, but the figure I calculated is based on a more conservative margin of sampling error and a methodology that I consider to be more accurate” than those used in other estimates, Agresti said.

The Times also pointed to a voter fraud investigation by the Public Interest Legal Foundation that looked at illegal votes in Virginia in 2016.

“Its investigation found that Virginia removed more than 5,500 noncitzens from voter lists, including 1,852 people who cast more than 7,000 ballots,” according to the Times. “The people volunteered their status, most likely when acquiring driver’s licenses. The Public Interest Legal Foundation said there are likely many more illegal voters on Virginia’s rolls who have never admitted to being noncitizens.”

Fillon’s estimate and the results from the other studies seem to support President Trump’s repeated assertion that he lost the popular vote due in part to noncitizens who voted illegally in 2016.

Trump set up a commission to investigate illegal voting headed by Vice President Mike Pence. The panel is also investigating outdated voter lists across the country to identify dead voters and folks who registered in multiple places

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Geller Report. Pamela Geller’s shocking new book, “FATWA: HUNTED IN AMERICA” is now available on Amazon. It’s Geller’s tell all, her story – and it’s every story – it’s what happens when you stand for freedom today. Buy it. Now. Here.

The Real Scandal in the Alabama Senate Race [Video]

Scandals take many forms. If you could be transported back to antebellum times, for example, would you not find the desire to perpetuate the legal institution of slavery scandalous? This brings us to the Alabama special election to fill Jeff Sessions’ vacant Senate seat, a contest now front-and-center with the recent sex allegations made against GOP hopeful Judge Roy Moore. Moore denies the charges, but there are certain things that can’t be denied.

Democrat Doug Jones, Moore’s opponent, has some noteworthy positions. He’s pro-prenatal infanticide. It’s not a stance he took 40 years ago but has since abandoned, and it doesn’t mean he’s accused of once having kissed an underage girl.

It means he believes in the murder of underage girls — and boys. That’s beyond scandalous.

Jones supports de-facto amnesty, meaning, he wouldn’t even require illegal aliens to return to their home countries before being granted citizenship. This undermines the rule of law and exemplifies the treasonous attitude that subordinates the good of one’s countrymen to the good of invading foreigners — and all because they’ll vote Democrat after being naturalized. Selling out your culture for political power is scandal on steroids.

Jones supports the regulation of carbon dioxide, otherwise known as plant food, because he pushes the dubious global-warmingclimate-change, uh, “global climate disruption” agenda. Since it’s average Americans who’ll pay these regulations’ costs, this serves to further impoverish the struggling. That’s scandalous.

Jones advocates the unscientific, socially disastrous “transgender” agenda. First, he said President Trump was “wrong, wrong, wrong” to return to the longtime status quo of banning so-called “transgender” people from the military; this means he supports social experimentation in the armed forces.

Second, he also supports allowing boys masquerading as girls to use girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms. In fact, he said that Trump’s rescinding of Barack Obama’s school guidance to that effect was “wrong, wrong, wrong!” (Because, you see, when you say that way it makes the other guy three times as wrong.) By the way, below is a video of Jones expressing these sentiments just last month.

Oh, yeah — the above is scandalous, too.

In addition, Jones advocates using taxpayer money to fund fanciful, economically nonviable energy schemes such as solar, wind and thermal energy. Apparently, he’d like to repeat Obama’s “green energy” boondoggles (e.g., Solyndra), which only turned out green in that they wasted 2.2 billion worth of Americans’ greenbacks.

But Jones loves spending other people’s money. While he doesn’t believe in cutting your taxes to spur economic growth, he thinks having government give away your tax money will do so.

Lastly, despite the fact that ObamaCare is unconstitutional, has caused millions of Americans’ healthcare premiums to rise and created co-ops that have collapsed right and left, Jones opposes rescinding the program. Well, no matter. He’ll have great healthcare through the Senate if he wins December 12.

As for the last four positions, some would say calling them scandalous is a stretch, so you can apply your own adjective (stupid comes to mind). And whatever you might prefer for characterizing all his positions, “old” and “repudiated” don’t fit. “Current” sure does, though.

So killing babies, killing the rule of law, killing with regulations, killing tradition and kids’ right to privacy, killing our pocketbooks, killing the economy and killing healthcare (sounds like an alternate-universe Bill O’Reilly book series). In the scandal department, Roy Moore has a long way to go to have a chance of keeping up with the Joneses.

Simply put, Doug Jones is the most scandalous of creatures: a leftist radical who is “wrong, wrong, wrong” on the issues. It’s a wonder he isn’t seeking office in California, New York, Massachusetts or North Korea. Running someone whose positions are so wholly contrary to Alabaman culture is a slap in the face to the state. Is this a political version of Punk’d?

If I lived in Alabama, on December 12 I’d vote for Judge Roy Moore while holding my nose — but only because the stench from Doug Jones’ name would be rising right from the ballot.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to


Hey Mitch, 63% Of Alabama Voters Still Support Judge Roy Moore ⋆

Alabama ABC Affiliate Can’t Find One Voter Who Believes WaPo Report About Roy Moore in Man-on-the-Street Segment – Breitbart

Trump Nominees Languish in GOP-Controlled Senate

Fewer than half of President Donald Trump’s executive branch and judicial nominees have been confirmed by the Senate—the lowest number of confirmations in the past four administrations at comparable points in their presidencies.

The dismal numbers—a total of 223 confirmations of 519 nominees—were circulated by the White House amid complaints of unprecedented Democratic obstruction and the Senate’s lax schedule.

Nominations Bush 1989 Clinton 1993 Bush 2001 Obama 2009 Trump 2017
Received in Senate 463 545 783 581 519
Confirmed 341 406 451 394 223
% Confirmed 74% 74% 58% 68% 43%
Cloture Votes 0 6 0 5 51
Voice Votes 321 398 413 366 146
Roll Call Votes 20 8 38 28 77

Source:, via White House

Trump has 175 pending nominees awaiting action from Senate committees and another 101 on the Senate calendar awaiting a confirmation vote, according to the White House.

“Personnel is policy. In delaying the confirmation of President Trump’s appointees, the Senate is directly limiting the president’s effectiveness,” the Conservative Action Project argued in an Oct. 10 letter.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has used delaying tactics, such as the maximum of 30 hours of debate on nominees, to slow down the confirmation process of Trump picks. That glacial pace means as few as two to five nominees are getting roll call votes each week.

“If this continues, it will take us more than 11 years to confirm the remaining presidential appointment[s],” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said earlier this year.

Democrats forced more than eight times as many cloture votes in the Senate at this point in the first year of a presidency than any other Senate minority going back to President George H.W. Bush’s tenure in 1989. Further, the 51 cloture votes for Trump nominees is more than all of the past four predecessors combined through their entire administrations.

Senate Democrats have even used procedures to block noncontroversial nominees. Six of the cloture votes were required to get votes on nominees who passed on the Senate floor with more than 90 votes, two with more than 85 votes, and one with 79 votes.

While those tactics have slowed the confirmation process, Democrats alone aren’t the problem, according to the Conservative Action Project, which released a letter last month imploring the Senate to move more quickly.

“The slow pace of Senate confirmations is exacerbated by the Senate’s continued insistence on working no more than 2 ½ days a week—arriving on Monday evening for a handful of votes, and departing, on average, by 2:30 p.m. each Thursday afternoon,” wrote the 133 conservative leaders who signed the letter. “Previous Senates worked harder.”

The short Senate workweeks and Schumer’s delaying tactics have resulted in 118 fewer conformations for Trump than the next closest administration, dating back to 1989. Three of Trump’s four predecessors had more than 65 percent of their nominees confirmed by this point in their presidency, while Trump has just 43 percent confirmed.

Dating to 1989, only President George H.W. Bush saw the Senate receive fewer nominations by this point in the first year of an administration. However, the first Bush had a much higher confirmation rate.

The Senate has received 519 nominations from Trump and confirmed 223.

By this point in 2009, the Senate received 581 nominees from President Barack Obama and confirmed 394, or 68 percent. President George W. Bush made 783 nominations by this point in 2001 and had 451 confirmations, or 58 percent. President Bill Clinton sent 545 nominees to the Senate by November 1993, with a 74 percent success rate of 406 confirmations.

George H.W. Bush got the same 74 percent confirmation rate by November 1989, getting 341 confirmations out of 463 nominations through the Senate.

For the entire single four-year term of George H.W. Bush, the Senate had only one cloture vote for a nomination. George W. Bush saw only four cloture votes during his eight years in office.

The Senate cast 10 clotures votes for Clinton nominees and 17 on Obama nominees, both two-term presidents, according to White House statistics.

Just 146 of Trump’s nominees were confirmed by the Senate with a voice vote. George H.W. Bush’s nominees passed by a voice vote 321 times; 398 for Clinton; 413 for George W. Bush; and 366 for Obama.

The signers of the Conservative Action Project letter urged McConnell to challenge the Democrats’ tactics by staying in session longer.

“[I]f Democrats are going to insist on all post-cloture time to be run, Majority Leader McConnell can easily make this painful for them by forcing continuous session overnight and through the weekend,” they wrote. “If the Senate stayed in session continuously for a week (including the weekend), they could confirm up to five nominees every week even if Democrats made them run the full post-cloture time on each nomination.”

Portrait of Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal. Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.


VIDEO: Alabama voters stand by their man, cheer Moore during Veterans Day Event

Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate Roy Moore gave a stirring Veterans Day speech and addressed allegations published by the Washington Post.

Watch Judge Moore’s full speech courtesy of Right Side Broadcasting Network:

Breitbart in a column titled “Multiple Standing Ovations for Judge Roy Moore as He Hammers Washington Post Smears at Veterans Day Event” reports:

VESTAVIA HILLS, Alabama — Judge Roy Moore, the GOP nominee for the U.S. Senate here in Alabama, received a standing ovation from veterans and Republican supporters here at a public library at his first public event since the Washington Post smeared him earlier this week.

Moore’s condemnation of the Post came towards the end of a nearly 30-minute rousing speech honoring veterans and standing up for the principles of the United States just outside Birmingham here on Saturday morning.

“Now I want to address something that some people have come here to hear about,” Moore said in front 50 or so supporters, turning his attention to the giant pack of media who came to Alabama to report on this. “Shortly after becoming the Republican nominee for the United States Senate, the Washington Post began an attack on the Foundation for Moral Law, on my wife, and on me. For weeks, we read about my salary which they distorted, about taxes where they said we were paid money we never got. But we endured that.”

“Later, they came out and endorsed my opponent in this race,” he continued. “Just two days ago, the Washington Post published yet another attack on my character and reputation in a desperate attempt to stop my political campaign for the United States Senate. These attacks about a minor are completely false and untrue about something that happened nearly 40 years ago. But more than being completely false and untrue, they are very hurtful to me personally.”

“I’ve been married to my wife Kayla for nearly 33 years. We have four children. I have one daughter, and I have five granddaughters. I have the highest regard for the protection of young children,” Moore explained. “When I returned to Gadsen 40 years ago after military service, I went to work for the office of the District Attorney. As a student of the law, I have served in public office off and on for the last 40 years. To be attacked for allegations of sexual misconduct contradicts my entire career in law.”

“I wanted to make it clear to the media present and the people present, I have not provided alcoholic beverages—beer or anything else—to a minor. I have not been guilty of sexual misconduct with anyone,” he declared. “These allegations came only four and a half weeks before the general election on Dec. 12. Why now?”

CNN’s political reporter Eric Levenson found that Judge Roy Moore’s support remains rock solid in Alabama. Levenson interviewed a number of Moore supporters. In his column titled “Why Roy Moore supporters are standing by him, in their own words” Levenson provided the following quotes:

Mike Allison, pastor of Madison Baptist Church, said he knows Moore as “a man of integrity,” he told CNN.

“I don’t even believe the allegations. There’s lots of fake news going around these days,” he said. “They’re allegations. How can he even defend himself against 40-year-old allegations? You used to be innocent until proven guilty.”

“I support him now more than ever,” he said.

“I’ve known him my whole life and I’ve never known him to do anything inappropriate,” said the Rev. Jamie Holcomb, of Young’s Chapel Congregational Methodist Church.

He said that he’d need to see more proof before he changed his mind.

“I stand behind him 100%, unless there’s proof,” he said

NBC New’s Adam Edelman in a column titled “In Alabama, Republican Voters Stand by Roy Moore” writes:

Of more than 15 Republican voters in Alabama interviewed by NBC News, none said their support for Moore would change.

Most said they didn’t believe the allegations and some said even if they are true, that wouldn’t sway their vote for him next month because they think Moore is a good man, should be forgiven and they could never bring themselves to vote for a Democrat anyway. Several attacked the media.

[ … ]

Republican voters in Alabama said they love Moore’s penchant for political incorrectness — they like the same thing about President Donald Trump — and blame the media for Moore’s troubles.

Judge Roy Moore is gaining support from the Trump effect. Moore is plain spoken, not politically correct and the sworn enemy of the Washington, D.C. establishment.

All the ingredients that propelled Trump to the White House may very well propel Moore to the U.S. Senate.

Readers wishing to donate to the Roy Moore for U.S. Senate campaign please click here.


Hey Mitch, 63% Of Alabama Voters Still Support Judge Roy Moore ⋆

Alabama ABC Affiliate Can’t Find One Voter Who Believes WaPo Report About Roy Moore in Man-on-the-Street Segment – Breitbart

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of Judge Roy Moore taken on Tuesday, Feb. 17, 2015  is courtesy of AP/Brynn Anderson.

Judge Roy Moore issues passionate statement calls for WaPo to ‘tell the truth’

Multiple news outlets have reported (here, here and here) that one of the women Deborah Wesson Gibson, a.k.a. Debbie Gibson, mentioned in a Washington Post story, has worked for the DNC, supported Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and campaigns for Judge Moore’s opponent.

Activist Mommy, who originally broke the story about Deborah Wesson Gibson, in a column titled “Roy Moore Releases Statement on Smear Campaign: ‘I Urge Everyone to Tell the Truth’” writes:

The outrageous allegations of sexual misconduct made against Judge Roy Moore this week are the leading story of the day. We have just received a new statement from Moore on this ruthless smear campaign.

[ … ]

These certainly sound like the words of an innocent man. He clearly understands that it is no small matter to belittle the story of a woman who claims to have experienced sexual abuse. That being said, he has every right to defend himself against these baseless claims.

Please keep the Moore family in prayer during this trying time!

Here is Judge Roy Moore’s full statement as originally published in Activist Mommy:

Yesterday, I made a statement that the allegations described in a Washington Post article against me about sexual impropriety were false.

It has been a tough 24 hours because my wife and I were blindsided by an article based on a lie supported by innuendo.

It seems that in the political arena, to say that something is not true is simply not good enough.

So let me be clear.

I have never provided alcohol to minors, and I have never engaged in sexual misconduct. As a father of a daughter and a grandfather of five granddaughters, I condemn the actions of any man who engages in sexual misconduct not just against minors but against any woman.

I also believe that any person who has been abused should feel the liberty to come forward and seek protection.

I know that a lot of people wonder why this story was written. Why would women say these things if they are not true? I can’t fully answer that because as much as I have disagreed vehemently on political issues with many people over the years, I cannot understand the mentality of using such a dangerous lie to try to personally destroy someone.

As a former Judge and administer of the law, I take the protection of our innocent as one of my most sacred callings. False allegations are gravely serious and will have a profound consequence on those who are truly harassed or molested.

I strongly urge the Washington Post, and everyone involved, to tell the truth.

That is all we can do, and I trust that the people of Alabama, who know my record after 40 years of public service, will vouch for my character and commitment to the rule of law.

Similar claims were made against President Donald J. Trump during the presidential primary. The Huffington Post reported:

During his 2016 campaign, Trump dismissed allegations of sexual misconduct against himself from more than a dozen women and threatened to sue some of his accusers. He claimed that a 2005 tape of him bragging about sexual assault, which was released last fall, was “locker room talk.”

CNN’s Doug Criss in a column titled “The (incomplete) list of powerful men accused of sexual harassment after Harvey Weinstein” lists former President George H.W. Bush, who has been accused by three women of being touched inappropriately.

Roy Moore is a devout Christian who is pro-life, pro-religious freedom, pro-Second Amendment and believes that marriage is between one man and one woman. He is a threat to both the Republican establishment and Democrat Party. As John Michael Chambers wrote, “The opposite of love isn’t hate, it’s fear.” The media, Washington, D.C. elites and many others fear the election of Roy Moore to the U.S. Senate.

QUESTION: Are you reading the truth or fake news?

Readers wishing to donate to the Roy Moore for U.S. Senate campaign please click here.


Judge Roy Moore is a life-long Alabamian and a committed constitutional conservative that has stood up for liberty and religious freedom his entire career.

Judge Moore graduated from Etowah High School in Attalla, Alabama, in 1965 and from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1969 where he received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Arts and Engineering. He then served in the U.S. Army as a company commander with the Military Police Corps in Vietnam. After the Army, Judge Moore completed his Juris Doctor degree from The University of Alabama School of Law in 1977.

During his legal career, Judge Moore became the first full-time Deputy District Attorney in Etowah County, Alabama, and served in this position from 1977 until 1982. In 1984, Judge Moore undertook private practice of law in Gadsden, Alabama.

In 1992, Judge Moore became a judge of the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit of Alabama and served until his election as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court in 2000. In 2003, Judge Moore was removed from his position as Chief Justice by a judicial panel for refusing to remove a Ten Commandments monument that he installed in the rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building to acknowledge the sovereignty of God

From 2003 until 2012, Judge Moore served as President of the Foundation for Moral Law in Montgomery, lecturing throughout the Country and filing amicus curiae briefs regarding the United States Constitution in Federal District Courts, State Supreme Courts, U.S. Courts of Appeal and the United States Supreme Court.

Judge Moore was overwhelmingly re-elected by a vote of the people of Alabama as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court in November of 2012 and took office in January of 2013. In 2016, Judge Moore was suspended for upholding the sanctity of marriage as between one man and one woman. He retired to seek the office of U.S. Senate in 2017.

Judge Moore and his wife, Kayla, have four children and five grandchildren. They are members of First Baptist Church in Gallant, Alabama.


Roy Moore Accuser Is 3X Divorcee Who — ‘Claimed Several Pastors Made Sexual Advances At Her’

Alabama Accuser Deletes Anti-Moore Postings from Facebook, Rants About Removing Trump from Office – Breitbart

Roy Moore’s Two Accusers: Leigh Corfman’s age was 17 not 14 & has history of making false allegations, Deborah Gibson a Dem volunteer for Moore’s opponent – happened 40 years ago!

Amidst Double Digit Leads In Polls, Crooked Washington Post Endorses Roy Moore’s Opponent and Prints Sexual Allegations

RELATED VIDEO: Former White House Counsel Steve Bannon during this speech in New Hampshire at the 20:53 minute mark said:

But it’s interesting, the Bezos-Amazon-Washington Post that dropped that dime on Donald Trump, is the same Bezos-Amazon-Washington Post that dropped the dime this afternoon on Judge Roy Moore. Now is that a coincidence? That’s what I mean when I say opposition party, right? It’s purely part of the apparatus of the Democratic Party. They don’t make any bones about it. By the way, I don’t mind it. I’ll call them out every day.

Culture is Downstream of Politics

By Maggie Gallagher and Frank Cannon

Walk into any room full of Christian conservative donors, and someone will say, “Politics is downstream of culture.” Every head in the room will nod. Nothing is more entrenched as conventional wisdom among Christian conservatives. Like most truisms, this one is only partly true. As people change their beliefs about what is true and good, politics changes as well. But putting culture above politics as a distinct sphere is profoundly mistaken, for politics is part of culture.

Politics allows the American people to give public form to what they believe to be true, good, and important; it is also the main way Americans decide which views are “within the pale” and which are beyond it. Elites of the left dominate most other domains: the mainstream media, the academy, the arts, Hollywood, Madison Avenue, and increasingly the Chamber of Commerce and corporate suites. When an idea or issue drops out of politics, therefore, progressives can easily stigmatize it as outside the mainstream, extremist, and intolerable, effectively ending conversation. But election results feed back into culture. Political realities can override the dictates of the left, as Trump’s election reminds us.

Politics is full of cultural content. When our ideas find success at the polls, traditional believers find out that they are not alone, isolated, or on the fringe. This strengthens our voice in the public square. When voters swept Ronald Reagan into the White House, the New York Times could no longer define conservatives as outside the mainstream.

Electoral victories have other cultural consequences. Harvard Law School recently established an Antonin Scalia chair. Has Harvard suddenly been persuaded that Scalia’s ideas are sound? Probably not. Harvard publicly acknowledges the intellectual legitimacy of Scalia’s textualist and originalist approach to constitutional interpretation only because, thanks to politics, the Federalist Society has a great deal of influence on Republican nominations to the federal bench, including the Supreme Court.

The give-and-take of politics also tells Americans what views their fellow citizens hold and care about. In November 2016, many liberals were shocked to discover that their preoccupations were not shared by many voters in swing states. Politicians who want to win elections respond to this information and adjust to win the votes they need to gain office. That’s why Bill Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993. He was tired of watching Democrats lose elections because they were outside the mainstream of middle America. As a consequence, religious liberty became a bipartisan commitment for at least a decade.

This is not to say that culture does not influence politics. The left can use media power to intimidate Republicans, encouraging them to fall silent about particular issues. But this is almost always matched by political spending for issues and candidates, which reinforces cultural messages. Fairly quickly, this combination leads to cultural change. When only one side is willing to speak enthusiastically about a prominent issue, people begin to believe there really is only one side. The polls shift quickly as the hearts and minds of the mushy middle move toward the only visible position. If only one team is on the field, it wins by default.

The push for gay marriage provides a case study. In the years leading up to the Obergefell decision, Republicans stopped talking about the substance of the issue. Instead of vigorously defending marriage, they increasingly sidestepped, briefly acknowledging their support of traditional marriage or reverting to federalism (“leave the matter to the states”). This approach communicated clearly to voters that defending marriage was not an issue of central concern. Meanwhile, Democratic candidates trumpeted “marriage equality” and “love is love.” Not surprisingly, opinion polls shifted toward approval of gay marriage.

For this reason, “truce strategies” damage the causes religious and social conservatives support. When our positions are not articulated in politics, opponents can easily caricature and dismiss them. Truce strategies also forgo opportunities to effect substantive change. As political scientists Edward G. Carmines and James A. Stimson have pointed out, issues that change partisan alignments and re-orient the electorate’s views have three characteristics:

“Issue preferences must be deeply felt.” A passionate minority can move mountains in elections. Indeed, the notion of activating a moral majority has been one of the weak points in Christian conservatives’ political model. Consider the polling on the proposal to ban “assault-style weapons.” Eighty percent of Democrats and those who lean Democratic favor such a ban, and so do 54 percent of Republicans and those who lean Republican. Yet the NRA can block such a ban because they are able to rally a minority of voters who feel very strongly—and are politically organized.

The Christian conservative movement has taken a different approach, encouraging a “mass uprising,” a moral majority that feels strongly that it can win elections without political organization or targeted action. This never worked very well, leading to threats that voters would stay home if the GOP didn’t implement our priorities—mass defection as a model of political influence. Neither idea amounts to a plan, certainly not a plan for our times. Meanwhile, the broader culture disintegrates on sexual matters and the LGBT community tightens its hold on culture-shaping institutions that channel and intensify hatred against traditional believers.

“Parties and candidates must take up visibly different positions on the issue.” Carmines and Stimson point out that the cultural and political consequences are most dramatic when the two parties take clearly articulated, opposing stands. But cultural consequences also follow when “one of the parties chooses to ignore the issue while the other party takes a strong stand.” Either way, “the degree of objective party differentiation on major issues” is “very critical in the shaping of public opinion.”

To keep our moral principles in the mainstream, we need high-profile political commitments that command the loyalty of significant chunks of the electorate. The sanctity of life provides the most obvious example. The left would like to brand the pro-life position as outside the mainstream, but cannot. The reason why rests in the political salience of our position, not the left’s “fair-mindedness.” The unwillingness of Republican politicians to sustain a clear commitment to traditional marriage illustrates what happens when our views are not put forward as clear political commitments. The position that until almost yesterday was nearly universal now has been branded as bigotry. If we do not change our strategy, religious liberty will soon be in the same position. Legal strategies without a political strategy will not be enough.

“The issue must be long on the political agenda.” To sustain the cultural impact of political involvement, Christian conservatives must keep their commitments on the political agenda over time. The pro-life community learned to move from the Human Life Amendment to smaller legislative issues such as late-term abortions and taxpayer funding, winning important victories and keeping the pro-life cause in politics for decades. This is one of the reasons the pro-life movement has gained ground culturally. The scandal of abortion remains before the public, working against the pro-abortion forces that would like to hide the reality of the killing of the unborn.

Political scientists in the seventies predicted that public opposition to abortion would collapse as older generations died off. Abortion polling looked about as dismal at that time as gay marriage polling does now. In 1972, 66 percent of those under age thirty felt there should be no restriction on abortion at all. But predictions about the direction of history turned out to be wrong. The cause of life has been able to win a large share of succeeding generations in part by keeping abortion alive as a political issue.

Today, just a few short years after Mitch Daniels, then-governor of Indiana, tried to persuade the GOP to adopt a truce strategy on abortion and other social issues, Democrats are acknowledging their abortion extremism is costing them votes. Both Bernie Sanders and DNC Chair Tom Perez publicly supported a self-described pro-life Democrat, Heath Mello, for mayor of Omaha. Perez admitted that abortion extremism is hurting the Democrats politically: “In order to execute a 50-state strategy, we need to understand what’s going on in all 50 states, and attract candidates who are consistent with their messages but perhaps not on 100 percent of the issues.” Attacks by pro-abortion groups caused Perez to walk back his support, and Mello promised to vote for only pro-choice legislation. But a few months later, Rep. Ben Ray Luján, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, announced that a pro-abortion position would no longer be required for its support: “There is not a litmus test for Democratic candidates.”

All of this suggests that culture is in some sense also downstream of politics, not just the other way around. Data from other countries reinforce this conclusion. Americans are nearly twice as likely as Canadians to say abortion should not be permitted at all. We are three times more likely than the British to say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. In Great Britain, according to another poll, support for a ban on abortion actually fell between 2005 and 2013 from 12 percent to 7 percent. Religious people in Great Britain were about as likely to support legal abortion as other citizens. These striking differences no doubt reflect some cultural differences, but surely the specifically political influence of a vigorous pro-life movement that can win elections in the United States is an important factor.

The left seems to have learned this lesson. They approached gay marriage in ways designed to shut it down as a political issue. Progressives invested heavily in innovative direct political action, which, combined with its media influence, helped them defeat major social conservative leaders who spoke out against gay marriage, most prominently Sen. Rick Santorum. It was a strategy described in the now-famous March 2007 Atlantic essay “They Won’t Know What Hit Them.”

Others have been targeted. As a Colorado Congresswoman, Marilyn Musgrave sponsored the federal Marriage Amendment in the House of Representatives, where she introduced it in 2003. The gay left’s campaign against her began in 2006 when the multimillionaire tech entrepreneur Tim Gill and his fellow pro–gay marriage donors poured $2 million into negative ads opposing her reelection. These ads never mentioned gay marriage. Instead, they criticized Rep. Musgrave for voting against a pay raise for Iraq War veterans.

She hung on with 51 percent of the vote in 2006, but with the template established, gay mega-donors returned in 2008 with a similar strategy. They worked to defeat her because of her opposition to gay marriage, but that remained invisible. The voting public saw only ads driving up her negatives on every conceivable issue. “Musgrave took over $183,000 from Big Oil and gave them billions in tax breaks,” one ad said. Another had a voiceover intone, “A citizen watchdog group named Musgrave one of the most corrupt members of Congress.” As Musgrave told one of us, “They even started fake pro-life organizations to claim I’m not pro-life enough.”

In the face of these sophisticated and well-financed attacks, pro-family Christian conservative organizations continue to do politics as usual, investing most of their resources in pastor organizing, voter guides, voter registration efforts, referendum efforts, and policy papers. This is all to the good, but it is not good enough, at least not in today’s political climate.

After Musgrave and others were punished politically, Republican elites concluded that opposing gay marriage would hurt them. They were able to wiggle away from a public stance on the issue because social conservatives did not appear to have political resources to help them fight back against the kind of tactics that defeated Musgrave. We talk with many intelligent Evangelicals who see candidate recruitment as the key to electing politicians who will not betray us. But electing faithful Christians like Marilyn Musgrave won’t help if we do not have the political resources to defend and protect them.

Pat McCrory, the North Carolina governor who was the lone Republican in 2016 to stand up against Obama’s transgender edict requiring public schools to let biological males in girls’ bathrooms, locker rooms, and sports teams, went down to defeat because of the same lack of astute tactical support from social conservatives. The left does not have to defeat everyone. They only need to demonstrate they can defeat one of our leaders. This sends other Republicans scurrying for political cover.

Republicans silenced themselves on marriage not after they lost the support of the American people but before. In 2009, Americans opposed gay marriage 54 percent to 37 percent according to a Pew poll. By 2010, when Mitch Daniels publicly announced that the next president “would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues,” Americans were still evenly divided. When the other side keeps fighting, “truce” is another word for surrender. Today, more than three-fifths of the American people support gay marriage, including 40 percent of Republicans.

The left has now moved on to redefining religious liberty as a license to discriminate, using the same successful tactics. There remains a substantial reservoir of support for religious liberty. As recently as July 2015, according to an AP poll, a third of Democrats and 59 percent of independents say religious liberty should trump gay rights where they conflict. But if we continue to respond to challenges with our failed tactics, religious liberty will lose too, not just politically but culturally as well.

The last decade has made one thing clear: Nonpolitical cultural strategies without a new, better, deeper, and more effective investment in direct politics will fail. At a minimum, to sustain religious liberty, we will need an effective political arm to win legislative battles for our schools, charities, and businesses. We cannot preserve our cultural consensus about the First Amendment without making it clear that those who wish to undermine religious liberty will pay a dear price at the polls.

Apolitical movement needs many things: messaging shops, coalition builders, policy reports, candidate recruitment, attractive spokesmen, and voter registration drives. But these exist to support, not replace, the central act of democratic politics, which is winning elections. This is precisely what social conservatives lack. We lack the capacity to elect our friends and defeat our opponents. Which means we need to build the organizational structures that can engage directly in politics: PACs, super PACs, and 501(c)(4) independent expenditures.

We need to propose specific legislation that forces politicians to defend our positions. If elected officials have to vote, they will need to explain and justify their votes in public. When they do so, the general public will hear someone defending our commitments as true and our policies as good. By contrast, when we organize around generic principles rather than specific legislation, it is easy for politicians to mislead or confuse voters. The rhetoric of “judicial restraint” and “federalism” are classic instances. They may be good principles, but in recent decades they have been ways for elected officials to suggest they are pro-life, pro-marriage, or pro–religious liberty without actually saying so in public.

The 2012 election demonstrated the need for change in the way we address politics and culture. Mitt Romney was nominally against gay marriage, but he ran no ads on the issue. Obama and the Democrats were all-in for gay marriage. What happened? Did any national social conservative organization go into Ohio or North Carolina and spend even $2 million to demonstrate the issue could deprive the Democrats of the White House? No. We accepted our role in the aging Reagan coalition, which has become that of a silent partner. We let the Republican operatives in D.C. dictate electoral strategy, which advised promoting economic issues and downplaying social issues.

We have a long way to go. Our research shows that between 2007 and 2014, conservative organizations dedicated to changing public policy on life, marriage, and religious liberty spent just under $75 million in direct political spending. By contrast, the leading gay-rights political organization, Human Rights Campaign, recently pledged to spend $26 million in 2018 on direct political action. Emily’s List, one of the largest pro-abortion PACs, spent $36 million in 2016 and is likely to spend as much or more in the upcoming electoral cycle. In other words, only two organizations on the left will spend in one year almost as much on direct political action as all socially conservative organizations combined spent between 2007 and 2014. Comprehensive data for 2015 and 2016 are not yet available. But the preliminary data suggest political spending by social conservatives is falling, not rising.

This must change. We need to invest resources in direct political spending that helps us focus the 2018 elections on the left’s threats to religious liberty and its transgender extremism. We need to show that the outspoken representatives of these views can be defeated in elections. Defeats of just a few hardcore culture warriors on the left will sober up other Democratic politicians. Persuading even 3 percent of those who usually vote Democratic to turn against the left in close purple-state elections will have a far greater impact, politically and culturally, than any “rally the base” strategy.

The Democratic party pushes deeply unpopular policies because rich donors who support LGBT and abortion extremism provide them with direct political money. They have come to rely on Republican silence on these issues. They cash the checks and are not held accountable at election time. We’ve lived through a counterproductive cycle of elections in which Republicans gave us green-eyeshade issues such as deficit reduction and tax cuts for those with higher incomes, while Democrats hammered away at us as “bigots” and “haters.”

It is past time to set aside the failed truce strategy of recent decades. We need a political strategy that will take our case to ambivalent Democrats and independents. This will make social conservatives more politically influential—and more culturally influential as well, for politics is part of culture.

EDITORS NOTE: Maggie Gallagher is a senior fellow and Frank Cannon is president at the American Principles Project. The full report and data on which this article is based are available at

Silver Linings in Blue Victories

It’s been called a “rejection,” “rebuke,” and “disaster” for Republicans, but are last night’s election results really as significant as the media’s making them out to be? Some experts say no. After a string of special election beatings, the victories for Democrats Ralph Northam (Va.) and Phil Murphy (N.J.) are a huge relief to an embattled Left. Watching blue states like Virginia and New Jersey deal a death blow to the GOP’s hopes of recapturing the governor’s mansion was gratifying to liberals, but not incredibly surprising. As CNBC warns its overly exuberant counterparts, these are states that have been “swinging for Democrats for almost two decades.”

“The consensus take on the sweeping wins for the Democrats in the Old Dominion is that this is a repudiation of President Donald Trump, his policies, and his political tone. Not exactly,” warns Jake Novak.

“What the election results really prove without a doubt is that Virginia is now undeniably blue. The Democrats have won the state three straight times in presidential elections, four of the last five governor’s elections, and the once solid red state even has two Democrats representing it in the U.S. Senate. The reasons this has happened are a series of demographic and political factors that were in motion long before Donald Trump became a candidate.”

While the Left is exchanging morning-after high fives, all is hardly lost.

The media’s narrative is that this is a repudiation of President Trump’s agenda. But that doesn’t necessarily jive with other races in Virginia, which, with the exception of Gillespie, were much tighter. In fact, the more conservative down-ticket candidates (like those vying for attorney general and lieutenant governor) won more votes than Gillespie. Liberal donors managed to capture a significant number of statehouse seats, whose campaigns they’d been targeting with significant contributions for months. Republicans couldn’t compete financially — or, it turns out, emotionally.

President Trump, Novak points out, “needn’t worry so much about Virginia, but he should be concerned about Democratic organizing and get-out-the-vote efforts.” The enthusiasm gap definitely favored Democrats, who flooded the polls, turning out eight percent more voters — 28 percent — than 2013. Interestingly enough, it wasn’t a lack of participation on evangelicals’ part that cost Gillespie and others (turnout was only down a single point — to 27 percent — from 2013). Conservatives just couldn’t seem to match the fervor on the other side. Even so, Gillespie still raked in 79 percent of the white evangelical vote compared to 81 percent for Cuccinelli and 80 percent for Trump.

Meanwhile, not all of the news for Democrats was good. They may have won the biggest prizes in New Jersey and the extension of the swamp in Virginia, but they certainly aren’t winning any popularity contests. Analysts were stunned by favorability ratings for the party, which spell disaster once the broader electorate is engaged. As Ryan Struyk tweeted, a lot of Americans seem to have held their noses to vote. “Some frightening splits in new @CNN poll for Dems. Only 48 percent of nonwhites and 33 percent of people under 35 (!) have favorable view of Dem party.” That’s a big picture problem for the democrats, who are facing record highs in disapproval. CNN reports, “Only 37 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of Democrats, down from 44 percent in March of this year. A majority, 54 percent have an unfavorable view, matching their highest mark in polls from CNN and SSRS, CNN/ORC and CNN/USA Today/Gallup stretching back to 1992.”

Of course, the news isn’t exactly rosy for Republicans either, who are feeling the heat of a series of congressional missteps. With Trump’s agenda hampered at almost every turn (in a GOP-controlled Congress), you can’t blame voters for venting their frustration. When Democrats overstep on social issues (as many blame Hillary Clinton for doing in 2016), Americans turn to Republicans — who often fail to act, despite the mandate they’ve been given. Obviously, if the GOP has any hope of preserving its majority, the Senate will have to pull itself together on the big ticket-items before voters have a chance to reconsider.

The takeaway from Tuesday’s results is this: these two states are an extremely small sample size of mainly blue voters. The real test will come in Alabama, the heart of Trump country, where the special election for Jeff Session’s old Senate seat will give us a much better indication of what Americans are thinking. Even now, though, in swing states like Pennsylvania, the support for the president runs deep. Virtually unscathed by the congressional drama, the president still polls well in purple states. In a fascinating article, Politico tries to explain why Trump’s base is still rallying around the president, supplying the bulk of his rocky approval ratings.

“Over the course of three rainy, dreary days last week,” Michael Kruse writes, “I revisited and shook hands with the president’s base — that thirty-something percent of the electorate who resolutely approve of the job he is doing, the segment of voters who share his view that the Russia investigation is a ‘witch hunt’ that ‘has nothing to do with him,’ and who applaud his judicial nominees and his determination to gut the federal regulatory apparatus… In spite of unprecedented unpopularity — nearly all people who voted for Trump would do it again.”

As we saw with Clinton, who was abandoned by blue collar voters for her extreme social stance (“the Democratic Party cared more about where someone else went to the restroom than whether they had a good-paying job”), Middle America still embraces Trump’s agenda. But they also understand his limitations without a cooperative Congress. “I asked [voter Pam] Schilling what would happen if the next three years go the way the last one has,” Kruse shares. “‘I’m not going to blame him,'” Schilling said. “‘Absolutely not.'”

“Next to [another person I was interviewing] was a gray-haired man who told me he voted for Trump and was happy so far because ‘he’s kept his promises.'”

“I asked which ones.”

“‘Border security.’ But there’s no wall yet. “‘No fault of his,’ the man said.”

“What else? ‘Getting rid of Obamacare.’ But he hasn’t. ‘Well, he’s tried to.'”

“What else? ‘Defunding Planned Parenthood.’ But he didn’t. ‘Not his fault again,’ the man said.”

As for Tuesday’s results, liberals have the momentum — that much is clear. But it’s nothing a determined the GOP House and Senate can’t wrestle back with big wins on tax reform and health care. It’s not an impossible task for conservatives, but it’s certainly an urgent one.

Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.

Also in the November 8 Washington Update:

The Korean War on Faith

Delaware, Beware, of Kids Choosing Their own Race

Democrat Who Opposes Sanctuary Cities Wins Virginia Governor’s Race

In the Virginia gubernatorial race Tuesday between Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam and Ed Gillespie, immigration was a key issue.

Northam, 58, the 40th and current lieutenant governor of Virginia, won, and had 925,203 votes or 51.8 percent of the vote with 74 percent of precincts reporting, according to The New York Times.

Gillespie, 56, a former chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia and the Republican National Committee as well as counselor to President George W. Bush, had 869,346 votes or 46.8 percent with 76 percent of the precincts reporting, according to The New York Times.

“Clearly immigration has played a significant role in the campaign,” Mark Krikorian, executive director at the Center for Immigration Studies, a nonpartisan immigration research organization, told The Daily Signal in a phone interview, adding:

Don’t take my word for it, ask Ralph Northam. He was first boasting about having cast the deciding vote to kill an anti-sanctuary bill in the Legislature when he was lieutenant governor.

After Gillespie aired an ad that claimed that Northam cast a deciding vote on Feb. 22 in favor of sanctuary cities, Krikorian said Northam’s stance on immigration changed.

[Since] Gillespie’s ads criticizing MS-13 and sanctuary cities, Northam has now flipped and said that if some city did declare it a sanctuary, he would act to stop it if he were governor.

In an article published Nov. 1, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported:

In an interview Wednesday with the Norfolk TV station WAVY, Northam said for the first time that, under certain circumstances, he would sign a bill similar to the one he voted against this year, a vote that spawned a wave of ominous ads from the Gillespie campaign linking Northam to the Latino gang MS-13.

‘If that bill comes to by desk … I sure will. I’ve always been opposed to sanctuary cities. He knows that,’ Northam said of Gillespie …

The Center for Immigration Studies lists Arlington County and Chesterfield County in Virginia as sanctuary cities.

Northam’s position on sanctuary cities drew criticism from some on the left. Progressive group Democracy for America’s executive director Charles Chamberlain released this statement last week:

Ralph Northam’s gutless, politically senseless, and morally debased decision yesterday to openly backtrack on his commitment to standing up for immigrant families is a picture-perfect example of why Democracy for America never endorsed him in the primary … It’s also why, today, we’re announcing that we will no longer do any work to directly aid Northam’s gubernatorial efforts.

Ezra Levin, co-founder of Indivisible, which describes itself as having a “mission … to fuel a progressive grassroots network of local groups to resist the Trump agenda,” tweeted this about Northam’s position:

Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, agrees the immigration issue was influential in the Old Dominion’s 2017 governor’s race.

“Given the fact that Virginians are concerned about sanctuary cities like Virginia Beach and with recent reports of noncitizens voting in Virginia elections, there’s no question that immigration was probably a factor in how Virginians voted,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal in an interview.

President Donald Trump made his support of Gillespie no secret on social media.

Trump also participated in a robo call for Gillespie on Tuesday.

“Ed will protect your family from crime, drugs, and violence—something Northam will never do. And Ed loves the vets, loves the military, and loves your Second Amendment,” Trump said during the call.

Ken Cuccinelli, the 46th attorney general of Virginia from 2010-2014, told The Daily Signal in an interview that Democrats worked to make the gubernatorial race about race and immigration. Gillespie’s focus on MS-13, a gang with ties to illegal immigrants, drew criticism from some.

“The other side tried to turn it into a race-baiting thing,” Cuccinelli said, adding:

The problem is, it wasn’t race-baiting, it was fact-telling, and you know, they don’t deal well with the truth, and so it began an interesting back and forth, [but] they overreacted so badly that it really played into Gillespie’s hands to then push again the factual subject, [that] Northam had a vote where he supported sanctuary cities, arguably, and then Northam flip-flopped on it.

The former Virginia attorney general said an ad that came out by the Latino Victory Project in opposition to Gillespie further illustrated how the left distorted Gillespie’s stance on immigration.

“It falls in the category of the left just going overboard … the other side has done it with some of their over-the-top, basically false bigotry charges, and that ad was the granddaddy of them all on that front,” Cuccinelli said.

Logan Churchwell, communications and research director at Public Interest Legal Foundation, a law firm centered on election integrity, told The Daily Signal in an interview that the truck ad illustrated how liberals framed the immigration discussion.

“That truck ad was despicable, and I think it puts in video form how some political interests are comfortable leveraging and exploiting first generation immigrant populations to basically generate a political outcome in the elections that they are hoping for,” Churchwell said.

The ad was taken down Oct. 31, and Cristóbal J. Alex, president of the Latino Victory Fund, said in a statement posted on Twitter that the ad “held a mirror up to the Republican Party, and they don’t like what they see.”

New Jersey choose Democrat Phil Murphy over Republican Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno as its next governor Tuesday night.

The Center for Immigration Studies lists Middlesex County, Newark, Ocean County, and Union County as sanctuary cities in New Jersey.

The issue is not going away anytime soon, said Krikorian at the Center for Immigration Studies.

Continual attention to immigration enforcement as an anti-gang tool is going to be essential, and Northern Virginia is going to have a very direct interest in national immigration policy trying to limit the influx of central American illegal immigrants, because this area is, after Los Angeles, the No. 2 location in the country for Central Americans and … their communities inevitably serve as cover and incubators for these kinds of national criminal gangs, MS-13 [being] just the most notorious of them.

Portrait of Rachel del Guidice

Rachel del Guidice

Rachel del Guidice is a reporter for The Daily Signal. She is a graduate of Franciscan University of Steubenville, Forge Leadership Network, and The Heritage Foundation’s Young Leaders Program. Send an email to Rachel. Twitter: @LRacheldG.

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.