In the wake of President Trump’s official endorsement of Alabama senate candidate Roy Moore, the Republican National Committee chose to resume funding Moore’s campaign for the U. S. Senate, a move that state-level members of the RNC greeted with a range of sanguinity. The embattled Alabaman has been credibly accused of pursuing, assaulting, or molesting eight young, vulnerable women—one of them under the legal age of consent—but denies the
In the wake of President Trump’s official endorsement of Alabama senate candidate Roy Moore, the Republican National Committee chose to resume funding Moore’s campaign for the U. S. Senate, a move that state-level members of the RNC greeted with a range of sanguinity.
The embattled Alabaman has been credibly accused of pursuing, assaulting, or molesting eight young, vulnerable women—one of them under the legal age of consent—but denies the allegations. As accusations mounted last month, he lost the support of the Republican National Committee and National Republican Senatorial Committee. But amid rallying support among Alabama voters, and the president’s vote of confidence in Moore, the RNC changed its tune, while the NRSC did not.
Of the seven members who have responded to our inquiries, six are current or former committeewomen. One is a party chair.
Fredi Simpson, committeewoman for the Republican party of Washington state, gave credit to Alabama’s three RNC members for the funding reversal. “The only time the rest of the members of the RNC might get involved would be if there was a conviction of that candidate,” she told us via email.
Lori Klein Corbin of Arizona, meanwhile, took another tack. “These contrived and made up accusations happen in politics all the time,” she wrote to TWS. “I approve of the RNC’s decision to support the Republican candidate in Alabama,” Corbin continued, adding that, “Ultimately, it is the choice of the voters of Alabama.”
Marti Halverson, committeewoman of Wyoming, likewise said that the fruitful public vetting of a candidate for national office aroused suspicion: “I find the fact that these accusations came out only after Moore won the primary interesting, and that fuels my skepticism of the claims.”
Although Moore’s campaign funding isn’t up to her, as the RNC’s Executive Committee decides such matters, Halverson added, “I think the RNC’s decision last month to withdraw its support for Moore was hastily made.”
Marsha Coats, former committeewoman for the Indiana GOP, declined to offer her view of the RNC’s reversal and its motivations—explaining that she resigned her RNC post when her husband, former senator Dan Coats, moved back to Washington, D. C. to serve as Director of National Intelligence.
“You raise good questions,” Mrs. Coats then added, in reference to our queries about the RNC’s reversal, its motivations, and her view of the decision.
South Carolina’s long-serving committeewoman Cindy Costa thought otherwise. She argued that the allegations against Moore “seemed all manufactured by the Democrats to try to cost him this election,” and encouraged us instead to chase down the truth of what those Democrats had done. Asked whether hers was the dominant opinion among her peers, Costa said, “I think it’s a correct assessment of myself, many RNC members across the nation, and the people of Alabama.”
The RNC committeewoman for nearby North Carolina, Dr. Ada Fisher answered with a prediction of sorts: “Don’t be surprised if Roy Moore wins.”
She also suggested, by way of clarifying context, that we consider “the religious angle, which talks about women obeying men and submitting,” and then listed men—Jerry Lee Lewis, Charlie Chaplin, the polygamous followers of Joseph Smith—apt for comparison to Moore.
