Wait, I'm coming at this late I know but I'm extremely confused. Legitimately.
Robert, are you saying that if he tried to have sex with teenagers and failed to actually do so that he is just an oddball and not actually immoral? Maybe I'm missing something in your argument? I don't want a guy who hung out around malls trying to pick up kids to be a Senator regardless of whether he actually molested someone. We agree on that right? Because from the past several posts I read it seems like maybe you don't agree? Not trying to start an argument again, but I'm genuinely flabbergasted.
Also, it seems to keep coming back to "he's conservative and you liberals are blinded by partisanship." I don't buy that. I have said here that if a progressive candidate were accused of the same thing, with the same evidence, there is zero chance I would support them. The closest recent analogy I can think of is Ed Fitzgerald. Ohio Dems abandoned him en masse after it came out that he was in a car with a woman who was not his wife at 4:30 am. The GOP jumped all over that, screaming from the rooftops that he was immoral and unfit to be Governor. This, even though it was one allegation of infidelity, and no crime was committed. Surely, not up to the level of child molestation. Yet, he lost in a landslide to an unpopular (at the time) incumbent. Ohio voters decided that there was enough smoke to suggest that, at the very least, this guy was a bit sleazy and maybe didn't deserve to be Governor.
I didn't live in Ohio at the time but my reaction was "come on Dems, you have to run better candidates" not "well you should all elect this guy anyway because John Kasich is an evil Republican." So I do think we come with a fundamentally different view of partisanship here.
BA OHIO 2010, BS OHIO 2010, MA Delaware 2012