I can understand that. My question (just for forming my own opinion) is does that make him any better or worse than Roy Moore?
Moore seemed like a decent man who got ambushed, and really did not know or have the skills to navigate the accusations, or didn’t want to put in the effort in the end.
Blankenship ran a business, and may or may not have known or been involved in decisions that cut corners to increase profits, but was liable nonetheless, and some folks died in an accident as a result. Does that mean he had criminal intent? Is he flawed any worse than anyone else? Or did he just allow himself to be in the wrong position at the wrong time?
That’s all I know about him so I cant judge, but apparently he is ‘liked’ by a significant number of W Va voters. Must be a reason.
I can only speak for myself.
Moore was beaten by allegations alone.
He was not tried and convicted of anything.
And yes, he did a poor job of defending
himself.
Blankenship is a convicted criminal.
And as the mine owner, ultimately responsible
for the deaths of 29 miners.
Just as Jimmy Carter was responsible for the
failed Iranian rescue mission, even though he did not
fly a helicopter or plan the mission.