web analytics
Currently viewing the tag: "Hypocrisy"

Per Politico, Sen. Michael Crapo (R-Idaho) is still slated “to become the top Republican on the powerful Banking Committee and will serve as Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn’s top deputy in the new Congress” even after his DUI convinction. Steve Benen still finds it possible to scrape together a handful of shock at this GOP hypocrisy:

I find it hard not to marvel at the surprisingly libertine attitudes in the socially-conservative Republican Party.

but you know, I don’t.


Conservative Patriotism

I think one of the biggest things that pisses me off about politics and the news media is how easily politicians can truck in transparent about-faces on virtually everything (see, e.g., the filibuster of Federal judges) and not pay a political price for it or even have the hypocrisy immediately thrown back in their faces by any of the Serious People that dominate our pundit class.

Case in point: Obama’s newly waged “war on the Supreme Court“.

Besides being grotesquely hyperbolic given the context of the remarks, every Republican President I can remember has loudly and repeatedly denounced the Supremes and countless other Federal judges for their “unconstitutional abuses of power”, being “partisan judicial activitists”  and even comparing them to thugs and criminals.  And don’t even get me started on conservative pundits.  Just look at the cartoon smearing “Ruth Traitor Ginsburg”.

As SteveM points out, even Saint Reagan and John Roberts were in on the game to denounce and curtail judicial power:

I’m just trying to imagine how Obama’s critics would have reacted if he’d said what a certain presidential candidate said in February 1980:

Ronald Reagan … campaigning in Birmingham, Ala., Thursday, blasted the court’s most recent abortion ruling as “an abuse of power as bad as the transgression of Watergate and the bribery on Capitol Hill.” …

Equating the justices to felons? Anyone feeling unsettled?

And I’m wondering how long it would have been before impeachment articles were drafted if Eric Holder ever delivered a speech like the one described in this article from the first year of Reagan’s presidency:

Attorney General William French Smith accused the federal courts of “constitutionally dubious and unwise intrusions upon the legislative domain,” and vowed to oppose such “subjective judicial policymaking.”


And I say that even though court-stripping is frequently proposed by right-wingers, most recently by presidential candidates Michele Bachmann and Newt Gingrich, and even though one of the principal proponents of court-stripping in the Reagan era was a young government lawyer named John Roberts, now the chief justice of the Supreme Court:

Over two decades ago, a young government lawyer named John Roberts tried—and failed—to convince the Reagan Justice Department to endorse a number of radical legislative proposals that would strip the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear cases concerning such issues as school prayer, school busing, and abortion.

This is what you get with the media’s tyranny of low expectations for the Republican party.  Republicans can spout inflammatory and disingenuous rhetoric all day long but when a Democrat says something mildly “partisan”, or simply makes the same kind of political statements that Republicans make, Democrats are immediately held to a higher standard and tut-tutted back into being spineless and carrying knives to a gunfight.

As I think we’ve realized in other contexts, unilateral disarmament doesn’t work.

It would be nice to have a level playing field once in a while.

Update: Also, too, see more from digby.


Another bucketfull of irony poured into the bottomless well of Republican hypocrisy:

Senator Rand Paul […] was detained [inconvenienced] at the airport in Nashville by the Transportation Security Administration on Monday, according to people close to the lawmaker, although the T.S.A. quickly disputed their account.

Instead, the agency said the senator had been denied entry to the secure part of the airport after refusing a pat-down,and was “escorted” from the screening area by local law enforcement, but had never been “detained.”

Mr. Paul was later rebooked on a different flight and was “re-screened without incident,” the agency said.

The T.S.A. said that Mr. Paul had been screened by a version of its millimeter-wave body imaging device that uses a generic image of a passenger and, if it detects any anomaly, puts a yellow box on the body area that requires greater scrutiny. An alarm was triggered when he was in the machine, which – under administration procedures – required a “targeted pat-down” to see what caused it. But Mr. Paul refused to submit to the pat-down, the agency said.

Get it?  Wingnut firebrand Rand Paul gets his panties in a bunch because the TSA was trying to pat down his God-given right to privacy.  Where does the irony come in?

A posting on the senator’s own Twitter account shortly before the incident announced that he was headed to Washington to speak at the “March for Life,” an anti-abortion rally.

Yep, Paul was off to join a bunch of anti-choice dead-enders in their quest to overturn Supreme Court decisions like Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade, which served to establish a constitutional right to privacy when it came to things like contraception and abortion.

But far be it from me to ever expect any kind of consistency or logic to invade the bubble in which wingnuts spend all of their waking hours…

{ 1 comment }

One wonders what Herman Cain’s lawyer would have had to say about John Edwards or the whole Lewinsky mess:

“This is not an accusation of harassment in the workplace — this is not an accusation of an assault — which are subject matters of legitimate inquiry to a political candidate,” he said. “Rather, this appears to be an accusation of private, alleged consensual conduct between adults — a subject matter which is not a proper subject of inquiry by the media or the public.

“No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life,” Wood said. “The public’s right to know and the media’s right to report has boundaries and most certainly those boundaries end outside of one’s bedroom door.”


A little nugget in Lev’s last post got me to thinking:

If acceptance by the public matters to Mormons so much, they might want to take the initiative and assume a more hospitable attitude toward the LGBT community and a social justice focus, for starters.

The ability of a lot of alleged “Christians” to flee miles away from what the Jesus of the Bible seemed to be interested in never ceases to amaze me.

The simple question I always find myself wanting to ask a public Christian like, say, Herman Cain or Bill O’Reilly is: “If Jesus were around today, for whom would he be speaking: the rich or the poor?”

It seems like such an obvious question with such an obvious answer.  Yet the vast swathe of conservative people who show up on our teevees and claim to love Jesus are the same people who constantly speak up for the rich at the expense of the poor.

How do you really think that a quote like this from Herman Cain would’ve gone over with resurrected Zombie Jesus:

“Don’t blame Wall Street, don’t blame the big banks — if you don’t have a job and you are not rich, blame yourself!”

I realize that it’s kind of a fool’s errand to try inserting rational concepts like logic and consistency into the irrational world of the religious.  I get it.  But it never seems to stop me from running into fundamental disconnects like this and slapping myself up the forehead about how ridiculous it all is.

I mean, it’s all well and good to believe that a human being’s only salvation is through sacrificing 2-week-old bunnies to the Unicorn God; but you’ve got to actually sacrifice the bunnies in order to get anyone to take seriously the belief you claim to have.   You also can’t wind me a nice-sounding yarn about how cool Jesus was because he spoke up for the poor and the downtrodden — and then turn around and tell the poor that they’re a bunch of lazy, feckless assholes.


Another success story to add to Marcus Bachmann’s theory of praying away the gay:

Emails shared with The Indianapolis Star suggest that state Rep. Phillip Hinkle — responding to a local posting on Craigslist — offered a young man $80 plus tip to spend time with him Saturday night at the JW Marriott hotel.

The emails, sent from Hinkle’s publicly listed personal address, ask the young man for “a couple hours of your time tonight” and offer him cash up front, with a tip of up to $50 or $60 “for a really good time.”

The email exchange is in response to the Craigslist posting in which the young man — who lists his age as 20 in the ad but says he is 18 years old — says, “I need a sugga daddy.”

The young man told The Star that they met, but that he tried to leave after the man told him he was a state lawmaker. He said the lawmaker at first told him he could not leave, grabbed him in the rear, exposed himself to the young man and then later gave him an iPad, BlackBerry cellphone and $100 cash to keep quiet.

I wonder if all these Republican drops in the “closeted hypocrite” bucket will ever finally spill over into a real reckoning about the GOP’s absurd crusade against evil homosexuals.


Answer: No.

There isn’t much that blows my mind more than the followers of some particular strain of irrational religious mythology denouncing the followers of another irrational strain of religious mythology.

I mean, is the belief that Catholics literally eat the transubstantiated body and blood of Christ any weirder than Magical Mormon Underpants™?  I know most God-fearing “modern” Christians in this country like to bitch about Islam’s treatment of women, but isn’t “modern” Christianity just a cafeteria-style approach to the Bible’s real teachings on the subject of male-female parity?

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church. . . .” — Ephesians 5:22–23

“These [redeemed] are they which were not defiled with women; . . .” — Revelation 14:4

“In pain shall you bring forth children, woman, and you shall turn to your husband and he shall rule over you. And do you not know that you are Eve? God’s sentence hangs still over all your sex and His punishment weighs down upon you. You are the devil’s gateway; you are she who first violated the forbidden tree and broke the law of God. It was you who coaxed your way around him whom the devil had not the force to attack. With what ease you shattered that image of God: Man! Because of the death you merited, even the Son of God had to die. . . . Woman, you are the gate to hell.”  Tertullian, early Church father.

For my money, people that believe in redemption through celestial tap-dancing leprechauns reveal themselves as pretty silly when they go around dissing people who yearn for the day when God’s army of divine space chipmunks brings about The Rapture.

First case in point: “Real” Christian Hosts on Fox News dissing Mitt Romney’s form of Space-God worship:

A recent Gallup poll had Texas Gov. Rick Perry trailing former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney 4 percent to 13 percent among Republican voters.

But the hosts of Fox & Friends said Sunday that Perry would have an advantage if he decides to get in the race because Romney is “obviously not a Christian.”

“Only 13 percent of those people said Mitt Romney is their guy,” noted Fox News host Dave Briggs. “It looks perfect for someone like Rick Perry to get in.”

“Well the Christian coalition, I think he could get a lot of money from that,” host Ainsley Earhardt predicted. “Because Romney, obviously not being a Christian — Rick Perry, he’s always on talk shows — on Christian talk shows. He has days of prayer in Texas.”

Well, they obviously weren't "saved" anyway.

Second case in point: GOP Presidential Contender Herman Cain On Dirty Mooslems and the First Amendment:

WALLACE: [C]ouldn’t any community then say we don’t want a mosque in our community?

CAIN: They could say that. Chris, let’s go back to the fundamental issue that the people are basically saying that they are objecting to. They are objecting to the fact that Islam is both religion and of set of laws, Sharia law. That’s the difference between any one of our other traditional religions where it’s just about religious purposes. The people in the community know best. And I happen to side with the people in the community.

WALLACE: So, you’re saying that any community, if they want to ban a mosque?

CAIN: Yes, they have the right to do that. That’s not discriminating based upon religion — against that particular religion.

Let he who is without ignorant, militant faith throw the first stone, right?

Update: The Herman Cain hits just keep on coming:

In an editorial board interview with the Washington Times, Herman Cain expanded at length on why he believed Mitt Romney could not beat Barack Obama. Among other factors, Cain noted that Romney has not done “a good job of explaining his religion,” which he asserted would be a major liability in the South. Cain said the fact that Romney is a Mormon “doesn’t bother me,” but “it is an issue with a lot of southerners.”