Hypocrite Hunt
by Doug TenNapelIf you just got nailed for doing something stupid or immoral, just find out how your accuser also did something stupid or immoral and you’re off the hook! It doesn’t even have to be for the same indiscretion, just throw everything you’ve got at em’ and hope something sticks. If they did something wrong, then they’re a hypocrite! Hypocrite! Hypocrite!
This is a common tactic I see in modern debate, and it’s closely related to the “who are you to judge” fallout from our post-modern generation. The implication is that if you look for a fault and find it, we collectively lose the ability to call it wrong if we also practice it. If I claim your candidate is a liar, you just Google a quote where my candidate told a lie and suddenly telling a lie is off the table. Stupid, I know. But that’s where we’re at.
Given this standard, nobody can really preach about anything because none of us have perfectly acted out our values. I don’t believe in lying, but I’ve obviously lied before. Perhaps even today. But that doesn’t mean I can’t speak against lying. I’m selfish, and I teach my kids to try not to be selfish as much as possible. Even when I know our nature makes us selfish. We fight because it’s right, not because our record is perfect.
I was at a men’s Bible study where half of us were conservatives and half were libs. They asked how I could support a disingenuous guy like McCain and I said that I thought he would be best about expanding the rights of the unborn. The libs came up with quote after quote, even emailing me YouTube links where McCain was soft on abortion, plus he was a hypocrite because he would expand the Iraq war for 100 years and kill many innocent people.
Liberals love the hypocrite game more than conservatives because liberals learned that by promoting no standards of personal behavior, they can never be caught fighting against them. Liberals judge positions not standards of personal behavior. If you hold the wrong position on Global Warming, you’re not a hypocrite, you’re evil. It doesn’t even matter how you act, as we see when the leaders of their movement ride in jets that aren’t made of organic hemp. You can actually act with hate, as long as you don’t come down on the side of “h8te” on certain issues.
Conservatives think hate is an action, Liberals think hate is a position. Likewise, if a conservative takes a certain view on Embryonic Stem Cell Research we’re called anti-science, never mind that it’s anti-science to pretend the lab is empirically clear on the philosophical value of an unborn human.
The Republicans of the last eight years did act as fiscal hypocrites and deserved to lose their credibility on the subject. I hope our guys reform and see the real fallout that will only happen to Republicans when we’re caught saying we’re for small government while actively expanding it. President Obama can claim to be against big government while tripling down on his massive expansion and it will never occur to Libs that he’s a hypocrite. His intent is in the right place after all.
Philosophically, it’s easier to be a liberal than a conservative. We don’t hold liberals to a high standard because only conservative standard claims are taken seriously. So you can only have conservative hypocrites, which is why we so rarely hear about liberal hypocrites though most of us know better.
I don’t think our Republicans look better because the Obama administration fails. If that’s what we’re counting on then we’re screwed. I hope we don’t have a bunch of Republicans running on “The failed policies of the last four years.” When Obama did that I smelled a fraud and to not use the same standard on Republicans would be hypocritical.
Republicans need to make a positive case for a conservative view of politics. Our liberty is God-given and doesn’t need a government to make it so. Our government should be restrained, limited and pushed out of our lives unless our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is at stake.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
79 Comments
Yep. It always interests me that lefties bother with the Bible. Most I know do it only to try to "prove" that it's untrue, racist, bigoted, homophobic, etc.
They've got their own Bible(s). They're all written by Gore & Moore.
Nothing sticks to PEBO, he should take the moniker from the Teflon Don and call himslef the Teflon President. Never mind that what he did before is recorded in video and audio it can't seem to attach to his gleaming exterior.
Doug, you so totally nailed it. And this is why political discourse is where it is today.
And until libs start using logic and facts to back their position, it's going to remain so.
Frankly, I'm sad to say I've all but written off the Republican party. I say all us conservatives give the Constitution Party a shot (http://constitutionparty.org). This is what was born when the Conservative and Taxpayers parties merged. I just need to change my registration.
In Liberal Land, if a man is an alcoholic and he says, "You shouldn't be an alcoholic, just look at how it's ruined my life" then you are completely justified in ignoring his comment and drinking to your heart's content. I mean, why trust a hypocrite?
Conservatives think hate is an action, Liberals think hate is a position.
I like that.
Yep, debate a liberal long enough and eventually (s)he is bashing you. They can't win debates on the facts and merits, so they always eventually will fall back on attacking the person they are debating. Fun times!
Yep, debate a liberal long enough and eventually (s)he is bashing you. They can't win debates on the facts and merits, so they always eventually will fall back on attacking the person they are debating. Fun times!
<a href="http://lonewolfarcher.blogspot.com” target=”_blank”>http://lonewolfarcher.blogspot.com
Why is it, when you attempt bipartisonship, the dems always get their way? I've never seen a compromise that didn't favor them. Is it because they whine the loudest, making the GOP run for cover? When did the republicans lose their spine? The fact that they squandered opportunitites to make real change, (when Hastert and Fritz had control,) with that compasionate conservative nonsence, the crazy spending and their milquetoast leadership has brought us to this miserable place. Only real leadership & a clear message will stop this – stand up to the pressure and show who is better capable to preserve freedom, stop this nationalism and limit the scope of Government. I'd love to see a viable third party, but the deck is stacked against it.
Not until they do away with their "no foreign affairs whatsoever" policy, Mrs. Spooky… My wife is TRYING to get me to register as a Libertarian, but I told her, I'm a CP/Republican person.
Moderate Republicans are more easily bought. Look at Arlen Specter.
Doug, I gotta tell you you're right as rain once again! Because if politician A tells a lie (and is a Democrat) and politician B tells the same exact lie (and is a Republican), its obviously the fault of the first politician. Never mind the issue! Its all about a race to see who can get found out as the liar first. And whoever gets found out, can't say anything bad about their accuser (particularly if their accuser is guilty of the same exact sins!) because that would hypocritical! It's like when McCain was accusing Obama of using ACORN for his own means and then it turned out that McCain used to give speeches and money to ACORN himself. HAHAHA. But Obama was the real hypocrite! Absolutely!
My friends, (that's a McCain line, sorry) liberalism IS a religion, Gaia worship is their pagan idolatry and Algore is a high priest. One supposes this makes Nancy Pelosi a high priestess, but she's running for Queen bee…
Faith is something to have in government, not God. We are not sure we agree that liberalism is an easier philosophical position- the perversion of logic and subsequential shape shifting makes one sound like, well, Chris Dodd. And who would want that? Conservatism is nice and tidy and cool and sensible and all that.
It also has the beauty of being consistent; and one can sum up their philosophy in 60 seconds or 60 words…
Liberalism causes one to endlessly debate 'unlawful detention" and 'enemy combatant' while missing the
fact that your familiy's life is in danger…
We could go on.
Well said!!
"Republicans need to make a positive case for a conservative view of politics. Our liberty is God-given and doesn’t need a government to make it so. Our government should be restrained, limited and pushed out of our lives unless our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is at stake."
Your conclusion is is not only well considered, but reminicent of our Founders: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . . ."
Conservatives think "stupid is as stupid does." Liberals think "people who mispronounce words or have an annoying accent can't possibly be smart."
But I have a concern. Our Founders continued: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
It seems to me we may be reaching that tipping point. The question then becomes how to alter or abolish and institute new government.
Churchill summed it up best: "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
I have a concern with that – WHO will decide the form of the new government? Conservatives or liberals? Large portions of the population are fairly polarized, and if anything was going to be done on that note, it should be done quickly while we still have with us those members of the Greatest Generation who remember what the US used to be like who can help tip the balance towards restoring the country to where it's supposed to be.
With such a large percent of the population getting all their news and "information" from the mainstream media, you can bet that any new government would look exactly like it does now.
I hate it, but it's looking a lot like predictions of the US breaking up by ideological lines into separate entities is looking more and more like a probability.
But I agree, I do believe we ARE reaching that tipping point.
Why is it, when you attempt bipartisonship, the dems always get their way
Three words… Snowe, Spectre, Collins
well put. I prefer Ronaldo Maximus' line: "Communism would only work in Heaven, where they don't need it, and Hell where they already have it"
Another great post, Doug.
On this site, Evan Sayet has said it more clearly than anyone since Pius X: the default of liberalism is to choose evil over good, on the grounds that declaring something 'good' is judgemental. The iron creed of non-judgementalism cannot tolerate the logical idea that good behavior has good consequences. Since all creeds and ideas are equally valid/invalid, the success of a good society must be the result of cheating; the evil, dysfunctional society is the victim of the good, and justified in using violence to get "justice".
Liberals cannot be guilty of hypocrisy because they adhere to no standard of positive good. They ascribe evil intentions to conservatives, but get very vague about the details of what they stand for. It's all very well to say that your for universal health care or a living wage, but how do you go about making that a reality?
The so-called "Greatest Generation" were the parents of the so-called Baby Boomers, which makes them indirectly responsible for the '60s and all the other excesses of their children, including the current mess.
It's the same danger if you called for a new constitutional convention. We've grown into this clunky monolith, and I know that the framers would be absolutely disgusted. But the powers that be – and the Goebbels like media propagandists would allow the wingnuts to have their way. The constitution is being circumvented as it is – it could only get worse.
Yeah, that's the flaw in the Constitution party. I have to think though, that if one is ever elected as president, that position would change pretty quickly. It would have to. The question is, if that position DID change, what else will change?
While I have a lot in common with libertarian ideals, I'm a conservative, and I don't know how happy I'd be in the libertarian party.
Talk about hypocrites! We have now found out that Obama and Congress knew that about the AIG bonuses for weeks and Dodd put a special amendment into the stimulus for these bonuses. I certainly hope that Chris Dodd is at least forced to resign his banking committee chairmanship for lying about it on Tuesday when this all broke. And to top it all off, Charley Rangal is pontificating about how the Ways & Means is going to figure a way to tax it all away from them. I wish he would pay his dang taxes first!! The Hypocrites are in full bloom in DC! The fake and immoral outrage is astounding. I can't wait to see how Gibbs spins this one this morning. I know that somehow it will be Bush's fault. I just don't know how he's gonna do it.
Doug, it sounds like the men in your Bible study are more Democrat than liberal. In other words, they picked a team to root for, rather than gravitate toward a philosophy that fits their beliefs.
Most religious people have an absolute standard of morality, and all moral decisions are relative to that standard. The religion of modern American liberalism has a dogmatic moral code, but it's lacking in an absolute standard and therefore not grounded. This is why they have such a propensity to be against everything, rather than for something from the beginning.
I live in a liberal college town, and you're right about libs taking things personally. If so many of my debates weren't with good friends, I'd tell them that they've lost the argument by stepping out of bounds.
Doug, it sounds like the men in your Bible study are more Democrat than liberal. In other words, they picked a team to root for, rather than gravitate toward a philosophy that fits their beliefs.
Most religious people have an absolute standard of morality, and all moral decisions are relative to that standard. The religion of modern American liberalism has a dogmatic moral code, but it's lacking in an absolute standard and therefore not grounded. This is why they have such a propensity to be against everything, rather than for something from the beginning.
I live in a liberal college town, and you're right about libs taking things personally. If so many of my debates weren't with good friends, I'd tell them that they've lost the argument by stepping out of bounds.
The idea that liberals are nonjudgmental has always been a total smokescreen, but nowadays they don't even bother cloaking it. When it suited them, lefties made fun of nosy neighbors, church ladies and sweating preachers, but now that Al Gore and Bill Maher are the sweating preachers; Oprah Winfrey, Joy Behar and Rachel Maddow are the church ladies; and Arianna Huffington and Barney Frank are the nosy neighbor archetypes, somehow the glove no longer fits… even though these neo-busybodies contain as much if not more raw comedic potential in our time as Elmer Gantry, Anita Bryant or suburbia's Mrs. Kravitzes did in theirs.
And the left has invented a whole new type in this mold: the understated, bureaucratic "expert" who deadpans judgementalism with a grin, a passionless Alinskyesque glaze, and a soporific vocal monotony that's the envy of every Steven Wright wannabe making the circuit from London to L.A.
Its always an interesting endeavor. Rather than making a logical argument, they parrot talking points and attempt to talk louder than anyone else in the conversation.
I think the Libertarian party is important for pulling Republicans back towards Constitutionalism, but Libertarianism itself is too idealistic to be a viable option.
I enjoy talking with most of them because it's a refreshing change from what I'm used to, but I find it hilarious and contradicting when one of them shows me their libertarian membership card.
We got rid of Hagel when I was in Nebraska. How about Maine following suit and replace their RINO's, followed by Pennsylvania. I don't have much faith in PA, sorry to say, after they were called racist hick, wife-beating rednecks by the war hero Murtha and still voted him back in. So Specter still has a chance. Please prove me wrong PA!!! I'm not a big fan of McCain and wouldn't mind if he retired on his own. This way of governing was nearly perfected by Bill Clinton who would degrade the opponent of his programs to the point where he looked good or like the lesser evil. Obama is an Alinsky-ite and is using that playbook for all it's worth. The Dems are showing who they really are here in this AIG "Scandal". They've been crooks like this for decades, but boy are they putting it out there so even the propaganda press can't ignore it.
Except for the winning part. Conservatism will not have influence without won elections, something the libertarian party does not do well.
Although conservatism is not the only voice in the Republican party, it is one of the stronger ones, IMHO, and the only one that can allow conservatives to have influence at the state and national level.
You guys know that I don't often make controversial statements, BUT….
I don't think the Republican Party pays any attention to the Libertarian Party. By separating themselves into a separate party, the Libertarians removed their voices from internal Republican Party debates. Moreover, since they only register 1-2% of the vote, they are so small that the Republicans feel they can ignore the Liberterians.
I think both parties would be better off if the true Libertarians (as compared to the weed heads who only call themselves Libertarians) rejoined the Republicans and tried to shift the Republicans toward civil liberties — an area that I think could be fertile ground for the party among voters.
remember last year when nancy pelosi was caught just making bible quotes up?
say you've got a preacher/vice president who is constantly sermonizing don't steal/don't pollute. then you find that he's been embezzling/flying private jets. this does not immediately invalidate the message. but it should tell you to find a new messenger.
We have been able to pull in the "blue dog" democrats from time to time. Remember, opposition to a bill can be bipartisan also.
The Contract with America, if I remember correctly, could not have been passed without some bipartisan support in congress and at least grudging acceptance from Old Bill himself.
The difference between Republicans and Democrats on this issue is the Dems can claim a victory here or there because of bipartisanship. Republicans, in the last twenty years or so, have been better at stringing together agendas with bipartisan support.
Bev, Dodd is a liberal, he will NOT be held to account for blatant lying 24 hours prior. This is the same Dodd who received (along with Obama) donations to their campaigns from AIG. Don't you notice how they confidently sprout all kinds of lies on camera and never have to worry because they are liberals and they know the media will cover for them. Have a Republican say a fraction of untruths on a subject, there is a media 'storm' and other members of their own party attack them in the bargain. I'm afraid there are too few TRUE conservatives left in the GOP and now the left media is falling over themselves interviewing McCains idiot daughter who is spewing the same drivel that ensured the election loss for her father.
Ain't that the truth? Yet we are the mindless sheep that blindly follow our leaders (Rush and Hannity).
Agreed on the fertile ground of civil liberties, but not so much on the absorption of the Libertarian party into the Republican party. Through separation, there's an assurance that Libertarian ideas have more exposure and can reinforce themselves. Libertarian messages have a lower probability of percolating to national exposure when they're buried by beltway Republicans, RINO's, and extreme social conservatives. Also, the separation allows Libertarians to act as sort of an ombudsman for Republicans. This was useful — if not as effective as we'd prefer — during the last eight years.
yes, look at him.
If all goes well, we won't have to do so much longer.
Stinkin' turncoat.
Yes, Republicans need to make a more positive case for conservative views but the party also needs inspiring leadership. That is lacking right now and was lacking in the last election, with the exception of Sarah Palin. Love her or hate her, you knew where she stood.
http://the100mostannoyingthings.blogspot.com/
But if the rise of Ron Paul can serve as an example of the possible influence of Libertarians within the Republican party, then maybe you're right. But he's also propped up by weed heads. I went to school with them last year, and they're the most conflicted hippies in the history of hippies.
It wasn't the weedies that were there problem last fall, Brisco… it was the white-power/skinhead associates that hooked to the Paul bandwagon, and Paul did nothing to disassociate from them.
Paul will always, (IMO), be associated with the LP party and considered their figurehead, regardless of which banner he runs under, and until those extremist groups are officially disassociated with, they'll never make more than a speed-bump in the conservative movement.
But RRROOOOONNNNNNN PPPPAAAAUUUUUUUULLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111
The Libertarians (Big L, I tend to be little l) would rather lose on ideals than to win on compromise. A small but sturdy rudder can steer a large ship. I wish the Libertarians would serve this function.
[Sorry for the wall of text but I really have something to say on the issue.]
The question to me is what kind of hypocrisy is it and what do we do with it once noted.
Having spent four years in a PhD program at a large public university on the west coast, I have seen my share of gross institutional hypocrisy. Free speech for liberal ideas only and an exclusive diversity that hated Christians were the most prevalent. This was gross institutional hypocrisy, a metasitized version of the conflicts that are at the core of modern liberalism.
So I left the university, got an MBA, and I have never had a more accepting experience in my academic career, and I am happy. Having recently graduated in this market, I am making my way as a freelance consultant helping businesses find and understand markets for goods/services and formulating strategies to increase their profits there. I am still looking for more permanent work, but I am honestly happier now than when I had the more stable grantees of academia behind me.
Some might call me a hypocrite saying I went to business, which is not known for freedom of speech and diversity. Perhaps so, but they do not advertise themselves as such, and they do not lecture others on their nonexistent virtues. The point is to make money, and hopefully have a positive impact on people along the way, a goal I rejoice in.
[...] USA-Partisan added an interesting post today on Hypocrite HuntHere’s a small readingIf you hold the wrong position on Global Warming, you’re not a hypocrite, you’re evil. It doesn’t even matter how you act, as we see when… [...]
as far as I see the "Greatest Generation" get their news from MSM almost entirely. At least my grangparents do – although gpa adds the NRA magazine.
I've always wondered is a truly effective "new" govt can be created anywhere agovt has been in process and institutionalized. Look at France, post-colonials, etc: trying to re-do everything without undoing everything doesn't work well. On the other side – China, Pol Pot, communists in general – raze it to the ground and start over, works a little better. On the good side of that idea, that's why I think there's a chance in Iraq – the structure was demolished, no gvt left, then reemerged.
Anyway – my point is HOW??
Nice thought, but you won't make it stick in the current climate. Libertarians will be unwelcome in the GOP so long as the Christians are in control, and thats not going away any time soon for reasons of basic political math: They can deliver the votes of a LEGION of easily-manipulated drones, something Libertarians just can't. To truly committ to a Libertarian outlook is to be intelligent (or at least free-minded) enough to understand the nature of the world as chaotic and competition based AND to have the fortitude deal with that. As such, they'll never be a "majority" of any population.
Not that long ago there were some "public service" ads on the radio that said you should tell your kids not to do drugs — EVEN THOUGH IT IS HYPOCRITICAL because you did them when you were a kid. This approach drives me nuts! Did you ever place your hand on a hot stove when you were a kid? Is it therefore hypocritical to teach your kid not to touch a hot stove?? Of course not. And having learned from experience that drugs (or other things) brought negative consequences to you, you are wise and loving — not hypocritical — to tell your own kids to avoid things which will hurt them.
One form of hypocrisy is knowing something is bad but refusing to say so.
You forgot to mention dissociation from truthers too. That's the first thing that killed Ron Paul for me. But I didn't know about the white supremacists.
You forgot to mention dissociation from 9/11 truthers too. That's the first thing that killed Ron Paul for me. But I didn't know about the white supremacists.
Oh for pete's sake…Im not hoping Obama fails because I want the GOP to look good…Ive been PO'd at them since 2006, them with their country club clothing and country club hair and their country club dialect telling ME and MINE that we're too dirty ("muckrakers! rabble rousers! grassroots…IIIIIIICKIE-POO!!!) in our love of country to actually have any legitimate contribution. Im sick of their Shut Up and Be Grateful tones towards the rest of us because they happened to get a few medals or win us a few pork barrels.
I hope Obama fails because Obama is a STINKING LYING FASCIST MARXIST PIG. And so are Pelosi, Frank, Reid, Kennedy and the whole slew of congressmen who are members of the DSA. I hope God confounds teh Marxists pigs.
Just remember: dissent is patriotic.
I understand your point and think this is one of those issues where there may not be one right answer — certainly, reasonable minds can differ.
In my experience, however, it's impossible the change the system from the outside. As long as the Libertarians expend their efforts outside the Republican Party, I just don't see them having any influence because they can neither help nor hurt the Republican Party. So the Republicans just don't care what they say. It would be different if they could pull 10-15%, but at 1-2% they just don't have a large enough voice for anyone (outside the Libertarian Party) to care.
Just my opinion.
Bob, you give Libertarians a bad name. Christianity and Libertarianism are not mutually exclusive, and there is no reason to attack Christians in this discussion. Maybe you should reconsider whether you are a Libertarian or merely use Libertarianism to cloak your anti-Christian attitude.
Speaking as a Christian with libertarian ideals (but who generally votes Republican)… the problem isn't that christians are "in control", in my view, but rather that the wrong SORT of Christianity has risen to the top.
In speech and debate, it's called the "tu quoque" (thou also) gambit, and it's considered bad form. It's the best way to avoid a direct reply to the initial argument without ever addressing the substance of that argument.
I don't want to wade too far into this — I think discussions of faith are inherently fraught with danger and hurt feelings — but I will say that I do not support anyone who does not recognize that everyone is entitled to their own views.
As a native of PA I was appalled at Murtha's comments about the Marines, and then with his further comments about Western PA being full of redneck racists, as were most people I know.
As for how he got reelected after saying such things one just has to look at a map of his district (PA 12th) which is fairly telling. The map looks like a Rorschach drawing made by the paint dipped paws of a three legged schnauzer. The MSM reports at the time consistently called it a "rural" district, which may be true if you've only lived on the coasts in the urban corridors but for PA, not so much as it includes Johnstown (the most populated town in the "real rural" area of south central PA) as well as most of the suburbs and satellite towns in an arc from the east side of Pittsburgh all the way around the city to the south and then west. Don't get me wrong, there are some rural (even by PA standards) areas in his district but Johnstown alone is more populous, and much more urban, than the entire county I grew up in. So his comments about "Western Pennsylvanians" were more of a snide comment _to_ his constituents about the rubes in the rest of western PA than about _them_ since they for the most part live in, or near, relatively large cities which have very different demographics than the other counties in that part of the state.
I've been talking a lot to my friends and relatives about Murtha and Specter, the general consensus is that in the GOP primary everyone is willing to vote for a stuffed and mounted squirrel (provided at little to no cost by our gun toting selves) rather than Specter. As for Murtha, he's the 12th District's problem, and as little as we like him, no one is as of yet willing to move to his district just to vote against him.
I guess I would think that other PA'ers would find it totally unacceptible to insult some of the bretheren that way. Or do the city people feel the same way about the rural people?
For the most part the people in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and their attached suburbs, like to pretend that the rest of the state doesn't even exist. Unless of course Penn State is doing well that year, and even then Pittsburgh stays surly.
If you look at a county by county breakdown of Red/Blue results in elections you can see why they keep trying to pretend the rest of the state isn't there. There's always a blue blot down around Philadelphia, and usually one around Pittsburgh but Pittsburgh can swing slightly towards the GOP now and then. Johnstown and Altoona are a coin flip most years depending on voter turnout, but Johnstown is in with those Pittsburgh counties with Murtha's district so even if they decide to stand up they're easily outvoted anyhow by someplace like Washington, PA. Harrisburg, Wilkes-Barre and Scranton can also go either way but have been trending Democrat, while Eire can also go either way but tends to trend more Republican. Aside from those cities, in most elections the rest of the state's counties are solid Red across the board.
So when you take all that, admittedly rather boring stuff, into consideration, it's lock that the Dems will win where they traditionally win, and lose where they traditionally lose. The coin flip cities are the difference makers in PA politics for the most part. Given the fact that the case against ACORN is still under investigation in PA, it makes some wonder what that coin looked like in some of the cities that could go either way. I know for a fact that roughly 85% of PA (by landmass) is downright sick and tired of being called a "Blue State", it's not, we just haven't figured out how to sell Philly to New Jersey yet…
For the most part the people in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and their attached suburbs, like to pretend that the rest of the state doesn't even exist. Unless of course Penn State is doing well that year, and even then Pittsburgh stays surly.
If you look at a county by county breakdown of Red/Blue results in elections you can see why they keep trying to pretend the rest of the state isn't there. There's always a blue blot down around Philadelphia, and usually one around Pittsburgh but Pittsburgh can swing slightly towards the GOP now and then. Johnstown and Altoona are a coin flip most years depending on voter turnout, but Johnstown is in with those Pittsburgh counties with Murtha's district so even if they decide to stand up they're easily outvoted anyhow by someplace like Washington, PA. Harrisburg, Wilkes-Barre and Scranton can also go either way but have been trending Democrat, while Eire can also go either way but tends to trend more Republican. Aside from those cities, in most elections the rest of the state's counties are solid Red across the board.
So when you take all that, admittedly rather boring stuff, into consideration, it's lock that the Dems will win where they traditionally win, and lose where they traditionally lose. The coin flip cities are the difference makers in PA politics for the most part. Given the fact that the case against ACORN is still under investigation in PA, it makes some wonder what that coin looked like in some of the cities that could go either way. I know for a fact that roughly 85% of PA (by landmass) is downright sick and tired of being called a "Blue State", it's not, we just haven't figured out how to sell Philly to New Jersey yet…
Conservatives make the best case for conservative values by living them. "Conservatives" fell out of favor with the right when they ceased being conservative. Conservative people I know took great umbrage with conservative politicians and commentators politicizing things like the Teri Shiavo case. It was unseemly. Something odious and akin to the skank tactics of the left. They do not like people who brag, use the bible as a badge (and then behave very badly). It is trickier to be conservative as a politician. You have to act many times contrary to a normal politician. You behave with integrity, stick to your beliefs without flaunting it… you win the hearts of conservatives.
As far as people from the left emailing anti McCain things. Did you not ask them how they could support a guy who wants late term and post term abortions? I loathed McCain, but compared to this guy? It is such a simple and convincing argument.
Two words that should be on every set of lips in America – left and right: TERM LIMITS
Is there an honest one in the whole lot of them?
Our politicians and some lawyers have been deconstructing the constitution for far to long. They use the word "intent" to do so. Instead of reading what the constitution actually says they look for a new underlying meaning that supports their unconstitutional view.
We have moved so far away from what our founding fathers had set out to create it's disgusting. I think the idea of freedom for all and a government for the people was such a brilliant and unheard of idea that they couldn't fathom to what extent it could be bastardized once the initial concept became unappreciated.
I think the Judiciary branch of government needs the most reform or better guidelines. There needs to be term limits on Senators. Break up the electoral college into individual votes not winner take all.
Public office should not be a career move but a charitable part of service to ones country, that ends before a decade passes.
The logical fallacy you are referring to is known as "tu quoque", which is Latin for "you too" or "you also".
"Given this standard, nobody can really preach about anything because none of us have perfectly acted out our values."
This is true of both religion and politics. They seem to be sharing more and more in common these days. Whereas people used to be discriminated against for their religion, we now see political discrimination. Religious wars have now given way to political wars. One used to be labeled as a "Catholic" or a "Protestant," many times speaking pejoratively. Now "Republican" and "Democrat" are considered an insult to the side heaving them. (I know this is not a brand new thing, but has become more prevalent and polarized lately.)
"Philosophically, it’s easier to be a liberal than a conservative."
Ain't that the truth. Liberals, viz., Obama can get away with their philosophy being something so ambiguous and subjective that no one can argue against it. (Hope and Change? What does that mean anyway? OF COURSE things will change, and one person's Hope is rarely the same as another's.) At least the conservative philosophy is backed by common sense and reality, not some altruistic faith in Mankind.
http://www.IsThisTheChangeWeNeed.com/webblog/
An interesting little tid bit here. Bill Clinton during a recent interview with Larry King. Bill Clinton on stem cell reserach and his understanding of what exactly (OR NOT) an embryo is: " But this stem cell research, if the stem cells are frozen embryonic stem cells, if they are never going to be used to be fertilized, to bring a life into being, then I think making them available for medical research is the pro-life position and I honestly don't understand — I would understand it if we were going and raiding stem cell banks, where these stem cells were going to be used to actually fertilize eggs and have babies.
But it's not going to happen. I think it's very wrong to just throw these things in the trash can."
Apparently he does not think an embryo is a fertilized egg. But if he found out that it was he would be against that form of testing all together?? Interesting… I am unfreakingbelievably flabbergasted.
You certainly have more credibility if you have never done that particular thing – BUT you can also have something to say if you realize that what you did was really wrong, say it was wrong and do everything in your power to not do that thing again or fight hard against that thing.
LIKE – if you are a Republican and spent the last 8 years spending spending spending money that was not yours and being a money hungry little beast that made all of your faithful jump ship – you can see the error, admit it, correct course and do everything possible to restore faith by acting against the gluttony, pig troughy hoggishness. You have credibility if you replot and keep your course. You cannot restore faith in your governance if you say something like "nobody really believes that old timey notion (of saving, family values – whatever) so let's get with the new program, shift and try to get these guys over here to like us… the others will fall in line because they haven't any other choice…" Shrum Shrum Dumb Dumb
"Speaking as a Christian with libertarian ideals (but who generally votes Republican)… the problem isn't that christians are "in control", in my view, but rather that the wrong SORT of Christianity has risen to the top."
I agree with this statement unequivocally.
Boy, did you hit the nail on the head. I continually hear 'yeah, party of family values-hypocrite' after some conservative screws up.
I say all people are imperfect, but it's better to set the bar high, reach for the stars and fall short than to set the bar low, strive for and expect so little.
There is something seriously wrong when family values, sanctity of life, and setting high expectations are mocked.
Why? This guy didn't know what the definition of "is" is.
But to your point, he should know that stem cell is a fertilized egg. And they say Bush is dumb.
Thanks Doug, for a great post.
The libertarians need their own William F. Buckley, Jr. Someone who can get rid of the crazies so that they can be taken seriously as a movement.
Ron Paul paid for a newsletter sent out under his name (to a couple hundred thousand people for 30 years) written in first person, full of racist comments so vile, it was listed as a white supremist rag and advertised as such… and when called on it, he claimed he never read it.
Libertarians don't understand the Constitution at all. The Constitution was ratified to give power to the Federal Government, and then limit it. Ron Paul actually is anti constitutionalist, if he wants to take power away from the Federal Government and put it back in the states hands, because thats exactly what we had before the Constitution. It's exactly what the south wanted when it wanted to seperate from the Union, to undo what the Constitution had done.
Not when Majority rules, which is the system we have. I am thankful Libertarians have removed themselves from the political system and rendered themselves ineffectual.
I believe its the Libertarians that are the mindless drones that follow their little wonder boy Ron Paul and quote him as if he is the answer to everything.
The same bunch liberals with those PRACTIC TOLERENCE stickers in their windows sure dont ever practice it their still a bunch of intolerent biggots and all around evil persons they deserve ridicule and scorn
You mean these "Founders", Thomas?
“This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it!” – John Adams
“Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man.” – Thomas Jefferson
You must be logged in to post a comment.