Why Do the Dems and Reps Keep Biting Their Own Asses?

Nick Gillespie | September 9, 2007

Over at Politico, occasional reason contributor and self-professed "libertarian Democrat" Terry Michael raises a question worth pondering:

The Party of God, we are shocked to learn, seems to have a libido. And, equally amazing, the Party of Reform apparently covets a little mammon on occasion.

When will self-righteous Republicans and holier-than-thou Democrats learn that hypocrisy, not sex and greed, is the original sin for which voters, and certainly cynical journalists, hold them accountable?

The anti-gay, pro-"family values" party, held captive by its Southern-based, evangelical wing, is repeatedly embarrassed when its David Vitters and Larry Craigs exhibit interest in 'hos and 'mos (translation for Beltway types: "whores" and "homosexuals.")

Likewise, the party of campaign finance "reform," intellectually imprisoned by the Washington ethics industry and its handmaidens in the ivory towers of liberal editorial pages, is caught with its Progressive Era pants down when a big pile of hot Jacksons ends up in William Jefferson's freezer, or when a financial supporter facing a felony indictment ends up on Hillary Clinton's donor list.

Michael suggests that each party whittles down the plank in its eye, if only out of self-interest:

So beware you Republican and Democratic candidates, whenever the phrases "family values" or "special interests" find their way into your talking points. Prepare to cover your behinds, because those words will come back to bite you in the bottom when one of your own is found to value an interest in sex and greed.

Whole thing here.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

|9.9.07 @ 11:04AM|#

Why do they have these problems?Because congress is interfering in places they do not belong.Most of the laws and the buget are areas where they have no constitutional power.Now,off to watch the Browns.

|9.9.07 @ 11:56AM|#

". . .those words will come back to bite you in the bottom "

And that threat will deter Senator Craig, how?

|9.9.07 @ 12:55PM|#

Mike Laursen|9.9.07 @ 1:02PM|#

A measure of hypocrisy is necessary to a functioning society.

Oh boy, gotta disagree with you on that one.

|9.9.07 @ 1:11PM|#

Yes, Richard, homosexuality is a temptation faced by all males every day! Or not. /sarcasm

M|9.9.07 @ 1:16PM|#

Does not doing so in a more refined vs. more vulgar way generally elevate rather than degrade the discourse?

Mike Laursen|9.9.07 @ 1:24PM|#

Does not doing so in a more refined vs. more vulgar way generally elevate rather than degrade the discourse?

Sorry, I didn't intend to be vulgar, just brief. I was in the middle of writing more, but had a crying baby who had just awakened from his nap in the next room.

Mike Laursen|9.9.07 @ 1:31PM|#

Let's take Richard's hypothetical. How, exactly, is society made more functional by making the prostitute and the prostitute's customers (including the hypocrite in this case) vulnerable to arrest and punishment?

shecky|9.9.07 @ 1:38PM|#

Your inability to live up to your own standards does not, in and of itself, nullify them.

No, I think it pretty much does.

Jennifer|9.9.07 @ 1:53PM|#

It's quite possible, on the one hand, to be opposed to the legalization of prostitution yet, on the other, to pull your hat down over your brow every other Tuesday and sneak off to the cat house on the other side of town.

Bullshit. In this hypothetical the man is indulging in behaviors which he says should be criminal. Calling for the imprisonment of others who do the same non-harmful activities as you is vile. Let this guy turn himself into the cops after getting his rocks off and then maybe I'll respect him.

M|9.9.07 @ 2:32PM|#

Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant to indicate your post as an example of refined vs. vulgar expression. Electing to invest one's communication with refinement/courtesy/civility rather than limit oneself to coarseness often entails exercising slight hypocrisy - ie, "acting" (which is what the word means) more respectfully toward the rejected opinion and the person expressing it than one might genuinely feel.

|9.9.07 @ 3:02PM|#

Maybe it's just me, but I find the hypocrisy factor to be much greater with the 'family values' folks who continually try to demonize social acts between consenting adults.

Yes, you will find officials on both sides who compromise their honest representation of the people by accepting large amounts of money that may (surely?) influence their votes. But it is hard to find many who will argue that such influence peddling is proper.

The Wine Commonsewer|9.9.07 @ 3:12PM|#

If you aren't the bagman for the mob why do you have to take responsibility when William Jefferson is caught with his hand in the freezer?

And, of course, to even imply that St Hill didn't know who was handing her big bucks is silly. We all know she's a player.

|9.9.07 @ 4:22PM|#

Now,off to watch the Browns.

You poor bastard.

/BRADY BRADY BRADY BRADY

|9.9.07 @ 6:07PM|#

Richards first mistake is to read a hack like Steyn and take him seriously. Vitter and his egger's oner's would love to throw the book at johns, while they themselves are johns. It strikes me that if you cannot muster the moral fortitude to follow your moral imperatives you at the least should not make laws punishing those who similarly fail them. If something is that irresistible to folks then perhaps we should not make it illegal. After all, few of feel the need to be hypocrites about murder or robbery. If we followed the harm principle from J.S. Mills On Liberty then we need have no hypocrites since very few of us have overwhelming desires to bring direct physical harm to another...

|9.9.07 @ 6:08PM|#

This is going to be difficult to write without sounding hypocritically self serving.
Yeah, hypocrisy is a requirement for elected officials to get and remain in office. How often do you hear a Democrat call Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton the race hustlers that they are. Not very bloody often now is it? How often do you hear Republicans refer to Pat Robertson as a faux religious con man, or GWB as delusional? Why, that could cost me votes in the bible belt! I'm serious, That Pat Robertson, who has diverted a hurricane's path by prayer, or Al Sharpton (Remember Tawana Brawley!) are treated with with anything but contempt is self-serving hypocrisy at best. I'm too honest too get elected to any office above county road commisioner (that's assuming I'd run unopposed), and I suspect there are many honorable citizens who couldn't face themselves each morning if they said what is required to get elected to major public office. Our fellow citizens are responsible for making honesty a disqualification for public office.

Shit, this depresses me. I need a prozac or something.

Brian Sorgatz|9.9.07 @ 6:19PM|#

Where's Dan T.? I know that Sundays are slow at H&R, but his opinion on this particular thread sounds hella interesting.

|9.9.07 @ 6:25PM|#

"Maybe it's just me, but I find the hypocrisy factor to be much greater with the 'family values' folks who continually try to demonize social acts between consenting adults."

What do you mean? The left is hypcritical at its very core.

The whole mantra of the left is about helping the poor. Yet study after study has shown that conservatives (both religous and economic types) are significantly more likely to donate time and money to charity, and to participate in civil institutions. And before you complain, liberals actually make essentially equal incomes as conservatives, so that isn't the answer.

So in the end, liberals talk the talk about helping the poor, and conservatives actually do it.

I can't imagine a bigger political hypocrisy than to have the typical member of your own party not living up to the party's core belief.

Mike Laursen|9.9.07 @ 6:45PM|#

Electing to invest one's communication with refinement/courtesy/civility rather than limit oneself to coarseness often entails exercising slight hypocrisy - ie, "acting"

Yes, hypocrisy and politeness both require acting, but they are very different. Especially when the particular case of hypocrisy we're talking about involves lawmaking.

Also, while civility is import in public discourse, there are circumstances where a well-placed "fuck you, asshole" is warranted; all the more powerful if it comes from someone who is normally gentile.

Mike Laursen|9.9.07 @ 6:47PM|#

Yeah, hypocrisy is a requirement for elected officials to get and remain in office.

Unfortunately, you have a good point there. Sigh.

|9.9.07 @ 6:49PM|#

"If we followed the harm principle from J.S. Mills On Liberty then we need have no hypocrites since very few of us have overwhelming desires to bring direct physical harm to another..."

I'm not sure about that.

Let's take a hypothetical case. A candidate says he supports a humble American foreign policy and want to eschew nation-building activities abroad. Later, in office, that candidate pursues a non-humble foreign policy and fights wars for avowed nation-building purposes. The supporters of nation-building could say: "See, nation-building is a perfectly natural human impulse, and the candidate was a hypocrite to disavow it. Therefore, let us hear no more opposition to nation-building, since the foremost opponent of that sort of thing has contradicted his own principles. Let us go to war all over the world in order to rebuild all those other nations."

|9.9.07 @ 6:50PM|#

"Also, while civility is import in public discourse, there are circumstances where a well-placed 'fuck you, asshole' is warranted; all the more powerful if it comes from someone who is normally gentile."

Wait, you have to become Jewish if you want to use a harsh insult?

SIV|9.9.07 @ 6:55PM|#

Chad,

Many liberals view not donating to charity as a principled and compassionate stand. After all, individual voluntary charity is ethically wrong as it undermines our collective responsibility to provide for the public welfare through taxation and public policy.No hypocrisy there.

M|9.9.07 @ 7:00PM|#

@ Mike Laursen at 6:45 pm: Agreed throughout. Some would say that lawmaking is by definition hypocritical.

@ Mad Macher at 6:50 pm: Some have said that being Jewish is itself a harsh insult to everyone else. * Sigh * indeed.

Greg|9.9.07 @ 7:11PM|#

I think there is something to be said for the strength of human weakness.

If a person truly believes drunk driving should be illegal but develops alcoholism and drives drunk a few times, is he a hypocrit? Likewise, if David Vitter truly thinks prostitution should remain illegal but is prone to human weakness and visits prostitutes, I'm not sure that he is necessarily a hypocrit. He might be, but not necessarily.

Hell, I bet more than half of jaywalkers don't think the act itself should be illegal, but that it is just void of potential consequences in some instances. Is that hypocrisy?

Greg|9.9.07 @ 7:12PM|#

above should read "Hell, I bet more than half of jaywalkers don't think the act itself should NOT be illegal, but that it is just void of potential consequences in some instances. Is that hypocrisy?"

|9.9.07 @ 7:27PM|#

Your inability to live up to your own standards does not, in and of itself, nullify them.

It sure as hell does when you seek to impose those standards on other people.

Marcvs|9.9.07 @ 7:42PM|#

Your inability to live up to your own standards does not, in and of itself, nullify them.

This type of comment is regularly used when the user is defending someone from "their side". It is rarely used when the target happens to be on the other side of the aisle. Now THAT'S hypocrisy!

|9.9.07 @ 7:45PM|#

"Your inability to live up to your own standards does not, in and of itself, nullify them."

This isn't a terrible point to make. Many of the stances advocated by Craig are, in my opinion, wrong regardless of Craig's hypocrisy. Many of Al Gore's positions are wrong regardless of his giants mansions. That doesn't mean everything Craig or Gore says is wrong. However, the hypocrisy charge allows us to discount political beliefs wholesale without much thought.

Mike Laursen|9.9.07 @ 7:57PM|#

Wait, you have to become Jewish if you want to use a harsh insult?

Ouch. Maybe I musta meant "genteel".

Asharak|9.9.07 @ 8:30PM|#

I'm sick of this "hypocrisy" meme. I'm with Mark Steyn on this (and most other things):

A measure of hypocrisy is necessary to a functioning society. It's quite possible, on the one hand, to be opposed to the legalization of prostitution yet, on the other, to pull your hat down over your brow every other Tuesday and sneak off to the cat house on the other side of town. Your inability to live up to your own standards does not, in and of itself, nullify them. The Left gives the impression that a Republican senator caught in a whorehouse ought immediately to say, "You're right. I should have supported earmarks for hookers in the 2005 appropriations bill."

Richard, you're not going to get anywhere defending Mark Steyn and crimes against vice (and hypocrisy) on a libertarian site.

Your inability to live up to your own standards does not, in and of itself, nullify them.

It sure as hell does when you seek to impose those standards on other people.

Bingo.

Mike Laursen|9.9.07 @ 8:42PM|#

Some would say that lawmaking is by definition hypocritical.

It's a little insane that modern society has accepted the idea that we can just make up laws. Seems to me that the laws of a society should evolve and gain wide acceptance, then be written down.

Brian Sorgatz|9.9.07 @ 9:00PM|#

Where's Dan T.? I know that Sundays are slow at H&R, but his opinion on this particular thread sounds hella interesting.

When I wrote that, I meant that his opinion would be interesting.

|9.9.07 @ 9:26PM|#

So a Senator goes into a massage parlor and asks the proprietor, "do you massage the genitals?"

The proprietor replied "we don't discriminate, sir, we massage both Jews *and* Gentiles."

|9.9.07 @ 9:57PM|#

Michael Pack,

Now,off[sic] to watch the Browns.

As a Steeler fan and PGH native...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

dg|9.9.07 @ 10:21PM|#

JFK is admired although he cheated on his wife, that goes against family values, doesn't it? Invoking "Family Values" in a debate is about as meaningful as putting on makeup before going on TV.

We should be wary of any politician who goes on and on about family values, in order to evade the real issues.

SIV|9.9.07 @ 10:37PM|#

So what was this Federal anti-prostitution law Vitter sponsored?
The one that makes him such a hypocrite?

|9.9.07 @ 11:13PM|#

It's a little insane that modern society has accepted the idea that we can just make up laws. Seems to me that the laws of a society should evolve and gain wide acceptance, then be written down.

Indeed. Good laws aren't invented, they're discovered.

|9.10.07 @ 12:55AM|#

I think I understand the guys who are tired of hearing the word "hypocrisy" bandied about. Because the concept of hypocrisy can allow the unprincipled to beat the principled over the head with their own sense of decency, in a kind of sneaky underhanded judo to which the unprincipled are immune. It's like exchanging hostages with someone who cares nothing about anyone's life but his own. The good guys can't win.

And usually the people who make the biggest deal about hypocrisy are the least principled. The stricter your own personal code of conduct, the harder it is to live up to it.

Any discussion of hypocrisy makes me think of this passage from The Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson. It takes place roughly 100 years from now, in an era when Victorianism has made a bit of a come-back, in response to the rampant moral squalor of the preceding era (i.e., our own): {repost from an earlier H&R thread]
-----------------------------

"Mr. Hackworth," Finkle-McGraw said after the pleasantries had petered out, speaking in a new tone of voice, a the-meeting-will-come-to-order sort of voice, "please favour me with your opinion of hypocrisy."

"Excuse me. Hypocrisy, Your Grace?"

"Yes. You know."

"It's a vice, I suppose."

"A little one or a big one? Think carefully-much hinges upon the answer."

"I suppose that depends upon the particular circumstances." ...

"You know, when I was a young man, hypocrisy was deemed the worst of vices," Finkle-McGraw said. "It was all because of moral relativism. You see, in that sort of a climate, you are not allowed to criticise others -- after all, if there is no absolute right and wrong, then what grounds is there for criticism? ...

"Now, this led to a good deal of general frustration, for people are naturally censorious and love nothing better than to criticise others' shortcomings. And so it was that they seized on hypocrisy and elevated it from a ubiquitous peccadillo into the monarch of all vices. For, you see, even if there is no right and wrong, you can find grounds to criticise another person by contrasting what he has espoused with what he has actually done. In this case, you are not making any judgment whatsoever as to the correctness of his views or the morality of his behaviour -- you are merely pointing out that he has said one thing and done another. Virtually all political discourse in the days of my youth was devoted to the ferreting out of hypocrisy.

"You wouldn't believe the things they said about the original Victorians. Calling someone a Victorian in those days was almost like calling them a fascist or a Nazi."

Both Hackworth and Major Napier were dumbfounded. "Your Grace!" Napier exdaimed. "I was naturally aware that their moral stance was radically different from ours -- but I am astonished to be informed that they actually condemned the first Victorians."

"Of course they did," Finkle-McGraw said.

"Because the first Victorians were hypocrites," Hackworth said, getting it. ...

"Because they were hypocrites," Finkle-McGraw said, after igniting his calabash and shooting a few tremendous fountains of smoke into the air, "the Victorians were despised in the late twentieth century. Many of the persons who held such opinions were, of course, guilty of the most nefandous conduct themselves, and yet saw no paradox in holding such views because they were not hypocrites themselves -- they took no moral stances and lived by none."

"So they were morally superior to the Victorians --" Major Napier said, still a bit snowed under.

"-- even though -- in fact, because -- they had no morals at all." There was a moment of silent, bewildered head-shaking around the copper table.

"We take a somewhat different view of hypocrisy," Finkle-McGraw continued. "In the late-twentieth-century Weltanschauung, a hypocrite was someone who espoused high moral views as part of a planned campaign of deception -- he never held these beliefs sincerely and routinely violated them in privacy. Of course, most hypocrites are not like that. Most of the time it's a spirit-is-willing, flesh-is-weak sort of thing."

"That we occasionally violate our own stated moral code," Major Napier said, working it through, "does not imply that we are insincere in espousing that code."

"Of course not," Finkle-McGraw said. "It's perfectly obvious, really. No one ever said that it was easy to hew to a strict code of conduct. Really, the difficulties involved -- the missteps we make along the way -- are what make it interesting. The internal, and eternal, struggle, between our base impulses and the rigorous demands of our own moral system is quintessentially human. It is how we conduct ourselves in that struggle that determines how we may in time be judged by a higher power." All three men were quiet for a few moments, chewing mouthfuls of beer or smoke, pondering the matter.
--------------------------------

Now, having said all that, it's not the sin of hypocrisy itself that makes a man a stinker. It's taking this private little struggle between principles and the flesh, when the rights of no unwilling parties are being violated, and making it a matter for the policeman.

It's channeling your own guilt into punishing others for the same victimless frailties.

This is wrong and there should be a name for it, but it's not exactly "hypocrisy."

|9.10.07 @ 1:03AM|#

Some would say that lawmaking is by definition hypocritical.

It's a little insane that modern society has accepted the idea that we can just make up laws. Seems to me that the laws of a society should evolve and gain wide acceptance, then be written down.

Indeed. Good laws aren't invented, they're discovered.

I read somewhere (wish I could remember where*) that some early Germanic tribes believed something very much like that. That the law governing the best way to resolve a dispute or right a wrong was a pre-existing principle that people had to discover, like the laws of nature. To just set out to "make up a law" out of whole cloth was regarding as something akin to blasphemy. Individual, mortal human beings aren't competent to "make" a law.

*It might have been one of Bruce Benson's books, like The Enterprise of Law, or it might have been one of the papers over at www.libertariannation.org.

|9.10.07 @ 2:47AM|#

"Many of the stances advocated by Craig are, in my opinion, wrong regardless of Craig's hypocrisy."

Would that include his 'wide stance' to keep his trousers from sliding down?

|9.10.07 @ 2:57AM|#

"I can't imagine a bigger political hypocrisy than to have the typical member of your own party not living up to the party's core belief."

Chad
I couldn't agree more. We ARE talking about those Republicam beliefs about smaller government and fiscal responsibility, aren't we?

|9.10.07 @ 7:35AM|#

I don't think hypocrisy is the original sin it occasionally gets made out to be. Do you think there would have been less uproar if a Hsu had been a Republican fundraiser or if Craig had been a Democrat? If not, then the whole premise of this post is flawed. People care about hypocrisy, but they also care about corruption and broken wedding vows, as well they should.

|9.10.07 @ 7:36AM|#

Indeed! Both Democrats and Republicans vie over who will occupy the castle for the next four years - - - but they don't want to raze the castle. Or even close off a few noxious rooms.

|9.10.07 @ 7:44AM|#

"So what was this Federal anti-prostitution law Vitter sponsored?
The one that makes him such a hypocrite?"

Ah, SIV, shilling for your beloved GOP again! Vitter was in the LA state house for seven years, and I can't find any prostitution decriminalization bills he sponsored (maybe you can?). In addition, there is all the "we must preserve the family" rhetoric he's on record saying, and a lot of people find soliciting hookers to be kind of against that...You're not just a hypocrite for what legislation you propose, but on what you say over and over...

|9.10.07 @ 8:08AM|#

"Why Do the Dems and Reps Keep Biting Their Own Asses?"

Because they CAN!!

CB

Fluffy|9.10.07 @ 8:15AM|#

Gotta jump in against the "let's not write laws down" sub-thread to this discussion.

The ancient Romans didn't have written laws prior to writing down the Law of the Twelve Tables. Know why they wrote laws down? Not because an evil state wanted power, but because the common people rebelled and DEMANDED written law. Why would they do such a thing? Because in the absence of written law, the law became whatever the powerful wanted it to be at any particular moment in time. The patrician class made itself guardian of the "memory" of law, and not surprisingly they remembered the law very much to their own advantage.

Fluffy|9.10.07 @ 8:22AM|#

"I think I understand the guys who are tired of hearing the word "hypocrisy" bandied about. Because the concept of hypocrisy can allow the unprincipled to beat the principled over the head with their own sense of decency, in a kind of sneaky underhanded judo to which the unprincipled are immune. It's like exchanging hostages with someone who cares nothing about anyone's life but his own. The good guys can't win."

That's not what is happening in this case.

Anyone who thinks that the Republican party establishment is composed of men who sincerely want to live up to the absurd Augustinian sexual ethics they promulgate, but are undone by human weakness and rend their garments in guilt and regret, is a fool. That's not what's happening at all. Vitter absolutely, positively engaged in his family values rhetoric as a dodge and a con, intending full well to indulge himself whenever he chose. The fact that his pattern of this behavior spans years makes that evident.

"Sense of decency" - holy fuck, it IS to laugh.

If these were cases that resulted from mere human weakness, you would expect these men to be a bit more understanding of the same weakness in others, would you not? [Not that I acknowledge the standard of weakness they apply - I'm just trying to judge them on their own terms for a moment.] Or would you expect them to be more vindictive and more unforgiving, the greater their own degree of "weakness"?

|9.10.07 @ 8:53AM|#

One more reason to prefer natural rights as a moral code: it's relatively easy to live by without being a hypocrite.

Assholes who want to inflict their religion upon everyone through legislative means deserved to be called on it when they break their own sacred vows.

|9.10.07 @ 9:26AM|#

Your inability to live up to your own standards does not, in and of itself, nullify them.

True enough. What it does do, however, is nullify your right to assert your moral superiority and fitness to govern based on a supposedly superior adherence to and respect for those standards.

Which has pretty much been the central political theme of the Republican Party for the past 20 years. We're tougher and braver than the Democrats, say Bush, Cheney, and DeLay. We have better family values, say Gingrich, Vitter, and Craig.

Minion of URKOBOLD|9.10.07 @ 9:57AM|#

THEY KEEP BITING THEIR ASSES BECAUSE THEY CANNOT CLAMP DOWN ON THEIR TAINTS.

|9.10.07 @ 11:25AM|#

"Which has pretty much been the central political theme of the Republican Party for the past 20 years. We're tougher and braver than the Democrats, say Bush, Cheney, and DeLay. We have better family values, say Gingrich, Vitter, and Craig."

There is hypocracy in both parties. Pelosi is so pro-union except when it comes to her personally. None of the laborers in her vinyard are unionized.

The Clintons said they would be the most ethical administration in history, but as it turned out, they were the most corrupt.

|9.10.07 @ 11:32AM|#

Jake,

You need a new talking point.

Business owners aren't allowed to unionize their workers. It's a violation of federal law. Pelosi's employees haven't chosen to unionize, and that's their call.

As for "the most corrupt" administration in history, can I get some of what you're smoking? The Reagan administration is the alltime leader in indictments, and let's not forget Teapot Dome, Watergate, or the Grant mess.

Mike Laursen|9.10.07 @ 11:36AM|#

Gotta jump in against the "let's not write laws down" sub-thread to this discussion.

Hmm, interesting. The examples of abuse of unwritten laws you give further the argument that it's bad to just make laws up.

|9.10.07 @ 11:43AM|#

joe, let's not forget Whitewater, Castle Grande, cattlegate, travelgate, filegate, intimination of political enemies via the IRS, Monicagate, 1996 campaign finance scandals, Chinagate, Fostergate, pardongate, the stealing of furniture and furnishings from the White House, campaign finance scandal in conjunction with Hillary's 2000 Senate campaign.

|9.10.07 @ 11:54AM|#

OK, let's not.

No wrongdoing uncovered. No wrongdoing uncovered. No wrongdoing uncovered. No wrongdowing uncovered.

OK, the political office shouldn't have requested those files.

No wrongdoing uncovered.

blowjob.

No wrongdoing uncovered.

No wrongdoing uncovered.

No wrongdoing uncovered.

Yup, he shouldn't have pardoned that one guy.

Accusations found to be baseless by GAO.

No wrongdoing uncovered.

My my, that's quite the list you've got there.

|9.10.07 @ 11:58AM|#

Wow, my opinion is actually requested on an H&R thread? Sorry to disappoint by not checking in on a Sunday.

Anyway, I'll take the position that hypocrisy is something best avoided yet it also seems to be an ingrained part of human psychology.

I do sort of think that getting too upset about hypocrisy in politics is a waste of time. Consider at the very least that as a representative of a group of people, a Senator or Congressman may very well have to support ideas that he personally doesn't believe in.

|9.10.07 @ 12:16PM|#

joe, you're such a yellow dog Democrat.

In case you haven't heard, there is a tape that shows Hillary committing 4 felonies in conjuction with soliciting illegal campaign contributions. There is currently an appeals trial going on in California to determine if Hillary should be named as a defendant. Ofcourse, the judges are comprised of two Democrats and one Republican so if she isn't named a defendant, that one more "No wrongdoing uncovered" claim you can make, but the trial will still go on regardless.

"Yup, he shouldn't have pardoned that one guy."

He pardoned more than just one guy. Among his many questionable pardons was the pardoning of some Orthodox Jewish rabbis who were jailed for welfare fraud. It just so happened that they were from a district in New York which ended up voting almost unanimously for Hillary in her first Senate race.

Fostergate: Rodriquez on Starr's team resigned in protest over Starr's handling Foster's death as a suicide. Many people with relevant information which pointed to murder were not allowed to testify.

Chinagate: Janet Reno did not name a special prosecutor to investigate the Clintons or Gore. She said there was not enough evidence to warrant investigating them. Ofcourse, do we really believe her or was she protecting her boss?

|9.10.07 @ 12:31PM|#

"blowjob"

The crimes were lying under oath and the coverup.

Intimidation of enemies by the IRS: Is it just a coincidence that Paula Jones and Linda Tripp were audited? Why were so many right wing publications audited such as "National Review" and no left wing publications? Nixon wanted to use the IRS on his enemies, but fortunately the IES refused to do so. This wasn't the case with the Clintons' head of the IRS, who was an old Hillary crony.

"OK, the political office shouldn't have requested those files."

And they shouldn't have used them either. Witnesses have testified seeing those files being downloaded.

Travelgate: No crime committed, but why didn't Hillary just fire the staff in order to get her cronies in? She didn't have to try to ruin Billy Dale's reputation.

|9.10.07 @ 12:51PM|#

Yawn.

Keep it up, moonbat. Shouldn't Mena be on there somewhere?

|9.10.07 @ 12:55PM|#

Jeebus, it's 2007!

Vince Foster? Seriously?

SIV|9.10.07 @ 1:45PM|#

Jeebus, it's 2007!

You are right joe...time to "Move On" to the Chinese organized crime/PLA fundraising scandal.
Have to wait and see how the recent Kathleen Willie burglary goes but the Tong/Chi-com connection is absolutely on fire.

Gotta love the Clintons.

|9.10.07 @ 2:26PM|#

Scandal follows the Clintons. Are we ready to put that soap opera back in the White House?

|9.10.07 @ 4:50PM|#

Beats epic tragedy.

|9.10.07 @ 4:58PM|#

We need a change from both the epic tragedy and the Clinton Saga. Let's try somebody else and end this Bush/Clinton dynasty.

JB|9.11.07 @ 9:21PM|#

I want the Republicans out of my bedroom and the Democrats out of my wallet. And if I had to choose, I would rather have the Republicans in my bedroom. I can always go to a hotel if I had the money the Democrats are taking from me.

You can always buy social freedoms with money (just look at drugs, prostitution, etc). The opposite is not true.

And the Democrats are just as hypocritical as Republicans if not more so. I'm fairly certain Ted Kennedy has a lot of money he hasn't given to the "poor" yet he wants more of mine.

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements