 |
|
Add to My Group
|
September 2, 2007 at 04:56:59
As Republican Hypocrisy Party Tanks, Conservatives Lean Libertarian by Rob Kall Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
 
|
Yesterday, MSNBC news network, Chris Mattews introduced a daily newspaper editor from one of the "most conservative papers in America." She corrected him, saying their editorial page was conservative, and then corrected herself, saying "more Libertarian, really." It's another sign of the descent of the Republican party, when a staunch conservative paper disavows a connection to the party. 
As the Republican party faces an almost daily onslaught of breaking news portraying its leaders as unethical, scandalous and incompetent, more and more Republicans and their supporters in the media-- anchors, pundits, commentators, even whole newspaper editorial departments, are characterizing themselves as Libertarian, as opposed to Republican.
With Sleaze, Corruption and Scandal clouding the Republican party's image in america, this is bad news for the Christian right. Hypocrisy almost seems to be the mainstay of republican leaders.
It seems that in America, people are a lot more tolerant of one's sexual pecadillos than they are of hypocrisy. They'll tolerate a gay congressman, at least in and from some states, but not one who votes against gay rights while engaging in homosexual acts. Hypocrisy doesn't cut it.
One "work-around" is to take a stand that doesn't include the "package" of right wing moral values that puts Republicans so at risk of getting caught up in hypocritical scandals. Air American talk show host Thom Hartmann calls Libertarians "conservatives who want to smoke pot and get laid" because Libertarians are socially liberal and otherwise conservative.
We see some of these kinds-- social liberals and fiscal conservatives in the Democratic party-- the blue dogs in congress.
We'll be seeing a lot more of them on the Republican side of the aisle.
Already, Ron Paul, who ran for president before, as a Libertarian, is getting a lot of attention as a Republican presidential candidate in this cycle.
Last December, former Republican congressman and current critic of the Bush admin, Bob Barr became a Libertarian. On TV, we have Bill Maher, Lou Dobbs, TUcker Carlson, who have declared themselves not republican or democrat. I won't be surprised to see Joe Scarborough, who's been moving to the center on many issues, embracing Libertarianism... same with Chris Matthews.
It will be harder for already elected members of congress. But there could be a good that comes out of this. As more and more right wingers distance themselves from the current hypocrisy and scandal ridden current incarnation of the Republican party, they may find themselves unhappy with the current two party election system. If some influential pundits and politicians finally wake up and realize that the election system is broken and two party elections are a big part of the problem, then maybe instant run-off voting and equal treatment for third parties will become major issues that the most disliked congress in recent history will have to face.
Meanwhile, the Republican hypocrisy machine churns on. The dump Larry Craig in the flash of an eye, because a Republican Governor in Idaho can replace him with a Republican Senator. But David Vitter, caught in a relationship with a whore house gets a pass because he's in a state with a Democratic Governor. Now that Larry Craig has been pushed off the ledge by his party, the lamestream media should be boosting the Republican hypocrisy story on Vitter to their highest rotation. Why do they give him a pass. Tne news anchors should be asking all the Republcan leaders this question. We'll see, in a few hours, this Sunday morning, whether any of the sunday political shows do their jobs or prove they are part of the problem of the mainstream media.
Do me a favor. I can't watch them all. Add your comments here as to whether Meet the Press, or any of the other shows actually ask any Republican leaders why Vitter isn't next.
Rob Kall is executive editor, publisher and site architect of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, more...)
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
| 13 comments |
|
Afraid I cannot help.
You asked: Do me a favor. I can't watch them all. Add your comments here as to whether Meet the Press, or any of the other shows actually ask any Republican leaders why Vitter isn't next." by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 6:59:03 AM  (0+)
|
|
Be Careful Of All Political Labels
A sociopath can wear any political label they choose, Liberal, Conservative, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or whatever. It takes a little work to understand whether you are voting for a sociopath or not. Do not vote for a person of any political stripe without ascertaining that their actions match their words. That is the honest criteria. Sociopaths have conned their way to high position in every political, education and religious institution. The reason I say conned is that the majority of people are not sociopaths. Their self-defense of mind, body and soul have been worn down over the last 40 years. That is why some call the public sheeple. Once you wake up, it is hard to believe what has occurred. But the point it, you have to wake up and get the mud off your glasses. It hurts, but better late than never. I have tried to explain this at GreatRedDragon.com. Hope it helps. by Edward Ulysses Cate (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 232 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 9:12:11 AM (0+)
|
|
Millions of eyes out there
It's well to remember that political talk shows come on at the same time as "the faithful" are in church. I'm not in church at this eleventh hour, and I have too many thoughtful articles to catch up with here to waste time watching a rehash of talking points, which are a lot of talk but have few salient points. In my view, it's time to get past labels. "Compassionate conservative" should have ended that kind of name calling, which sometimes passes for thought by even the more erudite political philosophers. Back in the reactive days of 04 campaigns, that played. Now I see we need to assess candidates for what they purport to do for citizens as a whole. If any spend a lot of time complaining about "the other side," I leave them in the windmill-tilting category. So here is a practical question! I have a legacy Representative (Dist 2, TN) who voted against the Iraq War and the surge. However, when I petitioned through one of the cyber-activist groups for his vote on impeachment, Jimmy Duncan wrote me by snailmail that he is not in favor of impeachment and thinks the president has done nothing wrong. This is not a question of personal values for me. It's an ISSUES matter. If this particular representative happened to be a Democrat, he would surely be a Blue Dog. In both major parties, there is a group who seems patriotic in a nostalgic sort of way, contradicting themselves on spending money--seemingly cemented into old-time Party labels. And, true, if they budged they would likely be Independents and muddy the distinction even more between progressive and neoconservative idealogies. Like most others, I am looking for a presidential candidate who can jump "out of the box." And that's why I still think the only thing which will sharpen the issue of progressivism versus reactionism is to ask the House to do some housecleaning by sweeping some of the litter out of the White House. by Margaret Bassett (45 articles, 2909 quicklinks, 42 diaries, 1852 comments [99 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 10:31:18 AM (0+)
|
|
Let's start talking about sex....
BECAUSE FOR THE BETTER PART OF THE LAST THIRTY YEARS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS BEEN TALKING ABOUT, AND REGULATING, OUR SEX LIVES...THAT'S WHY. And Since 1977 and Anita Bryant, Republicans have been talking about SEX and getting elected because of it, while they, in many cases, engage in the sort of furtive, predatory sex that they condemn...... Let's see...does David Vitter's misconduct represent more of a threat to marriage than the phantom enemies from which DOMA is supposed to protect it from? Does Larry Craig's seeking gay sex in public restrooms represent more of a threat to marriage than allowing gays and lesbians to marry? The MEDIA has a responsibility to explain to and investigate for the American media (and I'm not talking Dateline NBC entrapment, but real responsible journalistc research and writing) politicians' sex lives as much as they have a responsibility to investigate the Catholic Church and priesthood sex scandals? I want to know why a young gay man in this country is initiated into adulthood by a perverted predator in a Minneapolis airport restroom by the likes of Larry Craig? I want to know why a child's first sexual experience might be oral sex in the stall of a bathroom at a local mall? I want to know why a young gay man dies of AIDS because he's having illicit sex with dirty old men like Larry Craig? I want to know why gay men and lesbians can't marry, but a United States Senator from Louisiana can cheat on his wife with a prostitute and suffer no consequences? I want to know why gay men and lesbians can be denied employment and government benefits for their committed, faithful partners, and yet Vitter gets rewarded with his US government pension for cheating on his wife with a prostitute? I want to know why young gay children have gay "role models" like dirty old Larry Craig, but Rep. David Dreier says nothing about his homosexuality? YES, LET'S START TALKING ABOUT SEX...IT'S A CONVERSATION THAT'S LONG OVERDUE...and the MEDIA owes it to our children---no matter how they are oriented---and society.... by Constance Lavender (90 articles, 0 quicklinks, 86 diaries, 217 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 11:32:30 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Let's not talk sex it's personal, let's just accept
I think you missed the point of the Republicans "wanting to control your sex". What they really want is to make you conform to their image. That which makes them comfortable and you predictable, even manageable. Its all about their comfort zone. Some people have difficulties with the unknown, to them it is full of things that may harm them. It days long ago man attributed these unknowns to gods and felt comforted by a sense of order. Behaviour that they don't understand is threatening to them. In the case of threat what do we do...fight try tor master the situation. Sex, sexual preferences, leanings what ever are personal and as far as I'm concerned unless they harm someone it's ok with me. I don't feel threatened, I don't have to share the procliverty. I am often envious of people who are able to form strong meaningful bonds regardless of the genders of the individuals involved. I don't enjoy talking about sex simply because to me its private and a particpatry activity. by Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 11:59:28 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Victimless crime
I despise the Larry Craig types, but what he committed was essentially a victimless crime. Have liberals become so trusting of ......the police? by Babyhuey (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 34 comments) on Monday, Sep 3, 2007 at 1:09:43 PM (0+)
|
|
RE: Sunday Talk Shows / Vitter
Oh they did. Both Tim Russert and George Stephanopolous asked their respective guests why Vitter hasn't been outed.. and the answer seemed to have been that Craig explicitly pleaded guilty to this kind of conduct. by Matt (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 12:37:39 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: again...
I see no moral distinction, perhaps an added moral dimension in Craig's case, but he still denies the accusation... by Constance Lavender (90 articles, 0 quicklinks, 86 diaries, 217 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 12:48:57 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: still more answers needed from both....
...bums; the media should pursue them in September... by Constance Lavender (90 articles, 0 quicklinks, 86 diaries, 217 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 12:50:37 PM (0+)
|
|
Libertarianism is an oxymoron
At one time, I was a Libertarian. However, I could not reconcile my liberal values with being fiscally conservative. The need is too great to help those who cannot help themselves. How can one be a conservative and watch the devastation in NOL, or the collapse of our infastructure? The Federal gov't is the only organization that can provide assistance on a national level. Of course, we must have a President who is willing to take the risk of providing the necessary, charasmatic leadership. Right now, I do not see anyone who can do this. by LEO BOYLE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 40 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 12:56:20 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: ...true...
...unless the goal of the NRC is to abandon nationalism.... by Constance Lavender (90 articles, 0 quicklinks, 86 diaries, 217 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 12:59:56 PM (0+)
|
|
RNC
NOo wonder nothing gets done in Washington. republicans are all over each other. by vincent passiatore (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 185 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 10:48:05 PM (0+)
|
|
Hypocracy thy name is Politician
What surprises me is that you’re surprised. All politicians by definition are hypocrites. Lets take the average church of God fearing good people what do you think would be in the minds of the parishioners if say Brad Pitt came by? Or party girl Paris Hilton dropped in? How many of the worshipers’ minds would be on the lesson? Are they hypocrites? Politicians are faced with the poison chalice they are expected to have clear opinions/promises before being elected then once elected circumstances are different hence they break promises, are they hypocrites then? Given the party system that infests our countries they are expected to be either red or blue. Each colour draws its values and support from many flavours/shades of the base. The party’s politician is then expected to follow the amalgam of views regardless are they a hypocrite? Or are they just human politicians who exhibit only varying degrees of self interest, self aggrandisement (including shock and awe power) or self delusion that they could make a difference? The latter is the first to be compromised. After a few years the career is all. Sure they do good but that is simply the means to an end, re-election and name in history etc. Is this reason to be discouraged, cynical or disgusted? Only if one’s expectations are unreasonably high which most commenters’ seem to be. Neither should we be accepting and sanguine about an end result that is clearly unpalatable. Fore warned is forearmed we need to deal with what is there and develop strategies to use current circumstances. Being pragmatic doesn’t necessarily mean compromise of what is important. What is important is a personal decision but criticism needs to be realistic. Discussions on personal behaviour should not be even a topic for discussion providing no one was harmed or no man made law was broken or affect their ability to perform their job. God’s law is no where as definitive due to contradictions, different religions and there is a separation of church and state anyway. Discussions of this politician is going liberal is probably more to do with the above motivation than any road to Washington burning bush Conversion. If the GOP members had any brains they would move away from Bush’s positions for survival. Others whose base is safe in the extremes will continue. The democrats are every bit as Hypocritical as the GOP. Simply look at Obama’s donation list to see same ol same ol suspects and interests. by Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments) on Monday, Sep 3, 2007 at 3:35:18 AM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
