An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Hypocrisy in Action
We all know that politicians tend to be incredibly hypocritical. I’d almost say it’s in the nature of the beast. That they are so hypocritical that they’ll judge a political opponent publicly for having an extramarital affair, only to admit that, at the time they were busy organizing a smear campaign against before mentioned politician, they were having an affair themselves should, therefore, not come as a surprise.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
30 Responses to “Hypocrisy in Action”
How frustrating for me that one of the most articulate leaders of the conservative point of view is also a sleazeball.
Ironically while I can’t see voting for him for anything I would want someone with his comprehensive thinking to be part of any bi-partisan commission to propose solutions to challenging issues.
This is ancient history. We all found out about Gingrich’s affair with his secretary at the time, so why has this come up again?
This comes up now because the Newter is pandering to James Dobson asking for his forgiveness. If he really has any remorse he would ask his ex-families forgiveness, not a religious Right power broker. The Republicans are supposed to be the party of responsibility. This isn’t responsibility, it’s cynical pandering for votes.
I had a slightly different take on it.
I agree with all the comments above. Gingrinch is clearly smart. However, his cheating on his wife while she was in hospital is…well…icky.
As Rudi say, he is now pandering for votes and invoking God’s forgiveness. Ick, ick, ick.
All politicians pander, of course. Witness Hillary’s appalling southern accent in her recent trolling for southern votes.
But this is an icky display. Moreover, I suspect transparently false (to give him some benefit of the doubt). Gingrinch is no more contrite than the man he idolizes and hates, Bill Clinton.
Bill, however, can pander and grope and get away with it. Have the support of the National Organization of Women in his affairs…and have feminists attack those women who come forward about his affairs.
Easy to understand why Gingrinch resents Clinton so much.
Divorced and apparently was cheating on his first wife while she was battling cancer? Lol, nice touch Newt.
Komrad Marlow – All this wouldn’t matter if Newter and Billy Bennett didn’t tell all us “Librul sinners” how to be moral like them.
I agree with Rudi. This really smacks of prepresidential run pandering to the RR. Um, it took him 9 years to realize that he’d made a mistake? Is he only sorry about what he did because he’s running for president? Sounds like he’s the conservative niche candidate who is getting Dobson’s blessing with the “values voters.” Does appearing with Dobson negate the hypocrisy charge ? As I recall, he was driven out of Congress by his own party because of ethics violations- maybe he could do a twofer, and admit his wrong-doing so that Dobson can absolve him of his guilt for that as well.
He delivered divorce papers to his wife in her hospital bed, declaring she wasn’t pretty enough to be a president’s wife, while having an affair with a
20-something staffer.
Marlow- both Newt and Bill did sleazy things–but the GOP touts itself as the party of family values, thereby holding themselves to a higher standard. I never saw Bill kissing Dobson’s tush!
Rudi: exactly, I agree completely. This only matters because of Gingrich’s attitude / pandering to the base. Family values and all that.
Listen, I have long contended that if there is one group of people I’d never want to get ‘moral advise’ from it’s politicians.
Am I right or am I right.
Oh come on, Kim and Rudi. Clinton certainly did pander to religious leaders, it was just a different contingency (mainly the Southern black church leaders). He put them on the spot during the Lewinsky affair, by lying and having some of the prominent black leaders defending him and saying that they believed he was telling the truth and that he didn’t have an affair with her. Then they publicly had to backtread on that and say they forgave him for the affair and for the lie. He also held a prayer breakfast to drum up support among religious people by doing a phony mea culpa.
And that’s not to even go into the way he used Hillary (though of course it was probably mutual) by publicly humiliating her.
Newt’s affairs were odious and the pandering is shameless, but why have a double standard? Both of these men are consummate politicians whose sexual morals (if they ever had them) were eroded by the allure of power.
The actions are wrong no matter what. Clinton had the support of a lot of religious leaders and of feminists (the same ones who tried to crucify Clarence Thomas), so he certainly did betray the principles he was supposed to stand for.
CS Please supply links to Clintons pandering at black churches. Clinton is out of office, Newter is thinking about a POTUS run. I agree that both are immoral thugs, but which one is a spokesman for the party of “family values” and “responsibilty”. Clinton is a womaniser who stays in a ‘political marriage’. When will the Newter change the current wife for a newer Republican Stepford model?
Excelltent points, Komrade Rudi.
The vast majority of politicians are hypocrites. On both sides. Besides, this country has been a dictatorship by committee for at least the past 25 years anyway…
You said it, CP.
Rudi: Links? It’s common knowledge that Clinton campaigned heavily in black communities by buddying up to their religious leaders. And how about when he lied about witnessing AR black churches being torched when he was growing up? It was only when people in AR called him on the lie that he admitted that he was embellishing…why else would he have done that if not to pander for the religious black vote?
I want to emphasize I’m not trying to use Clinton to divert attention from Newt. I think both are despicable in terms of moral character even though both are highly intelligent and gifted politicians.
CS- Then why bring him up at all? Weren’t you the one who said conservatives on this site don’t claim “but Clinton did it too”or “Clinton was even worse” on posts discussing Bush policies?? As you, can see, you and Marlowe do it all the time, and that is moral relativism.
No, Kim…we bring it up when you guys are applying a double standard. First of all, the story itself brought up comparisons of Gingrich and Clinton because some are pinning hypocrisy on Gingrich for pressing ahead with the impeachment even while he himself was having an affair.
Marlowe said that neither Newt nor Clinton is believable in their contrition.
You then said:
To which I replied by bringing up the fact that Clinton kissed lots of other tushes (and not referring to his sexual pecadillos here!)
The point is, I don’t randomly bring up Clinton, and I only point out the comparisons when you have already done so and in the process said that the GOP side is worse. That leads me to point out that you are applying a double standard. In other words, I’m not trying to say that everything Clinton did was worse, but I’m trying to get you to stop saying that everything he did was excusable while everything Republicans do is not.
According to MSNBC the Dobson and Newter interview was completely scripted. Newter knew the questions was coming and scripted a response. Tell your exwife ‘your sorry’ , not potential Republican primary voters. This interview was just as staged as Hillary’s southern accent in Selma…..
Politicians are people.
People are hypocrits.
Therefore politicans are hypocrits.
Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue. In moderate amounts, it’s perfectly normal. I would hate to have my own exposed, but occasionally it happens. Everyone (but me) smirks…and life goes on.
Newt’s problem isn’t (so much) that he’s a hypocrit. It’s that he was such a public moralizer, all the while his plying private vices.
By the way, is there any policy idea of his that has been impemented and actually impoved life in America? I hear a lot about his great ideas. What are they?
CS- Marlow compared what Newt had done to Clinton’s crimes in his first post- I did not bring him up originally. And I’m sticking by my point- no one ever expected Clinton to be a paragon of virtue. Black churches love forgiving sinners— that’s why the black people love him so much. That’s a little different than holding yourself up as the family values party with ties to Falwell, Dobson and Robertson and then having a blatant fling with a staffer on the side. They’re both sleazy- but Newt has pretended he wasn’t.
But in either case, Kim, if we agree that neither man was likely to be sincere in his remorse, it’s pandering to publicly ask these religious leaders for forgiveness and play on their religious belief in God’s call for us to be merciful toward sinners. That’s the pandering part that I was trying to get to, because in both cases it’s not a sinner truly asking for forgiveness, it’s a scripted opportunity to keep one’s political supporters in line.
Come to think of it, Kim, you confirmed what I was trying to say in that last comment. You wrote:
First of all, I have to say that if a Republican had made such a statement, he/she’d be tarred and feathered for reinforcing a stereotype. And even if we could say that the stereotype fits in this case, is it right to say that it wasn’t so bad that Clinton took advantage of the black church leaders in this way because they really didn’t mind??
The white religious right and the black southern religious groups are all being used by politicians and it’s a shame.
I agree with all above and therefore pledge to never vote for either Bill Clinton, nor Newt Gingrich.
That’ll show ‘em.
CS- I agree with the scripted part-, and probably they were both pandering—but that’s politics! Maybe it is more glaringly obvious when its a politician from the other side. I sure could never vote for Newt- he’d be more polarizing than W. A lot of Democrats and Independents have bad memories of his time in Washington.
Politicians can no longer afford to be unscripted with cable talk shows obsessing over their every unguarded moment. They also now have to contend with u-tube and people from the other camp following them around with video cameras. Remember the joke Hillary made about dealing with bad men? It was the talk of the town.
The thing that’s great about Obama is that he is really good at acting like he’s talking off the cuff. If its not an act, he’ll have his foot in his mouth any day now.
So, why did Reagan divorce his first wife?
I hear there was something badly wrong in the Lincoln marrieage. And we all remember Eishenhower’s girl friend, as well as FDR’s.
Should we give them morality points to see who loses?
Sometimes it’s the man and not his party who is misbehaving.
doma,
You forgot to mention Kennedy’s infamous womanizing LOL.
But I agree with your point; they’re all very human and comparing which party is worse is pointless. What I find frustrating is that because the GOP is supported by the religious right, and some of the politicians obviously do pander to them, then every Republican is held to a different standard because they are seen to be this judgemental party. Well, first of all just because the religious right believes that there should be standards doesn’t mean that on the whole they believe people should be condemned for immoral actions. They generally do believe in forgiveness.
Second, there are some pretty intolerant factions on the Democratic side too. Take NOW, for example. Why is it not more hypocritical for Dems to treat women as objects when they are supported by people who unequivocably say that that is unforgiveable (or at least it seems to be unforgiveable when a Republican does it)? And mind you, I’m not saying that this kind of behavior shouldn’t be condemned, but there just seems to be a double standard and a different form of hypocrisy there; many liberal voters seem very concerned about hypocrisy on the right but they are completely blinded to it on the left side.
But I want to clarify; when I say that the womanizing should be condemned, I don’t actually mean that we should vote on that basis. Unfortunately there are men who are great leaders who are lousy when it comes to personal values. It often seems to come with the territory, I suppose because power corrupts or because people who are power hungry tend to have a predatorial streak when it comes to sexual relationships. As more women enter the top rungs of political society, it will be interesting to see how our gender does in this respect.
So my point is, condemn the action but accept it as a human foible and deal with the person on the basis of how he/she does the job. I would prefer to have leaders who have strong personal character and if everything else is equal I’d vote for the guy who is happily married and not cheating, but I’m not going to make this a litmus test.
Maybe the Defence of Marriage Act shoild return with an ammendment, like three strikes and your out. Bad news for Rudy and the Newter, they will have to then join the gay civil union crowd.
CS:
“..because the GOP is
supported by the religious right, and some of the politicians obviously do pander..”
—–
I’m afraid it’s a bit more than that. They attempt to pass laws based on these views. If they merely talked about it, I would have no beef. But I want the freedom to make my own judgments about personal matters. The Terry Schiavo fiasco was outright scary, IMO.
When life begins, when it ends, whom I should marry are not single vision issues. Morals and ideals conflict more often than line up in neat rows. Stand aside as I wrestle with them in my personal life. I won’t tell the President what his decisions should be about medical treatment for his family in difficult situations, and I don’t want him to interfere when I decide for my family.
It isn’t the views of the RR or the Rep’s that bother me. It’s that they attempt to impose those views on me, by law.
I agree totally, Doma. Its also the way they portray the Democrats as these secular progressives that want to ruin the family unit and have Hollywood values. Of course, it is mostly the far right that does this, but it makes conservatives like Newt appear more foolish when they fall from grace.
While I think character should be an issue, one can have one wife, go to church regularly, have a beautiful family and still have a weak or immoral character. A man or woman should be judged in total- not just on the basis of whether they have been divorced, or smoke some pot in college. If you go by those standards, you will end up with a ridiculously small pool of candidates for the presidency, and risk eliminating potentially terrific people.
Yes, doma, but plenty of liberal groups also try to impose their views on me by law as well. Radical greenies want to impose their morality into law, civil rights leftists want affirmative action laws which discriminate against the majority race and gender, and feminists sometimes call for PC laws to ‘protect’ against sexual harrassment. And what about banning trans fats? All of these groups often go too far in trying to impose their own view of morality by enshrining it into law.