Shameless
I have a conservative friend who calls the Democrats shameless. For what? For whatever they're doing at the time. Lately, he's got a lot of his plate.
For example, he complains about the investigation into CIA interrogation techniques. He feels there's no need for a special investigation, of course, but also has a list of other things they could investigate, such as prominent Democrats who broke the law but were given a clean bill of health (Al Gore, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, Charles Rangel), the New Black Panthers (who were already guilty of voter intimidation in a default judgment when the case was dropped) and even those in the CIA who leaked classified information, which was an unambiguous case of breaking the law, but somehow doesn't interest the Department of Justice. (He also claims--and I agree--that selected members of Congress were fully briefed on CIA techniques and now that the winds are blowing the other way, claim they had no idea what was going on.)
Also, there's Obamacare. Ted Kennedy wasn't even cold before they started exploiting his death and calling it Kennedycare.
Then there's the replacement of Kennedy. In 2004, when Mitt Romney was running the state, Massachusetts changed the rules so that the governor couldn't appoint a temporary senator before the special election. Now with a Democrat in charge, they want to change the rules back.
I admit the last one is pretty blatant. However, hypocrisy is simply the coin of the realm in politics. If you disagree with a policy, fine, debate it. But if all you've got is a charge of hypocrisy, it's so common it's hardly worth noting. (And even if you do note it, it's almost guaranteed those on the other side won't be able to see it.)
posted by LAGuy @ 12:25 AM
3 Comments:
Especially because everyone knows these people haven't changed their real tune at all. In 2004, Kennedy wanted Massachusetts law to favor the Democrats. In 2009, Kennedy wanted Massachusetts law to favor the Democrats. Totally consistent, except for the arguments he made in public, which everyone knows are window dressing.
Eight years ago, the Republicans in Congress supported Bush's prescription drug plan, which gave goodies to Americans and "paid" for them by deficit financing. Today, the Republicans condemn Obama's health plan, which would give goodies to Americans and "pay" for them by deficit financing. They are being totally consistent: they support Republican presidents and oppose Democratic presidents.
If this is hypocritical, then it's no less so than the op-ed writers and talking heads on the right [left] who condemn the hypocrisy of politicians on the left [right] but ignore it from those on their own side.
But again, it's not hypocritical on a deep level. It's totally consistent, and thus no one is ever surprised. I think it's not even news. If tomorrow some politician condems an instance of gerrymandering or financial shenanigans or a clever but misleading argument that benefits his interests, that would be news!
Nominee off the top of my head: an attorney general who investigates alleged CIA abuses over the objection of the political head of his party.
Queensguy, Obama wants the investigation, he just doesn't want to be blamed for it. The deepest desire of the base that Obama and Holder represent (and that the two truly believe in) is to see Cheney et al sent to prison and have the political differences they have with them criminalized. Holder has politicized the DOJ a lot more than Gonzalez did, yet the left in this country so far is only complaining he's not doing enough.
Post a Comment
<< Home