Althouse: "The Republican Party will never revive itself until its sanctimonious pantheon — Sanford, Gingrich, Limbaugh, Palin, Ensign, Vitter..."

June 28, 2009

"The Republican Party will never revive itself until its sanctimonious pantheon — Sanford, Gingrich, Limbaugh, Palin, Ensign, Vitter..."

"... and hypocrites yet to be exposed — stop being two-faced."

Says Maureen Dowd.

True up to a point... but I don't really see either Limbaugh or Palin as sanctimonious. Dowd calls Sanford a "self-righteous, Bible-thumping prig." Maybe so. I haven't followed him much. But you can't say the same for Palin and Limbaugh. In particular, Limbaugh. I listen to him all the time, and I don't catch much if any religion coming out of him. He can get maudlin and religionistic in his patriotism — when he does one of his "American exceptionalism" riffs, but I can't remember him ever quoting the Bible or talking about Jesus or acting like he's purer than other people. But then, I think a good Christian ought to say we're all sinners and we all need forgiveness — and that we shouldn't make a show of our religion. Maybe Limbaugh is that kind of Christian, but I suspect he's not interested in religion at all, and he doesn't pretend to be.

170 comments:

HokiePundit said...: I guess the theory is that if Palin is lumped in with those against whom a legitimate grievance is to be had, eventually the public will think of her that way as well. Anyone who reads Cracked.com (I've stopped) may have noticed a similar thing, where the Palins are suddenly accused of being Scientologists.; 6/28/09, 9:11 AM
Jason (the commenter) said...: If you're a reporter it's only bad if someone is two-faced about sex. Everything else is perfectly fine.; 6/28/09, 9:13 AM
KCFleming said...: The epitaph for the Democrats was written in the 1990s and 2000s, only to have the party turn around and capture the entire government. So I don't think her reading is terribly useful.

Moreover, why take advice from the left? They have no interest in a revival of the right.

The problem with the GOP is that it fell back into Democrat-lite, what WFBuckley called 'Rockefeller Republicans', with little difference between them than the degree of military funding and its mission.

Their domestic spending was equally atrocious, until the 2009 Bacchanal of the Democrats, which has signed all our children into penury.

The GOP or some third party has a chance to grab the conservatives and libertarians who want free markets, and a small government, for both economic and social reasons.; 6/28/09, 9:15 AM
Jason (the commenter) said...: You know what Maureen Dowd? Most people are hypocrites about sex; it's natural. It's people like you who are nut-cases.; 6/28/09, 9:17 AM
SteveR said...: In the midst of Cap and Trade, Gov Health Care, Iran, NOK, and the parade of corruption that has been spilling out of the democrats lately (Murtha, Dodd, Rangel, Blogo, et al), she's talking about that.; 6/28/09, 9:18 AM
Curtiss said...: All two-faced-hypocrites reside in the GOP.

There are no such people at the New York Times.

And does Maureen Dowd still look as good as that photo of her that appears on all her online ops? I wonder if she knows any governors.; 6/28/09, 9:28 AM
Anonymous said...: hypocrisy, genesis, jesus

i was listening to my genesis cassette in the car again.

do people understand that jesus preached a somewhat buddhist/hinduist religion of self.

do as i say and don't do as i do

that's not being a hypocrite.

don't follow all the actions of the person, follow the thought that refines the self. Sometimes the actions will be the same by probablity. sometimes they will be directly opposite of the infinite looping strip by geometry.; 6/28/09, 9:28 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: stop being two-faced.

And here I thought diversity was a good thing.

Other than maybe Bloomberg when has Maureen Dowd ever meet a republican she liked?; 6/28/09, 9:29 AM
Anonymous said...: finding your self and your complement to self is about finding somewhat at the same speed.

thus the phrase ( we are on the same wavelength)

if you spend lots of time in the water you learn about refraction, too, besides reflection. Or you have a son teach you that.; 6/28/09, 9:35 AM
KCFleming said...: Financial scandals, even hiding illicit monies in your freezer, are no scandal and not evidence of hypocrisy for Democrats, as borne out by their repeated re-elections.

So Dowd is correct in that respect. So, as per Jason, you can do any damn thing you want as long as you don't speak about religious values, and fail them.; 6/28/09, 9:39 AM
Fred4Pres said...: Everything Ms. Dowd says about Sanford is roughly correct. He betrayed himslf.

But there is also right and wrong. Are we just going to simply forgive the wrong as part of being a human being, or is it better to resist that knowing that many will fail doing so? And as for accountability for actions while in office, there is a distinction between Bill Clinton engaging in a daliance and Bill Clinton giving some hush money to shut it up.

Sanford deserves not to be reelected for his personal hypocrisy, but deserves the immediate boot for use of public funds to go to Argentina.

I am not sure how Palin is a hypocrite. Ann already addressed Limbaugh (and I agree with her assessment of Rush).

Vitter and Craig cheated on their marriages. But opposing gay marriage does not necessarily make you a hypocrite when you break your own vows.; 6/28/09, 10:02 AM
Fred4Pres said...: Since Barack Obama is against gay marriage too, would that make him a hypocrite if he cheated on Michelle? I would not immediately make that connection. Why make it on Vitter and Craig?; 6/28/09, 10:03 AM
Unknown said...: to Jason (the commenter)
Shut the F*** up and listen for a while...; 6/28/09, 10:04 AM
John Thacker said...: "Everything Ms. Dowd says about Sanford is roughly correct."

Except that he's not a Bible-thumper at all. That has nothing to do with how he campaigned, or how he governed.; 6/28/09, 10:09 AM
jayne_cobb said...: She's right you know.

Clearly republicans must embrace the honesty and straightforwardness found in such moral stalwarts as Ted Kennedy, Blagojevich, Spitzer, McGreevey, Rangel, Murtha, Burris, Conyers, Edwards, "Dollar" Bill Jefferson, Pelosi, Reid, and Al Sharpton if they want to regain power.; 6/28/09, 10:11 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Coming next week, Maureen Dowd opines on how the Dems can rid their party of the stench of corruption. She will explain how the House Judiciary Committee Chairman, John Dingel, should consider an exorcism to cleanse his felonious wife and Detroit City Councilwoman.

Did I mention they are both Dems? Heh.; 6/28/09, 10:11 AM
Unknown said...: The incredible inanity of people who should know better:

I read above:

Vitter and Craig cheated on their marriages. But opposing gay marriage does not necessarily make you a hypocrite when you break your own vows.

"Honey, I've got this great piece of A**,
waiting for me in Argetina.
You won't mind will you?
After all, she's not a GUY!!!"

Jeesh !!!; 6/28/09, 10:12 AM
bagoh20 said...: Hypocrisy is to hard to avoid, so we should just stop telling each other how to act. Oh, wait I just did it and I'm being hypocritical by even writing this for others to read.

Damn, I'm sorry, do what you want.

Oh damn, there I go again. uuuumm, nevermind.; 6/28/09, 10:13 AM
Unknown said...: Dingel... Conyers

What's the diff between friends, anyhoo; 6/28/09, 10:16 AM
Unknown said...: OK

OK

Then, can we all agree
that no one,
no political party,
can claim for itself
RIGHTEOUSNESS !!!

If you're willing to concede that obvious fact,
then what are you all kvetching about???; 6/28/09, 10:19 AM
garage mahal said...: Limbaugh is a Christian? Must be some sect I've never heard of.; 6/28/09, 10:22 AM
garage mahal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/28/09, 10:22 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Your point is well taken Jason, if I may expand.

Maureens indictment of republicans et all by association is rather interesting in the backdrop of Obama's recent remarks concerning the large percentage of missing black fathers.

What is good for the goose is not allways good for the gander is it?; 6/28/09, 10:24 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Yes I did get Dingle and Conyers mixed up.

That is easy to do. They are the House members with the most seniority. Each has been there more than 40 years.

I am sure they have done very well for themselves financially. Dingel'swife is a high-paid lobbyist and until Friday, Conyers's wife was also sucking at the taxpayers' teat.

I am also sure, during their forty plus years in Congress, the state of Michigan, which these two fossils represent, has not done very well.

Coincidence? Or perhaps cause & effect?; 6/28/09, 10:25 AM
Unknown said...: To AJLynch

I so agree with you:

Of course they're both corrupt.

They're both Democrats, aren't they, chil' ?; 6/28/09, 10:28 AM
Stephen said...: Modo is whistling past the graveyard. The Dems won dominance by being "not Bush" and "not Republican" in 2008. She senses that there's a chance--I won't say likelihood--that the tide will turn against them in a similar fashion. Imagine if the lucky Republican who happens to be on the ticket at that time is a social conservative. O, the horror.; 6/28/09, 10:35 AM
Anonymous said...: Who among that list has ever declared him or herself as righteous or somehow morally better than others? I don't know of anyone, D or R, who does that. Rush likes to crack wise about his extraordinary, even divine, talent, but I've never heard him brag about a lack of moral failure.

Why do so many liberals seem to believe that the mere status of having a religious faith is somehow equal to proclaiming yourself above sin?; 6/28/09, 10:36 AM
Unknown said...: Clearly republicans must embrace the honesty and straightforwardness found in such moral stalwarts as Ted Kennedy, Blagojevich, Spitzer, McGreevey, Rangel, Murtha, Burris, Conyers, Edwards, "Dollar" Bill Jefferson, Pelosi, Reid, Jessie Jackson, Marion Barry, and Al Sharpton if they want to regain power.; 6/28/09, 10:40 AM
Anonymous said...: To answer my own question, I think that many people without a solid faith are, deep down, very, very frightned that they are doing it wrong, and anyone who is in any way demonstratively faithful reminds them of that fear, hence their hostility towards those people. (This would also explain their willingness to bend over backwards for "minority" religions like Islam, which they don't fear they are wrong in not following.)

I also think that many liberals are so swept up in identity politics that they can't tell one republican from the next, hence anyone who's ever espoused a free-market principle is also, by definition, a bible-beater.; 6/28/09, 10:40 AM
Jennifer said...: I agree with most of the comments so far.

But, I can see how opposition to gay marriage and cheating on your own marriage can be hypocritical if your opposition to gay marriage is based on the sanctity of marriage argument.; 6/28/09, 10:41 AM
Jennifer said...: Actually, that doesn't have to be an if. Isn't the sanctity of marriage what everybody says when they oppose gay marriage?; 6/28/09, 10:43 AM
Anonymous said...: The Dems have finally rounded up enough sinning Republicans to justify their unjustifiable defense of Bill Clinton.; 6/28/09, 10:43 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Why do so many liberals seem to believe that the mere status of having a religious faith is somehow equal to proclaiming yourself above sin?

To me "having a religious faith" beguines by acknowledging that above all I'm a sinner and as baseball players often say "its one at a time".; 6/28/09, 10:44 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Dowd could write a story about why political dynasties should be cynically curtailed by skeptical voters....Bush, Clinton, Sebelius, McCaskill, Casey, Kennedy, Blunt, Biden, Landrieu, Daley, Brown, Romney.; 6/28/09, 10:44 AM
Unknown said...: He said:
"Why do so many liberals seem to believe that the mere status of having a religious faith is somehow equal to proclaiming yourself above sin?"

My attempt at explanation is that you're either "tone deaf" or you never were unfortunate enough to sit in a pew to listen to a Robertson or a Dodsen or a Reverend Falwell, all propounders of the religious right, and all, a formidable force in the modern Republican party. Sorry to interrupt your fantasy...; 6/28/09, 10:49 AM
Jason (the commenter) said...: Lem : Maureens indictment of republicans et all by association is rather interesting in the backdrop of Obama's recent remarks concerning the large percentage of missing black fathers.

I think you are being too easy on Obama, Hypocracy Incarnate.

We have his "emergency" legislation that must be passed before anyone can see it, but can wait days for him to sign.

His strong stance on global warming, while he keeps the heat turned in the Whitehouse during the winter and has unnecessary trips by plane.

His demand that the banks cut back on their "frivolous" spending, funded by government loans, while he spends money he begged from the Saudis and Chinese (like a dog from his master) on expensive vacations and photo shoots.

His trips to get ice cream while people are killed in Iran.

His following of Bush policies he condemned during his campaign.

Has any President ever had such a sense of entitlement?; 6/28/09, 10:51 AM
Unknown said...: Jennifer,

Actually, when people refer to the sanctity of marriage, they are talking about religious aspect of marriage. There is no hypocrisy here.; 6/28/09, 10:54 AM
AlphaLiberal said...: I don't know or care if Rush Limbaugh is religious and/or sanctimonious.

But it is clear that he is a hypocrite. Which point, Althouse is curiously silent on.

I think she knows that she can't defend Rush Limbaugh on that score. It just can't be done.; 6/28/09, 10:55 AM
Jason (the commenter) said...: I agree with Dowd that sanctimonious people are insufferable. The most sanctimonious people I can think of today though are not Republicans, but reporters from the "mainstream" media who seem to worship at the altar of the Democratic Party.; 6/28/09, 10:56 AM
Unknown said...: To: lyssalovelyredhead

"many people without a solid faith are, deep down, very, very frightned that they are doing it wrong"

Let me say this as gently as I can, Lyssal.
There may come a time when people WITH a solid faith become "deep down very very frightened that THEY" may be doing it wrong.

... As spake by the Prophets.; 6/28/09, 10:57 AM
john said...: "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

"But, but, Maureen, no, I don't."

"See? F___n' sanctimonious hypocrite."; 6/28/09, 11:01 AM
Jennifer said...: Sy: Actually, when people refer to the sanctity of marriage, they are talking about religious aspect of marriage. There is no hypocrisy here.

Sure there is when one's belief in the sanctity of marriage is strong enough to bar an entire group from access to it but not strong enough to honor your own.

In my mind that's different than advocating for some general good but faltering in your own practice.; 6/28/09, 11:03 AM
john said...: I may win on the roundabout,
Then I'll lose on the swings.
In or out, there is never a doubt,
Just who's pulling the strings.
I'm all tied up to you,
But where's it leading me to?

I wonder if one day that, you'll say that, you care,
If you say you love me madly, I'll gladly, be there,
Like a puppet on a string.

Maureen just wants us to love her too.; 6/28/09, 11:09 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: The most sanctimonious people I can think of today though are not Republicans, but reporters from the "mainstream" media who seem to worship at the altar of the Democratic Party.

It opens up the country to the same dangers ie Bush after 9/11. The MSM went easy on him and then later they acted surprised when they found out the executive went about exercising the powers they had acquired.; 6/28/09, 11:10 AM
Unknown said...: Bravo, Jennifer

Someone, at least, must applaud your courage, and your simple LOGIC, in this forum...; 6/28/09, 11:12 AM
TMink said...: "I think a good Christian ought to say we're all sinners and we all need forgiveness — and that we shouldn't make a show of our religion."

Well said. The point of Christianity is Christ, not His sinful followers.

And good Chritians make a show of their love, not their religion.

Trey; 6/28/09, 11:13 AM
AlphaLiberal said...: And, Ann also focuses on a nitpicking grammatical detail to miss the main point that the stench of self-righteousness and sanctimony which is the core essence of the Republican Party is now the proverbial albatross around their neck.

Simple concept: when you hold yourself up as morally superior (which Rush does) then you better walk the walk to live up to the own standard you're created.

Here is a nice slideshow of pics on some of the moralizing hypocrites of the Republican Party.; 6/28/09, 11:13 AM
TMink said...: For many Christians, opposing same sex marriage is about obedience, not hate.

I support marriage by being a good husband.

Trey; 6/28/09, 11:15 AM
Jennifer said...: Voltare, don't get too excited about my comments just yet. I don't consider hypocrisy to be the be all end all character flaw many on the left seem to. Give me an imperfect person who at least advocates for the greater good over someone seemingly indifferent to the damage they're inflicting in the country.; 6/28/09, 11:20 AM
Unknown said...: Children:

Do you see what it is you are all doing?

Your jess' tryin' to "score points."

Can you say "scoring points" ?; 6/28/09, 11:22 AM
Titushasn'thadsexinalontime said...: No more politicans talking about family values.

And Sanford comparing himself to David? Spare me.

Maureen Dowd is hot. So is Sanford's wife.

Sanford is obviously still in love with Evita.; 6/28/09, 11:22 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Ok

Here is the Top 10 Democrat Sex Scandals in Congress.

Fair and balance.; 6/28/09, 11:23 AM
Unknown said...: And who can we say
"advocates for the greater good" ?

Napolean?
Hitler?
Ayatolleh Kahmeini?

My point being:
Are you confident that you can truly recognize such a person, if you should see her ?; 6/28/09, 11:26 AM
Jennifer said...: Wait, not that I think opposing gay marriage is doing something for the greater good. I just meant re: "moralizing" in general.; 6/28/09, 11:26 AM
Titushasn'thadsexinalontime said...: At least the last two moralistic preaching republicans were decent looking. I don't mind them having affairs. Henry Hyde or Newt Gingrich I don't want to picture doing it. Ensign and Sanford I am much more comfortable picturing doing it.

Let's guess who will be next to step up to the microphone and speak about how they have sinned.

How about a woman politician? You never hear any women politicians having affairs. Except Hilary who is a dyke, allegedly.; 6/28/09, 11:30 AM
Anonymous said...: When you talk about Republicans being able to revive itself.

Picture this, there is a lib standing in the field holding up a target on his or her side at arms length. The target has each of the names mentioned and when asked to shoot everyone shoots for the target name they hate the most. Opps the reel target is the one holding it. Liberals constantly personally attack the group or besmirches as a tactic of keeping you from the point, and that being the point of what they are doing in front of you. I personally would shoot to the right.; 6/28/09, 11:31 AM
Unknown said...: OK, then...
I see...
Moralizing in General, then,
is now to be fully acknowledged
as
doing something for the greater good.

Fine.
Now I know...; 6/28/09, 11:32 AM
Unknown said...: Wait, not that I think opposing gay marriage is doing something for the greater good. I just meant re: "moralizing" in general.

I see that you used the old Seinfeld qualifier :)

Everyone thinks we're gay!... Not that there's anything wrong with that.; 6/28/09, 11:33 AM
Titushasn'thadsexinalontime said...: The one thing keeping Obama from having an affair is Michelle would probably kill him.; 6/28/09, 11:35 AM
Titushasn'thadsexinalontime said...: Tim Pawlenty just said, "Hypocrisy doesn't sell".; 6/28/09, 11:37 AM
KCFleming said...: 'Voltare' is Jeremy-Michael-Lucky-Gene Olson, until proven otherwise.; 6/28/09, 11:38 AM
rcocean said...: Why do liberal democrats constantly tell Republcans what they must do to win? Their advice is always the same, move left (duh).

And why do conservative or Republican care?; 6/28/09, 11:39 AM
Unknown said...: To Titushasn'thadsexinalontime (Phew !!)

Do you think it matters to us,
how your particular brain sees infidelity?
pronouncing one as aesthetically wholesome
and another as "not decent looking" ?

Even Hillary, whom you consign to dykehood,
may surprise you with her exotic, human,
and quite touching attempts at LOVE-making.

Yes. LOVE.
Sorry, that.; 6/28/09, 11:43 AM
AlphaLiberal said...: Why do liberal democrats constantly tell Republcans what they must do to win? .

Count me out. I hope you lose for the sake of our country.

Palin 2012!; 6/28/09, 11:45 AM
Ann Althouse said...: Alpha: "Simple concept: when you hold yourself up as morally superior (which Rush does) then you better walk the walk to live up to the own standard you're created. "

I listen to the podcast of nearly every show and I genuinely don't know what you are referring to. Do you listen to the show? He simply is not sanctimonious about religion or sex. He does take the anti-abortion position, but other than that, I'm not hearing social conservatism. I'm hearing a lot about freedom, free enterprise, and small government.; 6/28/09, 11:46 AM
DKWalser said...: Jennifer,

It's more than possible to argue against same sex marriage on something other than the "sanctity of marriage" grounds. Some of these arguments include:

* Tradition. Marriage has always been reserved for male/female relationships. This tradition goes back thousands of years. We should respect and honor this tradition by preserving the male/female nature of marriage as respected by law.

* Expedience. Society benefits from stable male/female marriages. To this end, society has created laws that support, nurture, and subsidize marriage. Society need not bear the cost of granting the same benefits to same sex couples because society does not benefit in the same way from such relationships.

* Example. To some extent, homosexual behavior is a choice. Granting same sex couples legal marriage would put society's seal of approval on homosexual behavior. This would lead to more homosexual activity. All things being equal (which they never are), society benefits from stable male/female relationships and should do nothing to encourage alternatives.

There are, of course, sound counters to all of those arguments against same sex marriage. That doesn't mean that these, and other, arguments are not made and are not believed by many opponents of same sex marriage. The fact you think the "sanctity of marriage" is the ONLY argument against same sex marriage says little for your powers of imagination and observation.

Note: I'm not endorsing any argument for or against same sex marriage in this post. I'm simply pointing out that several arguments for and con exist and that many of those arguments are not based in religion.; 6/28/09, 11:48 AM
Jeremy said...: Ann - "True up to a point... but I don't really see either Limbaugh or Palin as sanctimonious."

So you don't see a man who gulps down illegal drugs, while at the same time saying anyone using illegal drugs should be "sent up the river"...as being "sanctimonious," of being hypocritical or presenting himself as being more righteous than others?

Or how about a woman who bashes government spending while at the same time billing her state for personal family travel expenses or says she won't accept federal dollars, while actually accepting federal dollars, or touting family values and abstinence while her daughter has a baby out of wedlock, then doesn't marry the father?

Get real.; 6/28/09, 11:49 AM
Jeremy said...: Ann - "I listen to the podcast of nearly every show and I genuinely don't know what you are referring to."

Illegally obtained drug use ring a bell, Ann??; 6/28/09, 11:51 AM
Jason said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/28/09, 11:53 AM
Unknown said...: How brainless !

"To some extent, homosexual behavior is a choice"

Yeh !

It's a choice between love and no love.

And how would YOU make that choice?

Jeesh !; 6/28/09, 11:53 AM
Jeremy said...: Limbaugh on Drugs

There's nothing good about drug use. We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods, which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up.

What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug use. Too many whites are getting away with drug sales. Too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too.

...We are becoming too tolerant as a society, folks, especially of crime, in too many parts of the country.... This country certainly appears to be tolerant, forgive and forget. I mean, you know as well as I do, you go out and commit the worst murder in the world and you just say you're sorry, people go, "Oh, OK. A little contrition."... People say, "I feel better. He said he's sorry for it." We're becoming too tolerant, folks.

--Rush Limbaugh TV show (10/5/95)

These tough sentencing laws were instituted for a reason. The American people, including liberals, demanded them. Don't you remember the crack cocaine epidemic? Crack babies and out-of-control murder rates? Liberal judges giving the bad guys slaps on the wrist? Finally we got tough, and the crime rate has been falling ever since, so what's wrong?

--RushLimbaugh.com (8/18/03)

First of all, we tell people what they can do to their bodies all the time--no cocaine, no prostitution, no throwing yourself off a building. Second, laws are nothing but defining morality!

--RushLimbaugh.com (6/27/03)

I want to let you read along with me a quote from Jerry Colangelo about substance abuse, and I think you'll find that he's very much right…"I know every expert in the world will disagree with me, but I don't buy into the disease part of it. The first time you reach for a substance you are making a choice. Every time you go back, you are making a personal choice. I feel very strongly about that."...

--Rush Limbaugh TV show (9/23/93)

I'm appalled at people who simply want to look at all this abhorrent behavior and say, "Hey, you know, we can't control it anymore. People are going to do drugs anyway. Let's legalize it." It's a dumb idea. It's a rotten idea, and those who are for it are purely, 100 percent selfish.

--Rush Limbaugh TV show (12/9/93); 6/28/09, 11:54 AM
Jason said...: No, Jeremy.

"Sanctimonious" is you harping on Bristol.

Twit.; 6/28/09, 11:54 AM
Swifty Quick said...: For a study in cases, compare the way the MSM's has covered Sanford during the last week with the way they covered the story about John Edwards and his affair. There's not a dime's worth of difference between Sanford's transgressions and those of Edwards, or the prior level of sanctimony displayed by either of them. And I would argue that the Edwards story was a more newsworthy story. He was much more well known, a former vice-presidential nominee and a presidential contender, the whole back story about Elizabeth and her breast cancer, and the illicit fathering of the baby. Yet, the MSM had to be drug to the Edwards story kicking and screaming (it took the National Enquirer to report it first), whereas they have gleefully perseverated and obssessed over Sanford. That's the hypocrisy that jumps out at me. It has NOTHING whatsoever to do with any putative "sanctimoneous pantheon" in the Republican Party. It has everything to do with the MSM and Maureen Dowd being in the tank for the Democrats.; 6/28/09, 12:01 PM
Jeremy said...: Pogo said..."'Voltare' is Jeremy-Michael-Lucky-Gene Olson, until proven otherwise."

Pogo, you have to be one of the dumbest and least credible people I've ever encountered.

Every time anybody posts a comment you disagree with or has more of a liberal slant than you can deal with, you immediately come to the conclusion that it must be ME who's doing the posting.

I am NOT this Gene person, I do not teach at some community college, and I am most certainly not this Voltare person.

I realize you have too much time on your hands (when you're not holding onto your dick), little if anything of substance to say and are apparently not the brightest bulb on the block, but posting these insane notions just makes you look even more ridiculous.

If that's even possible...; 6/28/09, 12:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Re: Voltare:
“My attempt at explanation is that you're either "tone deaf" or you never were unfortunate enough to sit in a pew to listen to a Robertson or a Dodsen or a Reverend Falwell, all propounders of the religious right, and all, a formidable force in the modern Republican party. Sorry to interrupt your fantasy...”

Oh, were Falwell, Dodsen, or Robertson on that list? I must have missed that. Could have sworn we were talking about Limbaugh, Palin, Sanford, etc. (See above, re: my point about identity politics). BTW, Falwell’s been dead for years; he’s hardly part of the “modern” Republican party. (Hey, maybe my fantasy was that he's really alive!) All that being said, no, I have never sat in their pews (nor, I suspect, have you), as I find them tiresome. But I’m not familiar with any time that they themselves stated that either they or the Republican party were above sin. (Won't feel bad if I'm wrong, like I said, not a fan, but either way, they don't make law).

“Let me say this as gently as I can, Lyssal.
There may come a time when people WITH a solid faith become "deep down very very frightened that THEY" may be doing it wrong. ... As spake by the Prophets.”

I have no idea what you mean by that, and frankly don’t care. But my statement in no way suggested that there could not be others that may be frightened as well, now or in the future. I merely gave my interpretation of one type of behavior. (BTW, to any atheists out there- I’m not saying that all people w/out faith feel this way, just the ones that are constantly offended by the slightest display of faith). Also, you can cut the patronizing bullshit (“as gently as I can.”); It’s uncalled for and obnoxious.; 6/28/09, 12:03 PM
Peter Hoh said...: It is true that both parties have members that belong in their "hall of shame" rather than in leadership positions. I would not wish to be in charge of tallying points.

FWIW, I think that sexual escapades should count a hell of a lot less than the graft of a Bill Jefferson or a Duke Cunningham.

I'm willing to cut Sanford a little slack. His transgressions aren't up there with Spitzer, Clinton, and Vitter. There's no evidence that Sanford is a serial adulterer. He seems genuinely tormented by what he's done, which is not the case with most pols when caught.

But there's a difference between cheating on your marriage and ending a marriage to marry your affair partner, isn't there?

One hurts a marriage but holds the possibility of reconciliation. The other ends a marriage, and shatters the cultural standard that marriage is a life-long relationship, for better and worse, and thus deserving of special recognition by government.

I can't think of a single prominent Democrat who has done what Gingrich, McCain, and Giuliani have done. And Gingrich and Giuliani have done it twice.

It's hard to lead the defense of "traditional marriage" when you're in Gingrich's shoes, but he has the balls to try. I suppose I should salute his chutzpah, but I appreciate the work he's done to undermine his cause.; 6/28/09, 12:06 PM
Jeremy said...: Zeb Quinn said..."For a study in cases, compare the way the MSM's has covered Sanford during the last week with the way they covered the story about John Edwards and his affair."

First of all, the MSM includes Fox News...right? It includes the Weekly Standard, the Washington Times, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, etc.

As to your point: You're lying through your teeth. The MSM (including all mentioned above) ran hundreds of stories about Edwards, and his wife has appeared on numerous TV and radio shows describing every aspect of the situation in great detail.

If you Google "John Edwards Affair" you get 17,000 hits and you're talking about a story that's 10 months old.

The Sanford story will bring up many more hits because it's only a week old.

You need to read more and talk less.; 6/28/09, 12:06 PM
Frodo Potter said...: There is no shortage of hypocrites to go around on either side of political spectrum. I do agree with Jason the Commenter that liberals are, at this point in time, much more preachy and self-righteous. I am reminded of Hillary Clinton’s statement that “a Christian cannot be a Republican.” I had to laugh, because it was the mirror of something that someone in the Religious Right had once said to me: “A Christian cannot be a Democrat.” So both sides have that attitude, but frankly, in recent years, liberals have been worse.

I went to graduate school with a man who had been raised in a strict religious home. If it wasn’t fundamentalist, it was awfully close. He became a horribly twisted, leftist graduate student spouting off all the politically correct slogans. He really was a self-propelled cliché. One of the other graduate students, a middle-aged woman, once said to him “You’re still preaching. It’s just that, instead of preaching Jesus, you are preaching political correctness.”

The long and the short of it is that preachy people in general tend to be *boring.* Perhaps their preachiness is to compensate for the fact that they aren’t living the life and they know it and we know it and deep down they know that we know it. It might also be their malignant narcissism.

That’s why, when anyone actually backs up their words with their life, they tend to stand out like gold. Not only are they believable; they are also not boring. I would include in this group: Lincoln, Churchill, the Roosevelts, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Mother Teresa. Setting an example with your life—what a concept.; 6/28/09, 12:08 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Ann, Rush Limbaugh's manner of speaking may not be typically cloaked in religiosity, I guess you'd know that better than me.

But you might want to look around on Limbaugh's use of religion in his rantings. I've found a few with a little Googling.

Like this:

If you don’t believe in God, you have no meaning in your life, and you will thus search for meaning, and you will find it anywhere. Most people, even atheists, want religion of some kind in their life. Hello, global warming, as a substitute — apparently unrecognized and not even organized — religion. Yet it is. So you can set the stage for more people, if the atheists were to ever get their way, of establishing global warming as an unofficial religion that does force people to behave in religious ways just to a false god: the earth, a tangible god. .

You cannot believe in the God of Creation and believe manmade global warming. .

Yeah, I've listened to him on the radio from time to time. But he is
intentionally insulting to liberals, so I spare myself in short order.; 6/28/09, 12:08 PM
Jeremy said...: peter hoh said..."I'm willing to cut Sanford a little slack. His transgressions aren't up there with Spitzer, Clinton, and Vitter."

Based on what...other than being a wingnut?

A sitting Governor leaves his state (remember Karina?), tells no one where he is, lies to his constituents, his family, his staff, touts family values...and you say his "transgressions" aren't comparable?

The Republicans have become the hypocritical laughingstock of American politics.; 6/28/09, 12:10 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Titus, the only female pol I've heard rumors about is the late Helen Chenoweth.; 6/28/09, 12:11 PM
Jason (the commenter) said...: DKWalser :All things being equal (which they never are), society benefits from stable male/female relationships and should do nothing to encourage alternatives.

Gay people getting married to straight people causes massive costs to society. Ask many a politician's wife. We should do anything to encourage an alternative.

Society need not bear the cost of granting the same benefits to same sex couples because society does not benefit in the same way from such relationships

Society benefits exactly the same way from same-sex marriages as it does from opposite-sex marriages.

We should respect and honor this tradition by preserving the male/female nature of marriage as respected by law.

I'm still waiting to hear a Republican caught in a sex scandal to say they cheated on their wife because gays can get married to each other.; 6/28/09, 12:12 PM
Jeremy said...: Frodo Potter said..."I do agree with Jason the Commenter that liberals are, at this point in time, much more preachy and self-righteous."

That's a ridiculous statement to make, especially based on the Republican Party's primary them of "family values" being at the center of their message to Americans.

Show me examples of how "liberals" are being more "preachy and self-righteous" than conservatives.

You're full of shit.; 6/28/09, 12:12 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Jeremy, if you read a little more carefully, you'd see that I listed 2 reasons I am willing to cut Sanford a little slack.; 6/28/09, 12:13 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Interesting post. A pastor asks:
Should Christians Listen To Rush Limbaugh?

My question in this post is not whether a Christian should ever listen to him, but whether a Christian should listen to Limbaugh for hours weekly and take his opinion as how to think on current issues. Most people listen to their pastors for maybe 30 minutes a week on Sunday mornings. If they listen to Limbaugh for hours weekly, who will more shape their thinking and character? The answer would be Limbaugh. Whether you believe his talk is changing you or not, it is. Proverbs 13:20 (NIV) He who walks with the wise grows wise, but a companion of fools suffers harm. In other words, whoever you listen to, whoever you spend time with, you become like.; 6/28/09, 12:15 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Jeremy, you seem to have some math problems along with your reading problems.

Googling "John Edwards affair" gets 17,000,000 results, not 17,000.

As it stands today, "Mark Sanford affair" gets 5,660,000 results.; 6/28/09, 12:16 PM
Unknown said...: To:
Frodo Potter

Of course, my friend,
You're Singing to the F****ing Choir !
You gotta be...

Only they could blithely equate:

Horribly twisted
with
Leftist

They's fightin words
to some thinkin' folks
dismiss us, as you may...

Ceer to take some of it back, m'boy?

No.
Fine
Next Holy Hymn, then, please.; 6/28/09, 12:17 PM
Jeremy said...: Jason said...""Sanctimonious" is you harping on Bristol."

Jason - I could care less if Bristaol is married or not, and I could care less if she wants to have more kids, married or not.
(Although touting abstinence while not practicing it herself is rather strange.)

My comments relate to Princess Sarah and her disingenuous bullshit relating to not accepting federal tax dollars, lying, and her preaching "family values" while evidently aware of what her own family is doing.; 6/28/09, 12:17 PM
Jeremy said...: Petey - It was a typo, and if that's the only thing you can come up with, what does that say about your argument?

Fuck off.; 6/28/09, 12:19 PM
Unknown said...: To Jason (the Commenter)
My deep apologies,
for what I said earlier,
after reading your clever and incisive response to DKWalser.
(I was just flying off at the handle, at the time.); 6/28/09, 12:22 PM
Swifty Quick said...: Jeremy: The MSM had to be drug to the Edwards story kicking and screaming the whole way. They covered it up for months and months, until the National Enquirer broke it and made hay with it. It was then and only then that the media began covering the story. I already made these points but you must be too stupid to understand them. Maybe somebody will read them to you.; 6/28/09, 12:23 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Jeremy, no it's not the only thing I can come up with. You wrote:

The Sanford story will bring up many more hits because it's only a week old.

That's not how Google works.; 6/28/09, 12:32 PM
KCFleming said...: Jeremy and Voltare must be the same person.

Two different people can't be that identically boring.; 6/28/09, 12:33 PM
Jeremy said...: Princess ("sanctimonious) Sarah:

"Alaskanomics"
Fact Checker MaximusNYC

1. Claim: Sarah Palin turns down federal money and is fiscally responsible

Truth: Under Palin, Alaska receives more federal dollars per resident than any other state.

Alaska is the ultimate welfare state: it receives more federal tax dollars than any other state in the union.

Alaska ranks No. 1 in taxes per resident and No. 1 in spending per resident. Its tax burden per resident is 2-1/2 times the national average; its spending, more than double. (Time Magazine)

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has billed taxpayers for 312 nights spent in her own home during her first 19 months in office, charging a "per diem" allowance intended to cover meals and incidental expenses while traveling on state business.

2. The governor also has charged the state for travel expenses to take her children on official out-of-town missions. And her husband, Todd, has billed the state for expenses and a daily allowance for trips he makes on official business for his wife. (The Washington Post)

3. Palin, who portrays herself as a fiscal conservative, racked up nearly $20 million in long-term debt as mayor of the tiny town of Wasilla — that amounts to $3,000 per resident. (Politico.com)

4. The Alaska governor campaigned in 2006 on a build-the-bridge platform, telling Ketchikan residents she felt their pain when politicians called them "nowhere." They’re still feeling pain today in Ketchikan, over Palin’s subsequent decision to use the bridge funds for other projects - and over the timing of her announcement, which they say came in a pre-dawn press release that seemed aimed at national news deadlines. Meanwhile, Weinstein noted, the state is continuing to build a road on Gravina Island to an empty beach where the bridge would have gone - because federal money for the access road, unlike the bridge money, would have otherwise been returned to the federal government. (Boston Herald)

5. Palin didn't sell the previous governor's plane on eBay. It was listed a few times, but no one bought it. Ultimately, state officials sold it at a $600,000 loss. But in fact, the jet did not sell on eBay. It was sold to a businessman from Valdez named Larry Reynolds, who paid $2.1 million for the jet, shy of the original $2.7 million purchase price. (New York Times); 6/28/09, 12:36 PM
Unknown said...: To: Pogo:

And you sir, are surely THRILLING at every juncture.; 6/28/09, 12:36 PM
Jeremy said...: Pogo said..."Jeremy and Voltare must be the same person. Two different people can't be that identically boring."

And yet another truly intellectually stimulating comment from this little fool.

Why are you sooooo obsessed with me?; 6/28/09, 12:37 PM
Jeremy said...: Zeb Quinn said..."Jeremy: The MSM had to be drug to the Edwards story kicking and screaming the whole way."

Based on what????

Good lord, the story has been out there for 10 months, it's still, to this day being reported on, and you say the MSM ignored it?

Provide evidence of such.; 6/28/09, 12:39 PM
Unknown said...: To: lyssalovelyredhead
I'm very sorry if I offended you.
My only point, from my own long experience,
was that having "Faith" ("a Faith", whatever)
should never be confused with
having a guarantee against providence
and the unknwn.; 6/28/09, 12:46 PM
Eric said...: Why do liberal democrats constantly tell Republcans what they must do to win?

That's not what's happening here. Dowd is trying to convince herself Republicans can't win without being more like her. In reality they'll probably do very well next year.; 6/28/09, 12:47 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Jeremy, it's possible to be a liberal and believe that the mainstream media (FOX, included) was reluctant to investigate the rumors about Edwards' infidelity. It took the National Enquirer to break the story.

And now I go back to not feeding the troll.; 6/28/09, 12:49 PM
Joseph said...: Sanctimonious has a broader meaning today than just religious and I think Palin and Limbaugh fit the modern usage of the term.

Also, I think most people who opine on how religion should shape public policy and private behavior are not great religious scholars or careful parsers of scripture. Some are. But most form their opinions and then use religion to justify their beliefs. As such, I don't see a lot of difference in the way people talk about how to be patriotic in the right way and how to be religious in the right way. Patriotism and religion act as shields against criticisms of your views.; 6/28/09, 12:50 PM
Unknown said...: To Peter Hoh:

Take it from all of us TROLLS,

we sure are glad YOU'RE NOT a TROLL, PETER.

And now we'll go back to not feeding the non-troll.; 6/28/09, 12:54 PM
Unknown said...: To Joseph:

Can we believe it?

A breathe of fresh air !!!; 6/28/09, 12:57 PM
TZ said...: Dude, it's spelled "Voltaire." I know, picking nits.; 6/28/09, 1:02 PM
Unknown said...: SpellCheck:
Montagne
Diderat
Dikkens
Erazmus
Aristottle
Heidegar
Aquineous
Ahmadinejead; 6/28/09, 1:07 PM
William said...: Hypocritical? Let us count the ways that Democrats are hypocritical: Al Gore has a carbon footprint larger than an active volcano and wishes us to forgo plastic shopping bags on our next trip to the grocery. The Clintons made one hundred million dollars in less than eight years by advocating the causes of the poor. It is amazing how many Democrats have become extremely wealthy by speaking up for the poor. Even in the field of sexual indiscretion where the Republicans have a narrow lead, the Democrats have produced the true greats, the real hall of famers. The Kennedys' have a body count. No American politician will ever surpass Clinton in sheer grubby venality. He deserves his own wing in the Hall of Shame......To be fair to Dowd, she was just as critical of Clinton and all the other sexual sinners as she was of Sanford. But why limit hypocrisy to the field of sex (where every decent person is a hypocrite) and ignore all the other human endeavours where there is a gap between our deeds and our aspirations.; 6/28/09, 1:14 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Gingrich is best known for 1994's Contract With America, a ten point inititiave put forward by Republcans. It did not contain any of the fiery social issues which are normally associated with social conservatives.

It was Gingrich who demanded those more divisive issues be left out of the Contract. Yet he still gets pilloried as a far right religious zealot.

I guess it's like everyone thinks "child molestor" when they first think of Michael Jackson. Heh.; 6/28/09, 1:14 PM
Jennifer said...: lol Sy.

DKWalser - I stand corrected. Throw the if back in there. But, I would note that many if not most people seem to throw the sanctity of marriage thing in to their argument at some point.; 6/28/09, 1:17 PM
Kansas City said...: I hesitated to read the Dowd column, but then did so and my reactions were: (1) the column was pleasantly amusing; and (2) once again, what is the possible rationale for giving Down a piece of the NYT editorial page for the past almost 20 years. She writes almost nothing of substance.

The last sentence is just a throw away slap at Republicans so she can claim her literary efforts had something to do with politics.; 6/28/09, 1:18 PM
traditionalguy said...: Since hypocracy means playing an acting/actress role on stage, when that same actor/actress has another personality off stage, it is a small accusation indeed to make towards a political person. It is a hoot for Dowd to speak to this point. It's only a problem for Republicans with their fundamentalist voting bloc. That was the Dan Rather trick on Bush that failed by being a forgery; but it was crafted to expose Bush as a youthful drug user which would dicourage his support among the fundamentalists. All the whooping and hollering today is also being done to point out the failing of GOP leaders to their fundie supporters So the antidote is not to talk about it..; 6/28/09, 1:25 PM
Unknown said...: To AJ Lynch

Newt Gingrich may not have LEAD the fight to IMPEACH Bill Clinton, but he sure as hell did not act to temper the actions of his congessional colleagues, or speak out in moderation.

And, of course, all this was ocuuring while he was doing the same damn thing !

U'm... Now. What were you saying??; 6/28/09, 1:25 PM
Unknown said...: To Jennifer

Jennifer said...

lol Sy.

DKWalser - I stand corrected. Throw the if back in there. But, I would note that many if not most people seem to throw the sanctity of marriage thing in to their argument at some point.

As a good Christian which you likely are,
and are to be appleauded for, please don't be so quick to cave into Mannichean (either / or) thinking.

"Christian thought" should not be an oxymoron.; 6/28/09, 1:31 PM
JAL said...: touting family values and abstinence while her daughter has a baby out of wedlock, then doesn't marry the father?

So anyone who believes that kids should hold off on having sex and babies who happens to have a kid who goes ahead and has sex and consequently a baby, and doesn't marry the father, that person should change their basic value system because the the child is stupid? Or that they are hypocrits to hold those values dear?

See? That's the kind of logic which comes out of a truly self righteous pristine perfectionism that many liberals seem to espouse.

Just because it doesn't have the name of a denomination or particular religious group doesn't mean this kind of thinking isn't a religious belief system. In and of itself reminds me of the perfectionism of the 19th century utopians.; 6/28/09, 1:51 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: Being lectured by Marueen Dowd about sanctimoniousness...

When circumstances change the Republicans will win again. The country got tired of them, and the unpopular wars and economic crisis convinced more people to vote democrat.

Way too many people think that politics is completely driven by decisions made by politicians. Not really. What happens outside their control is at least as important.

And yes, what the left minds repellent about republicans isn't necessarily what the public thinks.; 6/28/09, 1:51 PM
Kansas City said...: The funny thing about political parties reviving themselves is that it almost always is the result of events over which neither party has any real control. Reagan ascends because of the Iranian hostage and bad economy situations. Obama ascends because of the Iraq War and the economic downturn. Clinton because of the economic downturn. FDR due to the depression (while conservative politicians were advancing in Europe).

It is a matter of timing and events. Whoever is out of power when bad things happens becomes the beneficiary and "revives" politically.

So the Republicans will ascend when bad things happen. It could be as early as 2010 if the economy does not improve, because Obama is doing a bunch of things that he claims will improve the economy.; 6/28/09, 1:54 PM
JAL said...: And I am still trying to figure out how Palin got grouped with those guys.

Being a person of faith (unless it is covert) qualifies one as being "sanctimonious?"

Oh ye of Northeast - West Coast elitism -- Smite thyselves.; 6/28/09, 1:54 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: And I had a revelation about the continuing hatred of Sarah Palin.

1. She's pretty, so she must be stupid.

2. She's from a small town, so she must be stupid.

3. She's a Republican, so she must be stupid.

4. She has a lot of kids, so she must be stupid.

5. She's a woman, so she must be stupid.

Those are the underlying themes for most of the attacks on her. It's an insight into human nature, I guess, that people tend to abandon their own principles when attacking their enemies.; 6/28/09, 1:54 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: SpellCheck:
Montagne
Diderat
Dikkens
Erazmus
Aristottle
Heidegar
Aquineous
Ahmadinejead

Just because other ignoramuses can't spell is no excuse for you. It isn't as if the name were already taken in an on-line game and you had to make some changes to get close.; 6/28/09, 1:56 PM
TZ said...: I admit I reduced myself to the level of troll, and I apologize, but I was just amused by somebody, who is putting such great effort into projecting an erudite image in these comments, fucking up his own screen name that way.

Shoulda spell-checked the name.

I just thought it was funny. Nothing personal. Sorry for the OT.; 6/28/09, 2:06 PM
Synova said...: "It's only a problem for Republicans with their fundamentalist voting bloc. That was the Dan Rather trick on Bush that failed by being a forgery; but it was crafted to expose Bush as a youthful drug user which would dicourage his support among the fundamentalists."

And Kerry with his sly *wink* *wink* did you know Cheney has a Lesbian daughter, *wink*.

The "sanctimonious" thing is mostly a construct anyhow. Few Republicans bring up social issues if they can help it and then only in general terms. People hear what they want to hear... and I'm not talking about the Fundie base. I don't know how many times someone has said that these Republicans in the "sanctimonious pantheon" want to force their morality on people... and that's just fantasy. And I can't help but think that the *assumption* that the plan is to force other people to a moral standard is pure projection. What moral stand on the LEFT aren't they trying to force on people after all?

Charity via government? Multi-culturalism? Approval (not tolerance) of the approved morality? Healthy eating in urban areas? Eco-activism and a religious belief in the evil of "carbon"?

Is it any wonder that the simple fact that we assume that Republicans actually *believe* in their religion based morality (unlike Hillary or Obama, who just say stuff and don't mean it) that, even if they say NOTHING about public policy, that so many on the left insist on *hearing* what is never said?; 6/28/09, 2:08 PM
Unknown said...: to T:

You are so touching with the thoughtfulness kindness of your remarks. It is SUCH a massive break from some of the hyper-partisan IDEOLOGY that goes under the name of DISCUSSION.

Not for a moment did I take your helpful spelling correction as something mean or aggressive.

Thank you for your obviously enlightened spirit.; 6/28/09, 2:10 PM
Kansas City said...: Liberals are scared to death of Palin and have mounted a ferocious [sp?] attack on her to try to preempt her becoming president someday. So, of course, Dowd will lump us in with the alleged bad crowd of republicans.

By the way, as of now, the liberal campaign against Palin seems to have worked. She needs a big moment to demonstrate her intelligence, and I don't see how she gets the opportunity. To some extent, however unfair it was, she had the opportunity and did not succeed. In part, she was too nice to Gibson and Couric in their inteviews and, in part, she was not ready for big time media attention/attack.; 6/28/09, 2:13 PM
Synova said...: And, of course, we all saw how ANGRY the left got when Republicans weren't sanctimonious and judgmental about Bristol.; 6/28/09, 2:13 PM
TZ said...: I did have a little fun at your expense, Voltare. I can't promise it won't happen again, because that's the way I am. But never is any malice intended.

I hijacked again. I'm sorry. The discussion, as is the norm on Althouse, is fascinating. I'm going to shut up now.; 6/28/09, 2:15 PM
TZ said...: I am, however, thinking about changing my name to "Montaskew."; 6/28/09, 2:19 PM
Titushasn'thadsexinalontime said...: I wish Dowd would go back to slamming Obambi and Hilary and Bill. I like her when she does that.

When she goes off on republicans I wish she would be fired.; 6/28/09, 2:22 PM
Titushasn'thadsexinalontime said...: With Vitter staying in office and Craig not resigning and Sanford saying he is not resigning we can't even say that our politicians resign when they have an indiscretion.
Or that we kick them out.; 6/28/09, 2:27 PM
Titushasn'thadsexinalontime said...: If you don't want a politician who cheats on their spouse vote for a women.

Women are better than men. There is said it.; 6/28/09, 2:31 PM
XWL said...: I think it's hypocritical to get so worked up over hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy doesn't bother me, so long as there is contrition when caught.

The bigger question is why and how did hypocrisy become the greatest of sins?; 6/28/09, 2:32 PM
Titushasn'thadsexinalontime said...: Except Liddy Dole, she is gross.; 6/28/09, 2:32 PM
Unknown said...: Dust Bunny Queen said:
=====
re:
SpellCheck:
Montagne
Diderat
Dikkens
Erazmus
Aristottle
Heidegar
Aquineous
Ahmadinejead
=====
Just because other ignoramuses can't spell is no excuse for you. It isn't as if the name were already taken in an on-line game and you had to make some changes to get close.

Hmm... you must surely be right and I am chastised. I'll take your kind guidance under careful consideration for the next time I visit the right wing, so as to not unthinkingly display my ignorance,and to prejudiced people against me, more than they should be.

Fer'ever in your debt, Dus'Bun'Lady; 6/28/09, 2:43 PM
Unknown said...: T said...

I am, however, thinking about changing my name to "Montaskew."

June 28, 2009 2:19 PM

CLASSIC PARTING SHOT !!!; 6/28/09, 2:49 PM
Jason (the commenter) said...: John Lynch, don't forget her accent. I've always assumed a lot of the hostility towards her was because her accent showed she didn't come from the "proper class".; 6/28/09, 2:56 PM
Eric said...: The bigger question is why and how did hypocrisy become the greatest of sins?

Hypocrisy becomes the greatest human failing precisely when you no longer believe in the concept of sin.; 6/28/09, 3:19 PM
Naked Surfer said...: “Limbaugh ... can get maudlin and religionistic in his patriotism — when he does one of his ‘American exceptionalism’ riffs ... but I suspect he's not interested in religion at all, and he doesn't pretend to be.”

MaMa, Machiavelli.; 6/28/09, 3:25 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: Voltare= Volare + T

Volare!; 6/28/09, 3:38 PM
Steve M. Galbraith said...: Look, the conservative religious element is too harsh and ugly in their condemnation of those who don't meet their supposed standards of decent behavior.

But it is difficult listening to a lecture on not being sanctimonious from the same crowd who tell the right (and everyone not on the left) that they're too greedy and don't care about the sick or children.

Good grief, nothing is more sanctimonious than a liberal lecturing us about compassion and charity.

Only through the state of course.; 6/28/09, 3:38 PM
Joe said...: hyp⋅o⋅crite /ˈhɪpəkrɪt/ [hip-uh-krit]e

–noun

1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

* * *

I print this to reinforce that a hypocrite is about what an individual believes, not what a group they may belong to believes. Nor does it matter what a third party claims and individual believes.

Spitzer is a hypocrite because he prosecuted prostitutes and claimed many times they were a blight and yet used their services.

Vitter, Craig and Ensign were hypocrites because they were outspoken about "family values". Ensign was particularly bad because he criticized Craig directly (Saying that what Craig did was stupid, is valid. Telling him directly that he should resign for his behavior is what makes Ensign a hypocrite.)

I really don't know if Sanford is a hypocrite. Did he speak about how important family values were? Did he claim to be faithful?

I don't think Clinton was a hypocrite vis-a-vis his trysts. Liar, yes, but I don't recall him ever making public statements that would qualify him as a hypocrite.

I'm not sure Gingrich is a hypocrite either.

Al Gore is a huge hypocrite. Limbaugh was in regards to drugs (don't know if he still is, I can't stand listening to him.); 6/28/09, 3:41 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: The other source of insecurity about Palin, I think, is that she didn't marry anyone to get where she is.

That's an implicit threat to Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama. They were very educated, very intelligent women who got where they are through very traditional means. Hence all the sneers about Palin's lowly background.

Who's really the feminist?; 6/28/09, 3:45 PM
Unknown said...: The main source of insecurity about Palin
as felt by GOPers
is simple:
she has a hard time encouraging people to imagine that she can think, either creatively or logically.

She is physically attractive and she has been trained as a sportscaster. She believes all sorts of mumbo jumbo on Sundays. She thinks she has the ability to be President of the United States. She aspires to greatness without the wherewithal or any of the "right stuff" or the demonstrated ability to acquire it.

Don't they lock people up for less than that?
Or, maybe, pet them and put them in the corner for a while?

Sorry, people, I am completely unable to comprehend the reasoning that leads to "Palin for President."

I'll just call the phenomenon "American Masochism", or-- more hopefully-- just "Republcan Masochism".; 6/28/09, 3:59 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: Olberman was a sportscaster.; 6/28/09, 4:03 PM
Unknown said...: Olbermann never aspired to be President of these United States...

And if he ever entertained such thoughts he'd have a hard slog making the case thar he'd be any good at the challenges of the Presidency. Perhaps he should try.

Palin did. And she failed miserably.
McCain's biggest burden was Palin.
If it were not for PALIN and for the COLLAPSE of the Banks and Financial System in September and October, 2008, McCain would very likely be president. If he had chosen ROMNEY, he'd have been a shoe-in even WITH the COLLAPSE.; 6/28/09, 4:10 PM
Joe said...: Palin did. And she failed miserably.

So? Most people fail at something they've tried.

As for McCain winning with anyone. Not a chance. Besides the press being in the bag for Obama, McCain's handlers totally fucked up his relationship with the MSM. Even before picking Palin, McCain was busy self-destructing.; 6/28/09, 4:14 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Volare wo ho ho ho
Contado wo ho ho ho; 6/28/09, 4:18 PM
Mo MoDo said...: As defined above, Dowd sets out to prove that Sanford is a hypocrite. She uses this style I call a Dowdversion to contrast his public statements to his private actions. I've broken them down side-by-side to make them even easier to spot.; 6/28/09, 4:37 PM
Gina said...: We heard all about how Obama was just like Jesus only more ecologically aware and cosmopolitan, but Republicans are moralizing hypocrites? Good grief. Come live in the Bay Area and tell me about hypocritical morons on high horses.; 6/28/09, 5:00 PM
Gina said...: She aspires to greatness without the wherewithal or any of the "right stuff" or the demonstrated ability to acquire it.

You must be talking about Obama. Not sure he'd appreciate the "she."; 6/28/09, 5:05 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Voltare is Jeremy Gene Olson.

Only one person could possess so much irrational hatred of Palin.; 6/28/09, 5:12 PM
OhioAnne said...: The main source of insecurity about Palin
as felt by GOPers
is simple:
she has a hard time encouraging people to imagine that she can think, either creatively or logically.

Or, in other words, you are saying that all the Alaskans who voted for her when she won the election for governor are ....what exactly?

In your attempt to make a joke at Palin's expense, you missed a clear point. Whatever complaint you have with her, she has ACTUALLY done more governing that President Obama did prior to his election.

It would explain his inability to speak without a teleprompter and most of his legislative agenda to date, however.; 6/28/09, 5:44 PM
Joseph said...: People think Palin is stupid because she says stupid things. People also don't like her because she is sarcastic and divisive.

I couldn't care less that she is a woman or from a small town or has an annoying accent. Hillary is all of those too.; 6/28/09, 5:46 PM
OhioAnne said...: And, in the process of editing my previous comment, I cut out my point. Here it is:

You may actually have thoughtful, logical reasons to not vote for Palin that I would be more than happy to hear and consider. However, your tendency to make your criticism "all or nothing", lessens the credibility of the comment.

She is the Governor of a state - that alone indicates she can think both creatively or logically. Temper your misogynistic tendencies and discuss issues and you may make a convert.; 6/28/09, 5:51 PM
Synova said...: "She believes all sorts of mumbo jumbo on Sundays."

So... this is bigotry against people who believe "mumbo jumbo" on Sunday?

"...she has a hard time encouraging people to imagine that she can think, either creatively or logically."

Really? Perhaps it's just that her accent is transparent to me, but I think that those who can't imagine that she can "think" have an enormous vested interest in the conclusion that she can't. She's not from the right class, she didn't go to the right schools, she didn't limit her family size or get where she got by promoting her husband's career and then riding his coat-tails.

"If it were not for PALIN and for the COLLAPSE of the Banks and Financial System in September and October, 2008, McCain would very likely be president."

This is called "alternate reality" and is shelved with the science fiction and fantasy in your local book store.; 6/28/09, 6:06 PM
Synova said...: "I've always assumed a lot of the hostility towards her was because her accent showed she didn't come from the "proper class"."

I don't think this can be over-stated. People who look to government for answers want to vote for someone they can pretend is better than they are.

Part of the American Dream used to be expressed as the fact that anyone could grow up to be President. Now that's turned on it's head. She's too common, too much like you and me, doesn't have the right back-ground and doesn't have the lofty education that so very few have access to.; 6/28/09, 6:23 PM
Anonymous said...: So, Jesse Jackson having an affair doesn't show any sign of Dems being hypocrites?

Clinton --- who cited God every thirty seconds --- doesn't show it?

Kennedy having affairs and killing women isn't a sign of problems for Dems?

Interesting.; 6/28/09, 7:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Sanford having an affair is hypocrisy --- but Obama opposing school choice while sending his kids to a private school isn't? That's how it works?

Reporting on Edwards' affair is ridiculous because he's not an elected official --- but obsessing over a Christian leader for the same isn't, right?; 6/28/09, 7:16 PM
Anonymous said...: A sitting Governor leaves his state (remember Karina?), tells no one where he is, lies to his constituents, his family, his staff, touts family values...and you say his "transgressions" aren't comparable?

I'm a constituent. He never lied once to me about where he was.

As for his family --- isn't that "private" and not our business? Or does that mean it's now fair game to notice that Bill lied to his family for a LONG time about his problems and how that meant he should've been impeached?

My comments relate to Princess Sarah and her disingenuous bullshit relating to not accepting federal tax dollars, lying, and her preaching "family values" while evidently aware of what her own family is doing.

Joe's daughter is a coke head. You want to compare who has a more screwed up daughter? His son is being accused of fraud.

And, of course, all this was ocuuring while he was doing the same damn thing !

Newt lied under oath to a grand jury?

John Lynch, don't forget her accent. I've always assumed a lot of the hostility towards her was because her accent showed she didn't come from the "proper class".

I find it amazing that they constantly mention that she says "betcha" --- yet manage to leave out the plethora of "uhs" that Barack utters whenever he speaks without a script.; 6/28/09, 7:28 PM
Anonymous said...: the point i wanted to make about hypocrisy that i probably was too vague on, gees, i mentioned genesis...

is that jewish law stems from the commandments of which 80% was basically

do not (shall not) do this

only 20% deal with honoring the female the male and time.

then jesus came along and some recorded his whole message as

LOVE one another, love love love. Positive parenting.

I think that is misreported. In today's world Jesus would bediagnosed borderline personality like some of the people whose eyes i see in the mirror. All that self harm of becoming anorexic in the desert, or letting himself be tortured without proper defense.

In the end of his story the rule of do unto others as you would have them do unto you comes out to me.

Now the LOVE people just see this as i want everybody to love me. i don't think that is what he meant. What would you do if you find your best friend in difficulties? You gotta have a borderline personality to answer this question correctly in my book, and that's how i get in trouble with how i am handling some family problems right now. Not all of us are diagnosed borderline.

dang eyes in the mirror. that's why a couple people are calling me a hypocrite because of my beliefs as of late.

I think you have to evaluate hypocrisy from the standpoint of the preaching. Are you a love preacher. Are you a shall not preacher.

or somewhere flip floppy in between like me: with do onto others as i would have you do onto me which means don't shower me with love, love, love. let me go through some difficult times. the more you know me the more you know my borders., Or let me let myself figure this out, let me keep my privacy, let me experiment, let me take the risk even if you wouldn't because i am not afraid of this action as you are. I am not afraid of disgrace.I may cry and wine about it, but for a female my stoicism is more toward the male skew.

The trouble with yes we can preaching is that it is like that positive parenting where you never say no to a child. It's that love, love love stuff. That works for a while until your darling 2 year old tries to hurt the 3 month old child and you freak out scream NO! and may even grab his arm forcefully without even realizing it.

then the positive parenting people are waiting to yell hypocrite, and some of your older generation parents say... reality at last! without accusations and jeering, but with a smile because time has been honored.

I believe there are yes we can democrats and yes we can republicans. That's why are don't get politics along party lines.; 6/28/09, 7:52 PM
Synova said...: I pray that you've been finding some comfort in the genesis tape, nansealinks, I know that life for you has been particularly challenging lately. I hear the "love, love, love" thing... I don't think that anything, old testament or new, suggests any promise that anyone can avoid hardship, just that we might find the strength to face it. "Love, love, love" seems contrary to scripture and contrary to common sense. As parents we don't "love" our children by removing all of the pain in their lives. It would be harmful to them to do that.

What I've been taught and what I believe is so, is that the "thou shall nots", besides being good practical rules in a lot of ways, are rules that can not be met... not by anyone... all have sinned. They show us our need for our debt to be forgiven, for grace, for Jesus. The "love, love, love" of Jesus doesn't negate the "thou shall nots" but there is never any expectation that the "thou shall nots" are an attainable goal.; 6/28/09, 9:11 PM
blogging cockroach said...: hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue
--la rochefoucauld; 6/28/09, 9:26 PM
hdhouse said...: next time i call rush a sanctimonious prick perhaps maureen and i will have it wrong...

sooooo unlikely; 6/28/09, 9:48 PM
Anonymous said...: synova,

thanks for the comments. i'd elaborate a bit more, but now hdhouse has commented and the last nut case doctor i had to visit was named house and i've become paralized with paranoia at the moment.

Sorry hdhouse to make inproper associations just because of your name.; 6/28/09, 10:11 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: From Dictionary.com

SANCTIMONIOUS
Adjective
1. Making a hypocritical show of religious devotion, piety, righteousness, etc.: They resented his sanctimonious comments on immorality in America.
2. Obsolete. holy; sacred.

Using these definitions, I don't think either Rush or Palin are sanctimonious. But Ted Kennedy, Bill & Hillary Clinton, Jesse Jackson, John Edwards (maybe even Eliz. Edwards too) certainly are IMO.; 6/28/09, 10:35 PM
Beta Conservative said...: A pro-life woman in her 40's brings a Downs Syndrome baby to term, having faith that the joys will out weigh the burdens, and knowing it is not her choice to end the life of an innocent.

And then she is accused of being a hypocrite.

My,my. Whom of her attackers has that level of integrity?; 6/28/09, 11:07 PM
kentuckyliz said...: maureen odowd fucked her way to the top

so why does she care if anyone at the top fucks

i admit i don't follow sc politix very closely but i keep seeing sanford described as a libertarian and a fiscal conservative...but not especially as a social conservative...so are the leftards lying again when they accuse him of being a bible beater

he doesn't talk like one

his wife sounds nice
he is a very lucky man to have her

and if she's smart she won't sink to his level so she can hold that over his head forever and ever amen, w/o saying a word; 6/28/09, 11:12 PM
Chip Ahoy said...: Speaking of annoying accents, the winner of The Most Annoying Accent Award for all of Congress is Senator Susan Collins of Maine. Whenever she speaks it sounds like she must push her tongue out of the way for each and every excruciating syllable. The imitation I do of her is most annoying. One minute of it and you're ready to punch me right in the face. POW! "Stop it, Chip, you're driving me crazy."; 6/29/09, 1:59 AM
Salamandyr said...: I love how as soon as a Republican does something wrong, they are immediately shot into the stratosphere of bigshots-even when the normal world has never heard of them. Makes it easier for guilt by association.

Now Ensign wasn't a nobody, and Sanford was a serious contender for 2012. But neither of them had the level of notoriety that Gingrich, Limbaugh, or Palin do.; 6/29/09, 10:53 AM
Unknown said...: I hear:

and if she's smart she won't sink to his level so she can hold that over his head forever and ever amen, w/o saying a word

referring to Jenny Sanford.

Wanna know the truth? Can you stand it???

If she is smart:
She'll leave him.
There's no proper resolution by "holding that over his head."

The woman has integrity and autonomy and should not accept the manipulative recipe you espouse.; 6/29/09, 1:04 PM
Revenant said...: And I am still trying to figure out how Palin got grouped with those guys.

Left-wingers hate her.

She's neither sanctimonious nor a hypocrite, but hey, this is Dowd we're talking about here. :); 6/29/09, 3:48 PM
Peter Hoh said...: If it's true, this should push the Edwards affair back to the front burner.; 6/29/09, 11:35 PM
Methadras said...: I think Limbaugh has said before that he identifies himself most as an Objectivist or at least a hybrid of a conservative with an Objectivist.; 7/1/09, 7:58 PM