Thursday, March 5, 2009

Republican Hypocrisy

From Griper Blade, one of my new favorite reads:
But, now that Republicans are in the minority, none of that is true anymore. It's cool to filibuster Obama's nominees, since it'll be Republicans who'll be doing it. That's not hypocrisy, that's... hell, I'm stuck. That's practically the definition of hypocrisy.

The worst thing about all this is that those few zombie voters still supporting Republicans will buy it all. Where they supported fighting the filibuster before, they'll buy all the arguments for filibustering judicial nominees now. When Rush Limbaugh said that screwing with Democratic primaries was the best idea anyone ever had, they went right out and did it. But when Rush accuses Democrats of doing the same, it suddenly borders on criminal. When Mitch McConnell complains about pork, they all freak out. When he loads the bill up with pork of his own, they'll look the other way.

Republican leaders get away with hypocrisy because Republican voters are just as hypocritical. When you've trained your voters to accept cognitive dissonance, the past doesn't actually exists. Republican voters exist in the Zen-like mindset of cattle -- there was no then, there is only now. Nothing that happened before now actually happened. There is no continuity of thought, no evolution of philosophy, because contradictions must be allowed to stand ignored.

It's nothing new for the Republican party, where hypocrisy is a way of life.
Read the whole thing here.

Couldn't have said it any better myself.

13 comments:

  1. I think the GOP should fillibuster Obama's nominees, if they are unethical. Oh wait, that is most of them.
    As far as pork, I agree with the author. The GOP says it doesn't like pork, but is glad to give it to their district. We know the democrats can't help themselves- they just don't have the self-control except for Russ Feingold and it appears most of the GOP has the same affliction.
    I won't say it often, but good for Feingold.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You mean like Sen. Gregg R-NH, who is under investigation?

    ReplyDelete
  3. But the all-time biggest award for hypocrisy still goes to your Democrat OB-GYN doctor buddy Sheldon Wassermann who lied about his opponent, a breast cancer survivor, not feeling well enough to campaign vigorously.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Get your facts straight Tom. Sheldon never said that about Alberta and scrupulously maintained a decent relationship with Alberta. How do you explain vicious the robo calls accusing Sheldon of performing abortions?

    And Dan, do you mean to be funny on purpose? Forgetting the ethically challenged Alberto Gonzales and the partisans that ended up on the Supreme Court? Time forbids me from going into great length.

    ReplyDelete
  5. krshorewood, do you have ANY proof of your wild claims? Didn't think so.

    Wassermann's attempt to smear Darling, on the other, is quite well documented.

    I like it when you guys just make up "facts".

    ReplyDelete
  6. Tom, I have as much proof as you just laid out. I like the way you gave me all sorts of time by answering your own question.

    Wow, bit of an edge Tom. What happened to your affable dry sense of humor?

    Working now. Be back later with enough links to make you go blind.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "How do you explain vicious the robo calls accusing Sheldon of performing abortions?"

    That question almost sounds like there is something wrong (or vicious) about being known for performing abortions. Hmmm.

    ReplyDelete
  8. What's wrong is accusing someone of performing abortions when they didn't, or using abortion to manipulate people to vote against their self-interest.

    ReplyDelete
  9. How do you know he never performed abortions? He's an OB-GYN. He very well may have performed abortions. But...what's interesting is how you think if he didn't perform abortions it is vicious to accuse him of performing them.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Three things,Tom:

    1) As I pointed out when you first posted that drivel, your links prove nothing. All you have is your inane rantings and a pamphlet with the comment, but attribution to who actually wrote it.

    2) If you want hypocrisy, how about you lying about a man whose wife is NOW fighting breast cancer, accusing him of slandering a breast cancer survivor. As the son of a victim of breast cancer, I find your slander to be very egregious.

    3) If we want to talk about baby-killers, how about holding Darling responsible for her role in the deaths of scores of Milwaukee County foster kids. These kids died just so her buddies and cronies could get a nice little profit. That is just sick, and the only thing that could compare is defending that murderer.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Capper, when you're confronted with proof, you just deny it. So please, please, please, explain hypocrisy to us all!!!

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm still waiting for the proof, Tom. Your paranoid rantings are not proof. BTW, did you see that yet another conspiracy theorist about Obama's birth was ridiculed in court, again.

    ReplyDelete