All About McCain

[alphabassettgrrl]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-lawyer-stonewallin_n_123179.html

McCain's campaign is trying to stall the release of the ethics report until after the election. Palin's lawyer is trying to get the investigation into the hands of a committee appointed by the governor. Partiality, much?

Rational actions, by those making them, trying to protect their image. Not so much something I want in an elected leader. Yes, I know the democrats pulled a lot of the same junk, I'm not letting them off the hook, but when you *know* ahead of time this is what they do when they step over the ethics line?

She's not saying she's innocent. She's saying she wants to stack the deck.

The daughter's boyfriend describes himself as "a f-ing redneck". He just wants to go hunting and fishing with the boys. Ok, fine, except now you're gonna be a daddy, and you need to make sure baby is taken care of which tends to cut into the leisure time. Not sure if his "doesn't want kids" is a setting, or something he specifically stated.

[Morrigoon]

Oooh, babydaddy's kinda cute:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_123089.html

[innerSpaceman]

Let's see how he looks at the end of the GoP's biggest shotgun on his wedding day in October.

[scaeagles]

I'll be interested to hear more about Obama's dealings with Ayers at the University of Illinois Chicago. I wonder why those records were selaed for so long at a public university?

Honestly, I don't much care about those. My point is EVERYONE has skeletons. The right will excuse and justify the skeletons of those on the right, and the left will do the same of those on the left. It's all about who you support.

[innerSpaceman]

I disagree. I'm pretty far to the left, but I generally pull my support if the skeletons pile up or start coming back to life as flesh-eating zombies.

I think what makes it look as if we treat Conservatives' skeletons differently is the element of hypocracy that often uniquely accompanies theirs.

The problem with decrying human nature in the public sphere and attempting to control it in others, is that it can't be controlled in yourself. We are all human, and Progressives have the advantage of allowing for that. So when "we" fukup, at least we haven't railed against that same thing in speeches and legislation. Human nature goes down much easier that way.


Ya know, the homophobes that get arrested in tearooms. The Fundies with unwed teen pregnancies at the time of their nomination, that kind of thing.


That's why we yawn when Clinton gets his dick sucked under the Oval Office desk. I'm not aware he ever badmouthed blowjobs.

[scaeagles]

I do see a bit of hypocrisy on the left, though. Let's talk about the Clinton example -

Palin is being slammed on in numerous areas regarding "bad judgment". I suppose I would regard the whole Clinton/Lewinsky thing as very poor judgment on the part of Clinton.

Clinton was accused of rape by...shoot, forgetting her name. This was seemingly glossed over by the left, whereas Clarence Thomas was crucified in hearings for supposedly talking about public hairs on a coke.

If an intern of some fortune 500 company had an intern doing the Lewinsky on him in his office, feminists would be claiming harrassment simply because he was a powerful male and she was his underling. No such thing with Clinton and Lewinsky.

So we can all find hypocrisy in our those we wish to because to some extent we are all hypocrits. Again, it just goes to where one looks to want to find it.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Clinton was accused of rape by...shoot, forgetting her name. This was seemingly glossed over by the left, whereas Clarence Thomas was crucified in hearings for supposedly talking about public hairs on a coke.

Juanita Broderick if I am not mistaken.

[Tenigma]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I do see a bit of hypocrisy on the left, though. Let's talk about the Clinton example -

[I was no fan of Clinton. It's what made me bounce to voting for Bush in 2000.]

I think the point here is that the Republicans (or for my purpose here, "social conservatives") and Democrats ("social liberals") use two different measuring sticks for hypocrisy.

For social conservatives, it's hypocritical if a politician publicly denounces homosexuality but is found to be a closet gay. Or they have anonymous gay sex in airport bathroom stalls. Hypocrisy is when you are a huge Bible-thumping born-again Christian who espouses the importance of motherhood and abstinence... but who leaves nannies to tend to their six-month-old special needs baby with Down Syndrome or who ignores her own house and pays too little attention to a daughter who then goes on and gets pregnant while still in high school.

That's hypocrisy for social conservatives. Not living what you preach to others.

For Democrats, hypocrisy would be telling everyone they have to conserve natural resources... and then find out that the politician had a whole mountainside of pristine old growth oak cut down so he could get a new wooden house built. Or quietly supporting the tear-down of a homeless shelter so that he could help his friend build a high-class restaurant on the location.

The hypocrisy would not be on social things, but on things the liberals stand for. Protecting the environment, protecting natural resources, etc.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Tenigma

For Democrats, hypocrisy would be telling everyone they have to conserve natural resources... and then find out that the politician had a whole mountainside of pristine old growth oak cut down so he could get a new wooden house built. Or quietly supporting the tear-down of a homeless shelter so that he could help his friend build a high-class restaurant on the location.

So you would regard Gore as a hypocrit? Or Edwards? Or Streisand? Or Robert Redford? I can give specific examples of those things, and have, but am often told that I just don't get it.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Tenigma

Hypocrisy is when you are a huge Bible-thumping born-again Christian who espouses the importance of motherhood and abstinence... but who leaves nannies to tend to their six-month-old special needs baby with Down Syndrome or who ignores her own house and pays too little attention to a daughter who then goes on and gets pregnant while still in high school.

That's hypocrisy for social conservatives. Not living what you preach to others.

I am a little confused here; what law has she signed or proposed that is at odds with her(not her daughters) behaviour?

For Democrats, hypocrisy would be telling everyone they have to conserve natural resources... and then find out that the politician had a whole mountainside of pristine old growth oak cut down so he could get a new wooden house built. Or quietly supporting the tear-down of a homeless shelter so that he could help his friend build a high-class restaurant on the location.

The hypocrisy would not be on social things, but on things the liberals stand for. Protecting the environment, protecting natural resources, etc.

Sounds like Gore and Pelosi