State Democrats are turning up the heat on the state's two Republican senators for their continued silence on Louisiana Sen. David Vitter and his admitted use of prostitutes provided by the infamous DC Madam.
A headline on a recent state Democratic Party news release called on Sens. Tom Coburn and Jim Inhofe to "denounce hypocrisy." The release also called on the senators to end their "blind allegiance to Republican colleagues…for the good of the nation."
The Democrats point out that Sen. Coburn is "well-known as one of the most zealous and vocal social conservatives in the U.S. Senate." Yet Coburn has continued to defend Sen. Vitter.
As for Sen. Inhofe, the Democrats note dryly that he "has continued his silence on what proves to be another Republican scandal."
Whatever happened to those old-fashioned virtues that Sooner State Republicans are always so quick to embrace? Isn't adultery one of the Ten Commandments and don't they apply to everyone, even holier-than-thou Republican legislators?
Apparently not—not if you are a Republican senator from Oklahoma.
6 comments:
Now, come on. Were you calling on Der Schlickmeister to resign after the Monica affair? Did you holler about him being a hypocrite when he went about with well-known men of the cloth after he was exposed? Did you holler about how bad Democrats were when they supported him throughout the impeachment proceedings?
No doubt, Senator Vitter sinned and he may well be unfit for office. I haven't looked into the matter in detail. But it seems distinctly possible that your only real problem with the situation is that he happens to be a Republican.
If Coburn and Inhofe want to continue reaping the extra political benefits of anointing themselves as holier-than-thou Christian conservatives, they are required to live up to their announced beliefs if we are not to believe they are hypocrites.
If Clinton had behaved better, would Republican social conservatives then be able to live up their professed beliefs? Or would they be forced to go back to FDR to find reasons to exempt themselves?
Welcome back, AT.
I had belatedly posted this on an earlier Vitter item here:
"...these GOP guys run around tooting the "family values" horn, asking voters to credit them with superior personal qualities on their own say-so, then get caught with their pants down. That's called "hypocrisy". Whoever voted for them on that basis got hoodwinked."
That goes for their apologists and enablers as well.
Sorry for over-commenting here, but I just had a novel idea: let's leave religiosity out of politics and get back to thinking rationally and constructively about actual issues.
Good things do not inevitably flow from people who spend a lot of time telling you how moral they are.
These things are so easy to turn around. It can so easily be
"...these Democrat guys run around tooting the "social justice" horn, asking voters to credit them with superior personal qualities on their own say-so, then get caught with their pants down. (like, say, William "Cold Cash" Jefferson) That's called "hypocrisy". Whoever voted for them on that basis got hoodwinked."
Senator Vitter's constituents may well have been hoodwinked. I don't know about Senators Coburn and Inhofe in this instance. It may well be that their attitude is that as no crime or offense against the state has been committed, the issue is between Senator Vitter and his state's voters. I do not say that this is their attitude, just that it might be.
I'd be more impressed with the left's continual accusations of "holier-than-thou" if they weren't so incredibly skilled at playing the same game. Only the names change. The left--with the possible exception of Jim Wallis--does not play "holier"-than-thou; it plays "more compassionate"-than-thou; "less racist"-than-thou; "more concerned about the poor"-than-thou; "more environmentally friendly"-than-thou; "more anti-hate" than thou; ad nauseaum.
Note, again, that I recognize that Senator Vitter may well be unfit for office. My principal point is that sexual immorality in a Democrat is apparently not such a big deal; it only becomes a big deal when Republicans indulge in it, apparently because Republicans champion moral positions and Democrats--this seems to be the only logical way they cannot be hypocritical on the issue--don't.
You can pursue that line of argument if you want to, but I don't know that it's going to help you much at the polls.
After seeing what the GOP has done to our country with their brand of "morality", I have little taste for more of it in our public servants. It has been much more of a talking point than an actuality, anyway.
It seems reasonable to me that Republicans should be judged against the standards they claim to hold. To continually cite Clinton and Jefferson vs. the broad and deep pattern of corruption and greed exhibited by the GOP smacks of the relativism the Right professes to abhor.
Post a Comment