Who Are The Hypocrites? -- Us Or Them? -- We Or They?

[arwalden]

Are the conservatives being hypocrites when they vilify Clinton and Ted Kennedy for their womanizing... yet they find it easy to turn a blind eye to Livingston, Gingrich, Packwood, Hyde, Barr and Arnold?

Or are liberals being hypocrites for making a big deal about Arnold's womanizing when we spent so much time defended Clinton and chastising conservatives for prying into his personal life.

Do liberals risk being labeled as hypocrites when we engage in a little "turnabout-is-fair-play" for political gain? Or are conservatives being hypocrites for whining about finding themselves on the business-end of their tried and true tactics?

Flame me if you want... but you'll only be flaming me for NOT having an opinion... not because I feel one way or the other about it.

I'm confused. I don't know how to feel about this one.

-- Allen

Edited one word for clarity. ("they" changed to "conservatives")

[zbdent]

1. Funny how people (especially the dark side) are happly to

suspend their morals when their buy is on the hot seat.

Any time some idjit falls back to their "last line of defense" "CLINTON DID IT!!", call them on it.

"And look how you screamed that you were above that. So you're willing to change your morals because it's your guy? You screamed for ten years that it was immoral!!"

[RichM]

2. There's plenty of hypocrisy on both sides.

It's not an either/or kind of question.

[eyesroll]

3. I don't think too many liberals complained about chastising

Clinton. Even moveon.org was founded as "Censure and Move On."

But the Republicans impeached the man over it. They spent, what, $60 million investigating it. And nothing other than infidelity and stupidity really was revealed.

I think both sides have a legitimate right to make a big deal about someone's womanizing (or other indiscretions) if they are recent, public (or in the Oval Office, anyway) and/or illegal.

If that sort of thing turns people off from voting for them, fine.

[Memekiller]

28. Did any of you read yesterday's "The Maddening Double Standard"?

Do you think the conservatives have thought once about their hypocrisy? Do you think they've hesitated for a moment? Of course not.

That makes us better than them. But their tactics have brought them in control of three branches of government.

[GOPFighter]

4. Good point..

Consistency is one of the hardest traits in life to master.

Arnold's groping is shocking and disgusting, but so was Clinton's womanizing. The reason why Democrats are making such a big deal about Ahnold is that the Republicans have become SO holier than thou when it comes to morality. They have worked hard to paint the Democratic Party as a party of moral degenerates, the party responsible for the moral decline in this country.

I just love rubbing their faces in their sexual scandals!!!!!

:evilgrin:

[meatloaf]

5. As in most cases you have to lok at each and

every instance and judge them on their own merits or lack thereof.

While Clinton mad many foolish choices and embarrassed, himself and his family, he ultimately didn't do anything criminal. Furthermore it must be considered in the context of an unprecedented national conservative witch-hunt, by a bunch of hypocritical, self-righteous demagogues.

Sharzenegger's behavior if accurately described is sexual assault.

The means by which this recall was begun and how it has played out since smacks of Republican manipulation of the state's election system.

It is right to ask ourselves if we are being more charitable to Dems, but we still have to call it as we see it, and the current group of Repubs are quite simply the greatest bunch of Hypocrites we've seen in quite some time.


edit* spelling correction.

[roughsatori]

6. Arnold's praise of Hitler/Clark's Praise of Bush

both are in the past. I hold them both accountable, but I notice some DUers hold only Arnold accountable for his past--and the same person will give Clark the "he's changed" defense.

Hypocrisy is part of human nature and a protective devise from facing the truth--it indicates a cognitive dissonance within the person exhibiting the behavior.

I think it is healthy that you ask the question.

Yesterday when I first hear of Limbaugh's alleged drug activities I said to a friend: "He needs to be thrown in jail for a long time." My friend showed me my own hypocrisy when he said: I thought you were for legalization of all drugs; yet, now you want to throw an addict in jail?" The important thing is to exposed Rush's hypocrisy in wanting druggies jailed while possibly being a druggie himself.

[op6203]

34. Funny you mention that....

"I thought you were for legalization of all drugs; yet, now you want to throw an addict in jail?"

I was just thinking about that earlier today.

"The important thing is to exposed Rush's hypocrisy in wanting druggies jailed while possibly being a druggie himself."

Much better tactic, IMO.

OP

[KittyWampus]

40. What A Disingenuous Comparison

Have you heard of diplomacy? Which is what Clark was practising... and which you seem to be an alien to.

I think for Arnold and his comments on Hitler it has something to do with adulation.

Yeah, I think Clark really looks up to Bush et al. That's why he's dissecting them and their agenda... in depth and in very easy to understand terms.

But I guess you don't want him bringing up the New American Empire & PNAC and how it's not truly American...

Why is that? Because he does it from a position of experience and deep understanding and perhaps your chosen candidate cannot?
Or perhaps you appreciate PNAC and despise Clark for exposing and opposing it.

[Capn Sunshine]

7. Welcome to the new landscape

the republican willingness to engage in these sort of attacks; to promote a " victory above all else" mindset, has gotten them where they are today.

The SAME things that first attracted you to the Democratic party; desire for fair play from the gov't, honesty in daily business, consideration to negative impact prior to impementing policy, and empathy with the less fortunate; these emotions are being USED AGAINST US.

Our fervent desire that we not have to take this road causes these conflicts. Our desire for intellectually honest negotiated peace works against us when the only procedure they know is all out partisan attack.

Until we rcognize THINGS HAVE CHANGED FOREVER, that the genteel acknowlegement of the concept of "loyal opposition",the right to ones opinion, all this is just GONE , we will see these conflicts.

Only due to our take on the issues do we even worry about hippocrisy. The neocons are so religious in their fervor, so different in their approach, they do not care about you and your sensibilities, they see you as the "disloyal enemy" who must be stamped out at whatever cost. They don't worry about the niceties like us because to them, this is WAR for survival of the species, and we are congenitally lacking the gene of strength to help us on to victory.

This is what they believe. That YOU Allen,and millions just like you , will see them coming and in your disbelief will hesitate just long enough to give over complete adbvantage as they accost you and kill you where you stand. Metaphorically , or in reality.


So until you recognize the old rules , the old days are over and we must use all we have to fight this evil cancer, perhaps becoming more like them in the process, the alternative is keeping your values an beliefs about a politicalsystem intact and becoming extinct.

[ShimokitaJer]

17. I disagree completely

If you fight fire with fire and win, "perhaps becoming like them in the process," then frankly it's not worth the fight. The GOP's techniques only work because the Dems have given them the opening to point the finger back and say "you too." Taking corporate money, committing ad hominem attacks, and demanding everyone adhere to the party line regardless of individual differences may work to temporarily take power, but they can't be used as tools for real change.

The GOP may have taken power, but their policies are beginning to alienate their own members. The famous GOP "party loyalty" is starting to fade, the result of their own extremist and divisive politics. It's that same blurring of the line that let people believe Nader when he claimed there was no difference between the parties.

It's not naive to believe that lofty goals require honesty and honor to achieve. The divisive politics you seem to advocate may be sufficient to bring Bush down, but they aren't going to help us build the Democratic party up. That can only come from standing by our ideals and giving the Republicans no room to accuse us of hypocrisy.

And, yes. That means accepting that Arnold's views on Hitler may have changed over the last 30 years. It means accepting his right to have a consensual orgy but condemning him if he committed sexual assault. It means condemning Limbaugh for his idiotic comments on black quarterbacks, but acknowledging that his drug addiction needs to be treated rather than attacked. Throwing Rush in jail may be a lot of fun, but it won't get a single poor black man convicted of drug possession out of his cell.

If you are willing to "become like them" to win, you've already lost.

[Capn Sunshine]

20. Well then, prepare for complete republican domination

They are counting on this exact argument from all of us.

[JaneQPublic]

8. Clearly Us'ns & Them'ns

I'm waiting for Maria and Hillary to do a duet of "Stand By Your Man."

[PatrickS]

9. Oh brother...

"Or are liberals being hypocrites for making a big deal about Arnold's womanizing when we spent so much time defended Clinton and chastising conservatives for prying into his personal life."

Arnold : unwanted sexual advances and groping; humiliating women.

Clinton : consensual acts between two adults.

See the difference?

Screw Arnold and the right! :)

[LondonReign2]

12. Damn Right

PatrickS.

Further, the left admitted what Clinton did was wrong--but we didn't believe that a consenual act between two adults warrented twisting the country up for 2 years.

We on the left on simply calling the right on their hypocrisy.

[Classical_Liberal]

31. Did Jones, Broderick and Willie

report consensual acts?

[PatrickS]

36. Please

I've been reading your posts in other threads about the same subject and there's no point of giving you an answer.

[Brian Sweat]

37. Did anyone ever prove their acusations?

Clinton denied them and there was never any proof. In fact there was evidence in each case the the women were being less than truthful.

[Classical_Liberal]

44. These people haven't proven anything either

and they didn't make them until just before the election, so there is not time to prove or disprove.

[elfwitch]

10. Tough One

I feel your pain. It bothers me too. I try to think of it all this way...

In certain games it doesn't pay to play fair. Monopoly and Politics are cut-throat games that can only be won by thinking of yourself first.

The (R) side is all about doing anything it takes to win. They don't care if it is fair, right, or good. They have a pathological need to win by any means necessary.

The (D) side still believes in fair play. They won't do anything to sink to the ever increasing new lows set by the (R) side. They are playing by the rules. The (R) side's policy is "Rules Schmules!"

If it were just a Monopoly game that was being played, then all the cheating in the world won't make much difference. In the end it is just a board game.

However, the political game isn't just play money and pretend real-estate. People's lives and families depend on the outcome of the games these people are playing.

Are we all hypocrites? Sure we are. Everyone has something they are hypocritical about. The best any of us can do is OWN our hippocracy and use it to our best advantage.

There is a Jewish commitment to social justice summed up in the phrase Tikkun Olam ("Repair of the World"). We all have to do the best we can to make the world a better place than it was when we found it. It is obvious the the (R) set have no desire for this or maybe cannot even comprehend the concept. If we have to sink to their levels to win the big prize, then those ends justify the means.

Tikkun Olam!

[ShimokitaJer]

19. That prize isn't worth winning

The prize we want isn't just the presidency or control of congress. It's a more democratic society with greater social equality for all the people of the US. You seem to think that it's possible to give up the moral high ground in order to win and then somehow retain enough integrity to inspire the people to work for ideals. I don't think it is.

You can't own your own hypocrisy. It always owns you, and once you've let it take control, you have to keep feeding it. It can be used to tear others down, but never to build yourself up.

[Capn Sunshine]

23. Thank You church lady for your kind views

I can't emphasize this enough. With that attitude you will be able to have secret democratic party tea parties in the future as you won't be able to accept they made your party illegal in 2006.

I'm not some reactionary. I have seen and heard and documented this being discussed by the right wing.

You are sitting in a pool as they fill it with gasoline, decrying how you would NEVER use fire on them. By the time you realize you should use fire, you are surrounded and its too late to even light a match.

[ShimokitaJer]

24. And your answer is to do the same to them?

to try to make their party illegal?

to attempt to disenfranchize voters because they might vote republican?

to throw them in a pool filled with gasoline and toss in a match?

Great. That's the way to build up the Democratic party.

[Capn Sunshine]

41. My answer is to kindly request you to wake up

before it's too late. How you choose to fight these battles must be up to you; I'm just warning you not to expect the same playing field you have grown used to.

This is like arguing aginst handgun use in an argument and they are pointing a cannon at you. It's a moot point.

I accept your notion of how things SHOULD be and desire that they SHOULD be that way. I only wish they were.They aren't.

[ShimokitaJer]

43. I'm not talking in hypotheticals

I'm not dreaming "wouldn't it be nice if we could all play together sweetly." I'm trying to tell you that wehn you decide to play by Freeper rules, you've let the Freepers define the rules of battle. It's in their best interest to have the American people distrustful of all politics and Democrats engaged in the same kind of attacks that the pundits engage in.

Look at the way people discuss candidates at DU. They grab the same tools used by the Freepers and use them to attack each other. Tell me again how this is supposed to help the Democrats? You can try to tell me that we should only use these attacks against Republicans, but you know as well as I do that, if it's the only way some people know how to attack, then that's the way they'll attack other Democrats they disagree with.

When you throw your energy into attacking candidates on the issues, you do everyone a service. But when you latch onto half-baked rumors and attack candidates of either party based on personal issues or faulty information, you damage your credibility. And when you do it telling people you belong to my political party and supporting my candidate, you damage MY credibility.

[elfwitch]

26. In a nutshell

That is pretty much what I was saying. There is a great line in Mel Brooks' "Spaceballs".
Dark Helmet: So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb.

Counting on the kindness of the pure evil is naive at best. They will never play fair. You cannot stop them by playing fair. I wish it could work that way but it just doesn't.

There is another phrase that keep coming to mind when I think about what THEY have done over the last few years: "Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're all not out to get you!"

[ShimokitaJer]

27. I'm not counting on the kindness of the repubs

Just the opposite, in fact. I'm counting on their lack of kindness to consume them.

Just watch this Plame scandal unfold. The Bush administration is going to start throwing each other to the dogs one by one, because blaming others is the only way they know of doing business. Karl Rove's manipulation, Cheney's corporate ties, Rumsfeld's militarism, and Bush's calculated ignorance got them where are they are today... and it will get them where they'll be tomorrow.

I'd love to win the presidency in 2004 too. I'd just like to have a credible Democratic party left when we do.

[illini]

11. UMMM!! Clinton consentual Ahhhnold unwanted groping!!!!!!!

Its that simple. Clinton participated in a CONSENTUAL sex act. AHHHNOLD went around grouping women.

[JVS]

16. A lot was made of consensual Gang-banging too though

[arwalden]

18. And Conservatives Always Bring Up Juanita Broaderick and ...

... that other woman whose name escapes me right now as examples of "unwanted groping" for clinton too.

It's all so scandalous.

[diplomats]

29. Kathleen Willey, whose credibility was even admitted

to be bad by the independent counsel in his final report. However, I know what you mean about feeling uneasy, though I certainly never thought Clinton's adultery was OK. I just didn't think it was impeachable, and neither did two-thirds of the American public. BTW, the real difference between us and the freepers on this is that we actually have people who contemplate whether it's hypocritical, whereas the freepers probably don't even consider that.

[AndyTiedye]

13. The Difference is the Consent of the Woman

That makes all the difference in the world.

[azrak]

14. Good point

It just makes me wish we had a reasonable alternative in a third party. Right now I think the only way you can tell a LOT of D's from R's is the letter after there name. We need something/someone with a vision to take on the Democratic controlled WEA and the republican controlled DOD and start over in both areas. We need common sense in government, not money or a doctor or a lawyer or a life long politician. I fear I need to teach my kids to grow their own food, I feel like we are sinking and it isn't a pleasant feeling. All of the politicians in the last 30 years have been in it for themselves, not for the people. We need a change.

[JVS]

15. Both

[Catherine Vincent]

21. To be honest, Republicans and Democrats are both hypocrites.

Republicans are just the bigger hypocrites.;)

[Brian Sweat]

22. There is hypocracy on both sides no doubt.

However, I think a case can be made that it is far worse on the other side.

Are the conservatives being hypocrites when they vilify Clinton and Ted Kennedy for their womanizing... yet they find it easy to turn a blind eye to Livingston, Gingrich, Packwood, Hyde, Barr and Arnold?

Absolutely, and the thing is that we don't really attack them for their womanizing so much as use it to show the hypocracy of their attacks.

Or are liberals being hypocrites for making a big deal about Arnold's womanizing when we spent so much time defended Clinton and chastising conservatives for prying into his personal life.

Absolutely not. First, you are comparing apple and oranges. Clinton had consensual sex with other women. Ahnuld sexually assaulted women and still, the Republicans cheered and blaimed the Democrats when he admitted to it. Many Democrats expressed a great deal of disappointment in Clinton for his behavior, Republicans say nothing about Ahnuld.

On thing that we, as Democrats, need to work on is that, like our Republican counter parts, we tend to blame the messenger when they deliver bad news. Although Linda Tripp did deserve some blame for the way she acted, we vilified here to the extent that shows that we were just as angry with her for delivering the message as we were with the way she delivered it.

Do liberals risk being labeled as hypocrites when we engage in a little "turnabout-is-fair-play" for political gain? Or are conservatives being hypocrites for whining about finding themselves on the business-end of their tried and true tactics?

If we actually do engage in "turnabout-is-fair-play", then we are hypocrits, but that doesn't mean we cannot use the turnabout to show their hypocracy. There is a difference and it is silly to suggest that exposing other people's hypocracy is in itself hypocracy.

[Memekiller]

30. There's a solution...

The Republicans will shamelessly brand the liberals as hypocrites, which will silence them, and the liberals won't attack the GOP for their far greater hypocrisy out of a desire for moral consistency.

So how do liberals find a way to fight back while satisfying our conscience, since our side, unfortunately is hampered by one? Good question.

There's an easy solution. Don't attack Arnold for womanizing. Attack the conservatives for being hypocrites for supporting them. Make their hypocrisy the issue. And it won't be hypocritical for our side because we aren't saying don't vote for him because he's a womanizer. We're saying this is Republican opportunism at it's finest, where they look the other way for all the crimes they decried through the Clinton years. I mean, come on -- Mr. Book of Virtues didn't denounce Arnold's behavior?

Otherwise, you'll see the result. They attack us for hypocrisy. We're to decent to point out thiers. And yet again, because we're better people than them, the public is left with the impression it is we who are guilty, and they're the one's being upright and consistent. That's a lie that should not stand.

[Brian Sweat]

35. The problem with you theory is that Ahnuld did not just "womanize"

He sexually assualted women and he should be attacted for this. He is not fit for office. If a Democratic candidate does the same thing, he should be attacked for it.

[IrateCitizen]

25. I know you're no fan of religious overtones, but one applies here

The passage in the Bible where Jesus admonishes those who point out the speck in another's eye while failing to notice the beam sticking out of their own.

You know, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Unfortunately, hypocrisy remains an all-too-common human trait.

[arwalden]

32. "Stop! Stop, will you?! ... "

"Stop that! Stop it! Now, look! No one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle! Do you understand?! Even, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they do say 'Jehovah'."

[IrateCitizen]

33. OMFG! You can't do that to me while I'm at work!

I almost started cackling like a hyena from remembering that scene in The Life of Brian!

But you do see my point, don't you?

[arwalden]

39. Yes, I See Your Point

... now I've got the "ITCH" to wastch Life of Brian again. I'll watch it this weekend.

-- Allen

[mkregel]

38. Big difference

Clinton's encounters were consensual

Ahhhhnolds were not

[Democat]

42. The right said that someone who had Arnold's past wasn't fit for office

The hypocrisy is theirs. The right said that a person with Arnold's background shouldn't be in public office.

Republicans said someone with Arnold's background shouldn't be in office and they wouldn't vote for someone with his background. Republicans are voting for Arnold.

[leftofthedial]

45. Arnold not equal to Clinton

Arnold has been accused of nonconsensual sexual molestation--a crime. Criminal acts are all of our business if he seeks public office.

Clinton engaged in consensual sexual acts. His private sex life is none of our business.


Not the same thing. And not hypocrisy.

[theboss]

46. Well . . . .

Clinton "was accused" of non-consensual sex acts too. I never bought the rape accustations, but I do think that his womanizing was predatory to some degree as well.

[leftofthedial]

50. do you base your opinion on anything other than RW propaganda?

if so, let's hear it.

Still, I never defended Clinton on the basis that sex was off limits, but that a person's private life was none of our business. Consensual sex is a private act.

Allegations of nonconsensual sex, Clinton, Arnie or whomever, should be heard and dealt with. IN Clinton's case they were all disproven and exposed as attempted character assassination or as gold digging by the alleged victim.

[diamondsoul]

47. I think there are valid cases to be made for both, honestly.

Clinton screwed around, IN the Oval Office, with a staffer, that compromises his professional integrity. Same applies to Arnold since he outright engaged in sexual assault if the reports coming out are to be believed, and I suspect they are.

Do I think things got out of hand with Clinton? Absolutely since all he had to do was transfer the intern and agree not to fool around with staffers while in office. After that, he's a private citizen again and takes his chances like any other cheating dog. As far as I can tell there must not be an adultery statute in DC law or he'd have been charged with the crime, therefore no need for the BS special investigation. He's sleazy, not criminal.

Arnold on the other hand, according to several reports, engaged in criminal assault, not consentual cheating. That's a BIG deal.

[Classical_Liberal]

49. Clinton was accused of assault

by three women. I think this sort of politics is gross, no matter who does it.

[theboss]

48. This is a tough one

I know that I try to not care about the personal lives of candidates. And I don't particularly care about past mistakes, indiscretions, etc. For example, the fact that Bush once had a DUI had about as much impact on me as the gravity of a small rock. I don't care about his daughters. I don't care about his wife's car accident.

The only time I think it is fair to make such things an issue is when the person has made them an issue for others. William Bennet being a degenerate gambler is fair game because he has made a living moralizing. Rush Limbaugh has gotten rich pointing out the vices and foibles of others. I think he is fair game.

Arnold's actions are interesting because they may actually be illegalities. And they show an incredible lack of judgment. If we keep them in these terms these are fair game. And frankly, Clinton's acts were fair game in these terms too. If the Right had made a case that Clinton should not be president because he is stupid enough to bang a 21-year-old that he does not know in the Oval Office, they would have had more resonance with me. But, no . . they went the immorality route, which is silly because we are all immoral.

I'm rambling, but I think that is how you avoid "hypocrisy" but avoiding injecting morality and perfection into the debate. One DUI? It's a mistake. We all make mistakes. More than one is a pattern. We don't all make patterns of mistakes.

Cheating on your wife? Immorality. We are all immoral at some level. Groping multiple women against their will? Criminal. We are not all criminals. The "everybody does it" defense only works if everybody truly does do it.

[FlemingsGhost]

51. You are a hypocrite.

I am, too.

Geniune, honest self-examination will reveal hypocrisy in everyone.

[bloom]

52. yes it is good to think about

I don't want to be one of those people that idolizes someone so much that I can't see their flaws.

I have to say, though, that I think Republicans are beyond belief when it comes to hypocrisy.


1. The brou-ha over Clinton "not inhaling" - yet Bush did cocaine - thats OK.

2. $60-70? million spent on Clinton's sex scandals - yet Arnold's behavior is OK.

3. The entire family values = Republicans - yet Bush and Arnold are OK.

4. According to Rush liberals are slime - and it's OK if he's a drug addict.

________________________

I would never have imagined that because of Clintons escapades that now men can assault women or that now drug laws are meaningless.

It was never my impression that anyone was saying these are attributes to look for (or even accept) in political candidates.

I think Republicans are bizarre.