September 12, 2005
-
Liberal Hypocrisy
Its Become So Common, Its Not Even Noticeable Anymore...
"We have to respect that any nominee to the Supreme Court would have to defer any comments on any matters, which are either before the court or very likely to be before the court,"
-Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy 1967.
"What little we know about his views and values lends even greater importance and urgency to his responsibility to provide the Senate and the American people with clear answers."
-Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy 2004.
So here we have yet another example of liberal hypocrisy. This is just further proof that the left is opposing this nomination for solely partisan reasons. They cannot stand by and let Roberts receive a "fair up or down vote". They cannot allow it. They will not allow it. You see, what the left doesn’t seem to understand is that, this President won the election, he has the constitutional authority to nominate someone to the High Court. Or does he? I mean just by reading liberal blogs the day after the election, you got the feeling that Bush didn’t even win. There were millions of conspiracy theories out there about machines being hacked and kooky stuff like that. And even with that nonsense floating around the liberal blogosphere, libs still kept reminding us of the 2000 election. So if you really accept the current liberal philosophy on certain issues, I can understand why you wouldn’t want to be fair with this nominee. Because according to the left, Bush shouldn’t have won in 2000, therefore he probably wouldn’t have run in 2004, therefore we shouldn’t be fair towards his nominee. Aha, its all coming to me now.
Morrison
Comments (40)
hey, my name is Brittany...if your against abortion...join my blogring "abortion another name for murder"....thanks..
Morrison,
First of all, how do these two quotes fall under your broad term of hypocrisy? They are discussing potentially separate issues... if you, and others want to insist on using the Ginsburg rule (that I keep hearing about) then the nominee can simply reply that he does not feel that he can answer a question/hypothetical issue that may come in front of the court... it is simple and not hypocrisy as you state...
Second thing... your rambling at the end about conspiracy theories ranks up there with the conspiracy theories against the left as propagated by the right... means nothing and does not indicate anything towards the looming SCOTUS issue... outside of the fact that you mention the Bush has the right or obligation to appoint a justice to the SCOTUS... which no one is doubting...
However, it seems that you have believe that if a President appoints a nominee then no one should oppose them or ask them questions... is this what you are saying? If so, then you are missing the point of representational rule in which members of the majority and minority parties must question such people to insure that this person is qualified to act as an impartial juror... I think everyone can agree that as a President who gets the rare chance to nominate someone to the SCOTUS will nominate someone closely aligned to his political philosophy but that does not mean that everyone else must sit down and not discuss it...
You have no worries... Roberts will get through with Democratic support... you can sleep easier now knowing this...
Now I will step aside so that the moonbat cheering section can jump in...
great post Morrison, altShiftdelete, if you cant see the hypocrisy in those two quotes then you my friend have become a "moonbat".
Here's an idea RY... why don't you read the two quotes slowly and not take our friend's word for it...
First one says, the SC nominee should defer from making any comments on issues that are or may come before the SC...
The second one says that since we know so little of his views and values he should answer some questions about them...
As I said, these are potentially two different subjects...
as far as calling me a moonbat, think again... since I am not sucking the teat of either philosophy, it would make it difficult to be one... you on the other hand are working your way up the ranks to a captain wingnut with your blind and somewhat irrational following... especially evident in calling this a great post... be sure to "write" your blog soon and link it! Super Mega Dittos!
subjects = criteria...
"First of all, how do these two quotes fall under your broad term of hypocrisy? They are discussing potentially separate issues."
Well in the first qoute Ted said (I'm dumbing this down to help make it easier to understand) "We shouldn't ask a nominee any questions about their views and such", then in the next qoute Ted says "He needs to tell us all about his views and such". Now, when the first qoute was regarding a Democrat and the second was regarding a Republican that would be....*say it all together now children*....HIPOCRISY!!
hipocrisy??? I know it's a weird word to spell, but all you had to do was scroll up.
haha oddly enough now is it? im not exactly dumb.. sike naw but really, i go to cibola high school... its in arizona. yea. kinda far. well, speaking for myself, people seem to be shocked that ur only 15 because u kno how most guys are at that age.. they're really childish and all they think about is one thing. u seem to have other interests outside of that. its nice to know there are still some decent people around... u know, we like the smart guys
ttyl
Efti
Meh, I'm going on 3 hours of sleep here so I was bound to make a typo or two.
okay it seems that my thoughts on this are overshadowed by people who refuse to read... so let me try it this way...
1st quote... the nominee shall not answer questions that is or could be in front of the court... in a way like litmus test... asking hypothetical questions such as "if plantiff A wants to change legalize abortion and plantiff B wants to make it illegal, how would you rule?" Such hypothetical questions or direct questions on specific issues do not have to be answered (even though Ruth Bader Ginsburg did answer some of them... but she was the first and lone person to do so)...
2nd quote asks about views and values... this could be (and again I am saying could be since it has not happened as of yet) where do you stand on settled law, would your religious beliefs sway your decisions and so on... these are simple questions that do not deal directly with issues before the court... these are valid questions to make sure we don't have a loon on bench... precident has been set on this form of questioning...
Now Bimmer brings in a different aspect that since Kennedy made remarks in 1967 concerning a Democratic nominee (one of which the Republicans were gearing up to fight) and the second quote (made recently) concerns a Republican nominee (which some believe that the Democrats will put up a fight)... he claims this is hypocrisy... again, if you read the quotes (including context which has not been provided) you will see that what I am saying or the view that I am proposing is not hypocritical...
The belief that this is hypocritical according to these two snipets of quotes can be attributed to those who are looking to create a conspiracy before it happens... in fact, in the way that Bimmer dumbs it down is changing the meaning of the quote on purpose...
Plus, I will add in this for all that is relevant... the 38 years difference between the quotes and the different issues involved already invalidate the thought of hypocrisy... whenever someone tries to compare the workings of government from nearly four decades is an invalid way to look at things... this is a misguided belief that the world does not change at all... and I really wonder why Morrison (or anyone else) didn't try to use the Ginsburg rule instead... I also noticed that there is no response to my question on whether the Senators (both majority and minority) have the right to ask questions of the nominee at all since the way Morrison presents it that they shouldn't... just rubberstamp it...
In the end, my belief is that according to the quotes presented and the context does not make these quotes hypocritical but just another reactionary statement trying to make a conspiracy that currently does not exist...
Speakking of hyposcrisy, see the video of a katrina victim saying "go fuck yourself" to VP Cheney. Cheney proceeds to say he's "never heard that before" and then begins to retort "must be a friend of john [kerry]'s"
So in a nutshell he becomes a hypocrite considering he's said the same thing to a fellow senator a year ago, and then goes on to politicize the issue with a subtle slam of Kerry. Oh how blind the loyal party members of this country can be...
I don't think Ted remembers saying either quote, so how can you call it hypocracy?
Notwithstanding the above posts from AltShift (which were spot on)...
and simply taking the Kennedy quotes at face value...
Oh how the line has become blurred, between contradiction and hypocrisy.
AltShift
Please, please, please explain how you consider "Do you think *blank* law is legal?" and "How would you rule on *blank*?" to NOT be two different wordings of the same question?
The Dems have had a strategy since their 2000 loss.
They wanted to prove that even though they lost, they have enough power to run the country over a "weak" presidency.
"W" can't be seen as successful at anything, ergo:
Say he messed up the economy because of tax cuts.
Say he's gotten us into an immoral war.
Be against any progress in the economic recovery.
Be against any progress in the war.
Never mention the economic recovery.
Don't allow him to get anybody confirmed - obstruct.
Lie about racism, delays, ineptness at every opportunity.
Always mention the "rich" thing (Halliburton, oil friends, Saudi family, et al)
Take advantage of the press to reinforce, reinforce.
Keep it going - no let up - have each Dem make outragious charges from time to time (Dean, Biden, Schummer, Kennedy).
Blame "W" for anything you can (Hurricanes, oil shortages, the deficit, etc.)
Never mention the recession we got out of or the need to do deficit spending because we were attacked and need to defend our country.
Every so often center attention on a Rep and ask for his ouster (DeLay, Cheney, Bolton, Rumsfeld)
Don't let "W" clean up the UN - so they will not lose their anti-American allies.
Make demands, create delays.
Have their black leaders inject the race thing - accuse, accuse.
Harp on the old "Reps hate blacks, are the "rich" and kill people for no good reason".
Rely on the hope that the electorate who get their info from Letterman, Leno and Daily will remain asleep.
One last thing - bet that a majority of the electorate can be misled in this way (Abe said it best - you can't!)
Gos bless America.
Boymarine -
Some of those really aren't worth commenting on...but as for the ones that are:
"Be against any progress in the war."
-That's right. Democrats want the effort in Iraq to fail. They want Americans to die, and Iraq to fall into anarchy. That's what they want.
"Don't allow him to get anybody confirmed - obstruct."
-The Democrats in the House and Senate were elected by citizens of the United States of America. They owe it to their constituents to fight for what they believe, not to bow down to whatever whimsies or flights of fancies that the Republicans offer, simply because the President is a Republican, or because Congress boasts a Republican majority.
"Lie about racism, delays, ineptness at every opportunity."
-I'm just picking this one out of all of your most ridiculous quotes because it is illustrative of how you appear to think that party offshoots or fringe elements are representative of a party as a whole. But I assure you that for each loon on the left, there is his equal on the right.
Additionally, it is folly to assert that all of the criticisms over racism, delays, ineptitude, etc. are merely lies.
"Keep it going - no let up - have each Dem make outragious charges from time to time (Dean, Biden, Schummer, Kennedy)."
-How about a LIST of each Democrat in Congress and the outrageous charges they have made?
"Every so often center attention on a Rep and ask for his ouster (DeLay, Cheney, Bolton, Rumsfeld)"
-DeLay? How about an _investigation_? And who has called for Cheney's ouster? And as for Bolton, he has to actually BE in office before anyone can call for his ouster. But apparently it is highly inappropriate for the Democrats to oppose a man's appointment as UN Ambassador who is widely viewed as an uncooperative bully.
"Don't let "W" clean up the UN - so they will not lose their anti-American allies."
-I would like to see him "clean up" something that is fundamentally unsound, something whose failures are as much the fault of America as they are any country (if not more).
"God Bless America"
-Indeed.
Mike
I read all of the above comments and found them very entertaining. I also saw "hypocrisy" spelled four different ways! Bottom line.....Ol' Teddy IS guilty of hypocrisy.........SHAMELESS hypocrisy,at that!
before FINAL judgment (AS IF any of you SYCOPHANTS would even pay attention)...from dictionary.com
hy·poc·ri·sy Audio pronunciation of "hypocrisy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-pkr-s)
n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies
1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.
VS.
con·tra·dic·tion Audio pronunciation of "contradiction" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kntr-dkshn)
n.
1. a. The act of contradicting.
b. The state of being contradicted.
2. A denial.
3. Inconsistency; discrepancy.
4. Something that contains contradictory elements.
Ted Kennedy is an ass. Period.
Ted Kennedy is also part of the liberal Unholy Trinity.
Mike
I just joined "Morrisonism",and I'm proud to be aligned with you,buddy!
He has my vote!
hey man, joined the "Morrisonism" blogring.. thanks for the invite
Bimmer,
The examples you gave are not anything like the ones I gave... thus, your attempt to try to paint me in to a corner has failed... look at what I wrote and notice the difference between them... the wording of such questions is all the difference... and since you and the super liberal knower guy are so keen on politics, you will understand the importance of wording...
Yet even if you will still contend that both quotes are the same (which they aren't but it does seem as if some people around here have trouble with basic reading and comprehension skills), then I would agree with WSR's comments on the differences between "hypocrisy" and "contradiction"
Boymarine, first I want to say thank you for serving this great country of ours... your attention to duty is greatly appreciated...
then the respect bus stops there... you have listed off a wonderful range of partisan BS... stuff that hasn't happened (did you know that the over 200 justices have been confirmed since Bush took office? Which is a larger confirmation rate than Clinton had...) or things that are just absurd (believing that Tom DeLay is squeaky clean, it just happens that his top campaign people and his best friends are involved in ethics violations)... You seem to fall under the spell of what I call "all or nothing" which is taking the word of a small group or individuals and making it appear as if everyone from that same side believes it... Most of what you have spouted off is misinformation and unsubstantiated hogwash... these are 101st keyboarder talking points that hold as much water as the 17th Street Levee last Thursday...
I would sit here and pick each one apart to be perfectly honest, it would not satisify me intellectually... it falls just below reading Family Circus comics... and you know what the most hilarious part of it is? The Democrats can make some of the very same baseless claims against the Republicans... it is amazing how partisan BS can be used both ways...
Don't take this as an attack on you... because it isn't... I am just sick of all the biased BS that can not even stand up to a second grader's scrutiny...
unholy trinity... wow... that is rich... almost as funny as when people figured out that Ronald Wilson Reagan is the numerical equivalent to 666...
I see that RY started a blogring dedicated to Morrison... would it not be easier just to blow him instead, RY?
Would it not be easier for you to just accept that the U.S.S.R. fell and your hopes of a communist dictatorship over the entire planet are crushed?
holy hoot in a handbasket... Bimmer you never fail to amaze me how little you actually know...
Am I a communist? No...
Am I a liberal? Not really, I am left of center but not a liberal in the classic sense... I am closer to modern Moderate...
There you go big guy... now try again and this time with a little feeling!
It was --- this is a new invention so you may not have heard of it yet -- a JOKE.
oh... then I stand corrected... of course you do know that sarcasm (which I would say this is more in line with) is hard to tell in text format... try an emoticon next time...
Bimmer--
Since you and Morrison (among others) have declared that Ted Kennedy is a hypocrite then you will agree on the following must be true of Orrin Hatch:
"The Senate can and should do what it can to ascertain the jurisprudential views a nominee will bring to the bench in order to prevent the confirmation of those who are likely to be judicial activists. Determining which will become activists is not easy since many of President Clinton's nominees tend to have limited paper trails... Determining which of President Clinton's nominees will become activists is complicated and it will require the Senate to be more diligent and extensive in its questioning of nominees' jurisprudential views." (Address of Senator Hatch before University of Utah Federalist Society chapter, February 18, 1997)"
"Some have said that nominees who do not spill their guts about whatever a senator wants to know are hiding something from the American people," Hatch said. "Some compare a nominee's refusal to violate his judicial oath or abandon judicial ethics to taking the Fifth Amendment. These might be catchy sound bites, but they are patently false."
(Senator Orrin Hatch at the nomination proceedings of John Roberts 9/12/2005)
To "Alt Shift"
Thanks for your deference.
Regarding the rest - I'll put "Family Circus" and second grade aside and simply say that my post is about the Democratic STRATEGY.
Any observer looking at the news on any given day will see every item being represented by one or more very angry Democrats.
Regarding "lies" about racism - Holy Smokes! Do you libs really hate "W" so much that you can stand by and hear those accusations?
I ask that you check out what Condi had to say about those racism comments by Dean, Jackson, Sharpton, NAACP and 66% of blacks. Dems seem to come together when there is someone to hate. How nice.
My last word: If a liberal is still a liberal because he thinks "the rich" are the baddies; big corporations are bad; and Democrats are "for the little people" - then he has missed about 30 years of first-hand history.
The party hypocrisy (really just a way to get the votes to keep 'em in power) was enough to make me change my party affiliation.
God bless the USA and the USMC
First of all, and I really hate saying this over and over but I am left of center not a full liberal (probably a liberal by your standing but I am what you should really call a moderate...) I might have been over the top a bit as I just got home from the sports pub and had a bit of drink...
Secondly, the comment about not going a day without hearing something from the angry Democrats... true, and the same can be said about the Republicans too... it is politics and in this current political culture of division has made it so... I hate to say it but I think you know that the Dems do not have the exclusive on this by any means...
Since I didn't mention the "lies" about racism... since I am not a friend of nor do I know the inner workings of Bush (and I doubt you do either) I can not make a claim one way or another... however it should be noted that I have been very vocal about the use of the race card and how I think it is hogwash... and just for the record, how would looking at Condi's comments have to do anything with Dean, Jackson and so on? Both sides are politically charged on the issue and both will spin it either way it looks better for them... I don't know why I keep hearing that Republicans are shocked that the race card is used by Democrats when they themselves use it...
"If a liberal is still a liberal because he thinks "the rich" are the baddies; big corporations are bad; and Democrats are "for the little people" - then he has missed about 30 years of first-hand history." believe it or not, most of the liberals that I know that espouse this singular line of thinking are teens who live by the words of the ideology and not the actions of experience... both sides are closer than one would think when it comes to corporational thinking... both sides receive plenty of cash from corporations... I am far from an idiot and do not say this line of thought as any rational for anything...
Democrats have a really tough row to hoe.
They have to accept being in a party that has to cover up for:
Guys like Farrakan saying things like "They planted a bomb next to the levee wall 'cause they knew that the black neighborhoods would be flooded".
A party that wants felons to register to vote.
They are in a party that must keep their constituency MAD, not educated, MAD, not appealed to with programs or plans, but MAD.
It is impossible to talk to a Democrat without them mentioning what they are MAD about. It would be nice, just once, to hear what they'd like to do for this country. Being mad is kid stuff - or in professional politics - it's Dean stuff.
God bless America
Ann Coulter just called out MoveOn on Hannity & Colmes:
“MoveOn.com is down protesting outside the White House. How about putting together some evacuee bags? How about actually helping out? Speaking of that, I think I’d like to hear a breakdown at the end of this, how much churches are contributing versus… MoveOn.com?”
Last Thursday, as tens of thousands of families found themselves newly homeless, MoveOn launched an emergency national housing drive called HurricaneHousing.org. In just one week, over 235,000 beds have been offered to Katrina victims through the site.
o yeah...heres more right-wing hypocrisy (you can guess what they're talking about)"
"You can support the troops but not the president."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."
--Joe Scarborough (R-FL)
"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
--Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99
"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
--Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)
"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush
"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
--Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)
SO.....it looks like right-wingers bullshit us too...
"Democrats have a really tough row to hoe."
As does any minority party... but there are cycles and even the most diehard Republicans know that one day they will be in the minority.
"They have to accept being in a party that has to cover up for:"
I know this is not a point but I think it is quite telling since both parties have spent years covering things up...
"Guys like Farrakan saying things like "They planted a bomb next to the levee wall 'cause they knew that the black neighborhoods would be flooded"."
Of all people in the world to pick, Farrakan? His ties to the Democrats are minimal at best... he is the one who wants to have a black force "third party..." This is reaching beyond belief... and since the DNC has gone to great lengths to not have ties with him, it is akin to David Duke and how the GOP tried to get rid of him...
"A party that wants felons to register to vote."
After a ton of research, I could not find where this is other than some incidents where felons voted Democrat or where some of the conservo-pundits brought it up as conjecture not fact... point me in the right direction on where I can find true evidence of this happening... and just for the record, what is the difference between that and Bush pushing to legalize illegal immigrants during an election year?
"They are in a party that must keep their constituency MAD, not educated, MAD, not appealed to with programs or plans, but MAD."
Okay, here is another thing that is done by the GOP... since the days of Lee Atwater and still used by Karl Rove are the calling card of the GOP in elections are the following: God, Guns and Fear... I will also toss in Values since that was added in the 1994 election cycle... these divisionary issues (?) are there to demonize the Democrats as Godless Communists looking to shake hands with terrorists and take away your guns... if this isn't a strategy to keep the constituency MAD, then I don't know what is...
"It is impossible to talk to a Democrat without them mentioning what they are MAD about. It would be nice, just once, to hear what they'd like to do for this country. Being mad is kid stuff - or in professional politics - it's Dean stuff."
It is also impossible to talk to a Republican without the same reaction... I am sorry but this is involved in both parties (even evidenced by Morrison's page or plenty of others) plus I remember during the Clinton years when Republicans spent nearly every ounce of strength trying to tear Clinton a new one no matter what he did...
I agree the moonbattiness of most of this crap does not help make this country better but continuing the same sort of talk from either side does nothing else too... I do agree with you on wanting to hear what the Democrats would like to do for this country... and I have written extensively on the subject saying that anytime you are a minority party you need to develop what is called a "shadow government" in which you issue releases on what you would do... and try to steer the debate on your terms instead of following the lead...
As far as the Dean comment... he isn't mad... it is scripted to show that the Democrats are not going to lay back and take it... it is an odd move for the DNC to do this since they have a history of doing nothing... I have said that the Democrats are usually more successful on local terms but the GOP is more successful on national terms... it is a long-standing short sightedness of the DNC... I have never understood it... if you want to raise money and raise the vote for your party, you have to show passion instead of putting people up for President who have the emotional appeal and charisma of a gold fish...
Did you mean what you said last year in math class?
OK "alt/shift" your points are well taken.
I also agree that it was not correct for me to align Farrakan with the dems. He's more aligned with the Islamic terrorists.
I should have picked on the religious leaders of the left: Jesse and Al. They each made their pilgramage to N.O. and got their TV spots to make a few choice statements about racism, Bush incompetence and the need for more federal dollars.
I was hoping that they had brought along donations from their "congregations" to help all of the wonderful volunteers already doing so. But no, they were just there to keep the anger going.
Dem, Rep, or Ind. I just don't see how that kind of stuff makes any positive contribution to this fine country.
God bless America.
so if the religious leaders on the left are fair game to name as liberal leaders, then I guess it falls the other way too? Including the comments thatput blame out for 9/11
"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'" -Jerry Falwell (agreed upon by Pat Robertson)
How about advocating the killing of a foreign leader or even having God remove Justices from the SCOTUS- Pat Robertson
Or how about the Westboro Baptist Church that cheers the deaths of American troops and pickets at the funerals because these troops are sinner and protecting "fags?"
or how about the celebrating the Katrina disaster as God's way of cleaning up the sinful city- Michael Marcavage, Michael Brown, Bill Shanks all mentioned this...
Just let me know how far you want to go with this...
Comments are closed.