An Inflammatory Post About Democrats, Hypocrisy, and Gannon
Warning, this is an inflammatory post, at least for me. You would be well advised to skip to my much better, if somewhat more boring, post today, which sifts through Bill Burkett's various statements to find a few new inconsistencies to add to his mountain of shifting sand (or, technically, his dune of shifting sand, I guess).
Why the Lefties' Search for Hypocrisy Is an Increasingly Transparent Fraud
Throughout the various iterations of Gannon-Gluckert-Gate (e.g., here), the lefties have explained over and over again that they didn't out Gluckert just because they wanted to silence the only right-wing voice in the press conferences - no, it was the HYPOCRISY that got to them. Well, although I can't be bothered to care too much whether or not Talon News is represented at the press conferences, I would like to call b*llsh*t on the hypocrisy argument, for the following reasons:
1. The latest wrinkle is an alleged $10,000 reward for hard evidence, so to speak, of any sexual or romantic relationship between Jeff Gannon and any "high-ranking official" in Washington. Are you guys assuming that any gay high-ranking official in Washington must be a "hypocrite," or are you only going to out the hypocritical ones? (Hint - it's that first thing). (HT: Ace, Jawa, Protein Wisdom).
2. For that matter, what makes anyone in this story a hypocrite? Americablog claims to be up in Gannon's face because Talon News, in a separate article apparently not written by Gannon*, said that 20/20 had run a story questioning whether Matthew Shepard's murder was a hate crime or not. Well, heck, Aravois, why stop at Gannon? The story that's got you so upset started on 20/20. By Aravois's logic, it is not only the left's obligation to out Elizabeth Vargas,*** who ran the story that Talon was citing, but it is also their obligation to out any ABC reporter they can find, because for a GLBT person to remain working at ABC after they questioned the Shepard killers' motives is HYPOCRISY!!! HYPOCRISY!!!!
* I should say that it's entirely possible that the article was, in fact, written by Gannon under a yet undisclosed pen name. :-P
** I should also say, seriously, that I have no idea why Shepard was killed, but that I'm for giving his killers the worst punishment Wyoming has regardless of them motives.
*** I should also also say that while I don't support outing people and I don't support outing anyone against their will, outing Elizabeth Vargas would at least be hot!hot!hot!
3. More generally, the idea that every Republican who doesn't kick gays is some kind of hypocrite is rediculous. I will say this once. George Bush is the most gay friendly Republican president since, at least, Lincoln, and you can make a case that he's the most gay friendly president ever of any party. Yes, he's taken a stance against gay marriage,**** but he came out early with a demand that the Federal Marriage Amendment leave room for civil unions, and now we learn that he has been willing to tell his base to shove it on anti-gay discrimination. (Except for the FMA, where, as noted, Bush least took a pro-states-rights-on-civil-unions stand, and took it early).
**** Note: I'm all for passing gay marriage legislatively, and would vote for it, but I think that judicial activism on the issue has resulted in a mess. I'll post more on it later, if I find time.
4. See also here, where "S.Z." accuses Jeff Frackin' Goldstein of blatant hypocrisy. Um, if Goldstein's hypocrisy is so "blatant," shouldn't I be able to figure out what it is?
The Inflammatory Part - Why Hypocrisy Charges Are Unfair
Finally, I should come clean as to the reason why hypocrisy charges from the left torque me off.
I'm jealous. That's it, plain and simple. The left gets to throw a party when they catch a Republican having an affair, or gambling, or find one with a drug addiction or making racially offensive comments. In each case, the Republicans get some egg on their face, which is appropriate, and in many cases, the actual sinner takes a career hit.
But we Republicans can't do the same thing to the Democrats. There is no non-criminal act that will render a Democrat hypocritical, because, as far as I can tell, the Democrats don't have any personal values. I'm sorry, but there it is. Let's say you find out that a Democrat is a slum-lord who won't do basic repairs on his property, or was a Grand Wizard in the KKK and still uses the 'n-word' today, or are trying their best to stop a wind power project because it would disturb the view from their multimillion dollar homes, or, of course, had an adulterous affair with an easily influenced subordinate. Result: a big fat nothing. The Democrats are in favor of tenant regulations, political correctness, wind power, and sexual harassment regulation for other people, they will explain, and whether they follow those principles in their private lives is irrelevant to the fight for justice.
(I know the paragraph above is unfair, and I apologize. But, if this counts as an apology, I think it's about 50% frustration, 40% funny . . . and 10% right).