Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist Ben Sargent was arrested in 1998 ” and subsequently convicted of public lewdness stemming from an incident at an Austin adult bookstore near the University of Texas.”
Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist Ben Sargent was arrested in 1998 ” and subsequently convicted of public lewdness stemming from an incident at an Austin adult bookstore near the University of Texas.”
I think I see the problem here. You see, I don’t think Kate understands the definition of hypocracy.
If Ben had stated that he opposes ownership of pornography, then yes, he would be hypocritical. As far as I know, he has not.
Craig is a ‘family-values’ Republican. Therefore, he is a hypocrite, along with the litany of other ‘family-values’ Christian fundamentalists who get blow-jobs from male prostitues while condemning homosexuality.
That should be: hypocrisy.
Guilty of not being able to spell hypocrisy: me.
Not knowing the meaning of hypocrisy: conservative republicans.
Are you really sure you want to pull William Sampson into this?
On November 6, 2003, this is what William Sampson told Stockwell Day, chair of the foreign affairs committee, during his appearance before them: “Your own party, the Alliance, happens to be the party that has an MP from my father’s constituency. That individual provided not one ounce of support to my father or my family during this entire time.”
Sampson was criticizing all the parties, including of course the government, for its role in handling his imprisonment. But I wouldn’t be so quick to play the role of saint in that matter if I was a Conservative. Hardly any politician – Alliance or Liberal – came out of that sorry situation with much to brag about.
Dear Johnny,
You are absolutely right. But since this thread is about hypocracy, should we draw that line at the minister of the government of the day and the nonsense spewed out by that hypocrite or at the level of support provided by a backbench MP in opposition?
What is the difference between a liberal and a Conservative? Is it that a Con faces up to an indiscretion, and a lib doesn’t? Fess up or lie, or make excuses, or find someone or something to lay the blame on, seems to be the lefty way. Blow Job Billy, my saint.
I see al gore is coming to Victoria, can’t wait, I will be standing in line to see the types that would actually pay to hear him. I bet that 75% of the ‘Males” have beards and the same percentage of “Females” have hairy armpits. I wonder if that percentage holds true of the number of Al’s stupies that work for the Government? Bet it’s close.
Western Canadian, I’m afraid you’re confused. The point isn’t about facing up to indiscretion. The point is that being a homosexual, isn’t an indiscretion. That is why Sargent is just a criminal, while Craig is a criminal and a hypocrite.
And how do you know about the beard and arm pit hair of the women and men? Have you met them, or is this what Rush told you on the radio?
Perhaps you should try interacting with human beings with different political persuasions. You’ll find that their appearance and ideology, are seldom connected.
once , just once I’d like to see CBCpravda mention about Bill Graham the uberhomo. and not in glowing terms like they describe Scooter Brison or Svend ( the thief) Robinson.
CBCpravda should take out their hidden agenda or as Johnnyringo would say “there hidden agenda” as he and the other not so hidden liberals are exposed.
“CBCpravda mention about Bill Graham the uberhomo”
Just for clarification, are you suggesting that the CBC should be exposing the sexuality of politicians that you disagree with? And why should the sexual orientation, or sexual habits of a politician matter, so long as that behaviour is legal, and between consenting adults? The only reason anyone cares about Craig, is that he opposes rights for gays, yet is gay himself. He is a hypocrite and should be exposed as such.
Do you not like gays yourself? Why refer to them as uberhomo? If you had a gay son, would you treat him that way?
A: Hypocrisy is not a crime last time I checked. Tapping a foot is not a crime last time I checked. Sliding a hand along the separation wall is not a crime and putting a suitcase in front of the toilet door is not a crime. Waiting for an empty stall, looking at the stall door, as well as looking at another male, even into the eyes, is not a crime. I don’t believe a word of that cop, he has that kind of weaselly faces that make you check if my wallet is still in my pocket. And why there was a second cop waiting outside? Personally I believe that Craig was framed. None of us was there. Innocent people pleaded guilty before in great numbers because police lied to them and intimidated them. I rest my case.
should have been ‘that make me check’
no , just suggesting that CBCpravda is all over Craig like a fat boy on a twinky. but the closer to home liberal types are off limits. they print glowing stories about Scott Brison and even Svend – and stealing the ring was just one of half a dozen criminals run ins Mr. Robinson had.
last I remember paying 15 year old prostitutes male or female was illegal . maybe someday Mr. Graham can clarify this all.
he can announce that he “not gay , and never was gay” and CBCpravda can report that.
and CBCpravda can put it between Rufus Wainwright and k d lang just for emphasis.
I have to agree with SLM and JohnnyRingo on this one. Senator Craig is the worst sort of hypocrite. Obviously, stupidity knows no ideological boundaries.
For those who still don’t quite get it: Hypocrisy in action.
“they feign outrage over marginally offensive comments”
“As you can see, the following unscolded commenters on her blog suggest that her outrage and sensitivity is quite newly found. What do you think caused this awakening?:
“Watching Calvert talk to the media yesterday was to watch a man in severe damage control mode. He was stuttering, had no topic and mumbling about the fall.”
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/004623.html#c102799
“The untruths roll off his(Paul Martin) tongue now without the stammering and stuttering that that was so evident two months ago. I guess if he tells lies often enough he starts to belive what he is saying hence the fluid speech.”
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/003428.html#c50543
“PMPM would be on-air stuttering ceaselessly how the war-mongering M.E. bullies, the USA-backed Israelis had started the conflagration and were to be condemned.”
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/004397.html#c94454
“Like you, I was looking forward to never having to see the frothing, mumbling, stuttering, droning, BORING wattling- worbbling old turkey of a pmpm”
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/003473.html#c53358
“I saw Obama on a newscast the other day. He was a stuttering inept way less than average speaker .”
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/005555.html#c138900
“Ah, Iberia has been reading Wells again. Pompous, self-righteous, stuttering fool.”
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/005879.html#c151214
“PMPM announces he is the idiot that approved the script for the attack ad on the Canadian military.
a stuttering stupid apology.”
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/003331.html#c46534
“The Liberals DID release, for all the stuttering ignorance they are displaying now.”
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/003314.html#c45886
“Just saw Stephen Harper on Global, expressing a clear, concise message on violent crime. Meanwhile, Martin is standing at the edge of his bus,stuttering and uttering on ‘reverse onus’as the solution innocent people dying on the streets.”
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/003245.html#c43698
I think what Kate is basically trying to illustrate from the article is that “People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.” I could be wrong.
Probably the principle she was trying to illustrate, to be sure.
And she would be doing her readers a favour, in fact, if she were to adhere to that principle herself in future posts.
Unfortunately, however, the recent past has seen Kate suggest the CCF/NDP were ideological supporters of “mass murder, forced labour and starvation of millions of human beings”–without offering any evidence to support the claim, I might add.
And all while she herself has forcefully supported the unjust use of violence in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and elsewhere–at a human cost that has yet to be fully tallied.
Here’s hoping this cartoon-related post marks a change of direction.
Hmm — In case you missed it, here are some Maclean’s pics from Graham’s recent “Gay Pride bash”. http://forums.macleans.ca/advansis/?mod=for&act=dis&eid=30&so=1&sb=1&ps=15
Sexual preferences aside, this very public display of marital disloyalty has to be quite devastating for Graham’s wife (if they are still together). I think it is exceptionally self-centred for Graham to be so indiscrete about his infidelities. The piece does not note whether or not his wife, children were in attendance at the “party”. What a boor.
“. they print glowing stories about Scott Brison and even Svend – and stealing the ring was just one of half a dozen criminals run ins Mr. Robinson had.”
Once again, the confusion is that Scott Bison and Svend don’t go around telling people that they should not be gay.
Svend is a convicted criminal, and is no longer serving in Parliament. What has Scott Brison done?
It sounds like you just don’t like gays?
And why do you call CBC Pravda? Are you aware that you are insulting the many people who suffered under communism?
the recent past has seen Kate suggest the CCF/NDP were ideological supporters of “mass murder, forced labour and starvation of millions of human beings”
No, she said the CCF/NDP supported an ideology which had often resulted in those outcomes. It doesn’t imply support of mass murder on the part of the NDP, but rather a lack of willingness to accept that socialism has repeatedly failed and produced tragic outcomes.
In a way you are right, Belisarius. The problem with having hypocrites in power is that in their enthusiasm to find new faces to sit upon, they expose the rest of us to the true dangers that exist in our world. Those that would distract us by saying one thing and doing another should be ostracized at the very least. And having a media that would report those that cannot restrain themselves or that truly have an alternate or a hidden agenda would benefit us all. Unfortunately, it seems that ‘progressive’ behaviour is the order of the day. In most of the dated media, Capital ‘C’ Conservatives are the enemy. And I am sure that those ideological boundaries present more of a problem than the discussions taking place here.
I agree, Mike. Most of the media has an ideological bias against conservatives.
It doesn’t imply support of mass murder on the part of the NDP, but rather a lack of willingness to accept that socialism has repeatedly failed and produced tragic outcomes.
Nice try.
Did Kate provide any evidence for her false claims that the CCF/NDP supported an ideology that lead to the ‘tragic outcomes’ you mention?
Did you for yours?
The answer in both cases is ‘No.’
Try again, though–I look forward to seeing the attempt.
Here’s the exact quote, Stephen:
The Regina Manifesto is an explicit statement endorsing an ideology that has resulted in the mass murder, forced labour and starvation of millions of human beings.
The ideology she is referring to is communism (i.e. socialism). The historical record is pretty clear on the tragic outcomes.
My apologies for taking this OT.
The historical record is pretty clear on the tragic outcomes.
Please provide some historical evidence that the CCF/NDP endorsed an ideology that resulted in “mass murder, forced labour and starvation of millions of human beings.”
Please explain further how that (alleged) endorsement can be reconciled with the CCF/NDP’s explicit rejection of violence in the Regina Manifesto.
Please show us where the CCF/NDP supported the ideology of ‘communism’ in the Regina Manifesto–‘communism’ being a term you equate with ‘socialism’–can you explain why? On the basis of the Manifesto?
Finally–would you care to offer your sense of the ‘tragic outcomes’ of any other ideological efforts, including those of so-called capitalism, in Canada or elsewhere?
My apologies, too, for taking this thread off topic: the focus should remain on hypocrisy.
Thanks for the link to the photo of Graham in his pink shirt celebrating gay pride – whatever the heck that is. Is/was 15 yrs the legal age – and is that why the Liberals wanted to lower the age of consent? To avoid a scandal in the future? Hypocrisy, thy name is the Liberal “It’s the Charter Stupid” group.
Also, when did Craig confess to a lewd act, a solicitation for sex, or whatever? I listened to the tape and it was hard to figure it out, with the policeman doing what police do best – badger and confuse. His mistake was not calling his lawyer.
If he’s ‘guilty’ of being a homosexual, then it will be proven eventually because one of his alleged lovers will ‘out’ him, as did Graham’s. But, I forgot – homosexuality is not a crime. The hypocrisy is among the strident group of self-centered pro-homosexual free-sex in public washrooms and lewd public behaviour in ‘gay’ pride parades who are daily forcing their agenda on the rest of society. They like to rant about hypocrisy within the family values group, while refusing to admit that their goal is to destroy the family structure. Hypocrisy is saying one thing while doing another – and denying it.
But, please tell me, honestly – the cartoonist really wasn’t nude while performing an act of self-gratification in a public place? That’s arrested 13-yr old behaviour if ever I’ve heard of it.
Sorry B., but you’re not right on this one.
The Regina Manigesto is not an endorsement of Communism, and it explicitly rejects violence of any sort. It makes it’s conviction to democracy explicitly clear.
I would add, that as some one with a bit of experience in the NDP, that their founders, the Lewis’s, were fanatical anti-Communists. They spent much of the 30s and 40s purging communist elements from their ranks.
The Bolshevik ideology that is associated with Communism, calls for a dictatorship that will somehow magically cause the state to “whither awat” and create the workers utopia. The dictatorship being temporary of course, pending the mass-execution of the counter-revolutionaries, heretics, useless idiots, etc.
To be perfectly honest, the Commies didn’t really have much of an ideology, per se. Lenin was primarily a strategist, first and foremost, and Bolshevism was tailored to create a regimented, militarized social movement. Lenin had studied the Paris Commune, and other failed working class movements, and reasoned that getting bogged down in trivialities like democracy hampered their ability to deal with reactionary forces in society that would attempt to crush any attempt to creating the workers state. As such, he reasoned that a transitory stage, a dictatorship of the proleteriat would be needed, to defend the working class from reactionary forces, before creating the beautiful, classless society that Russia became under Stalin (that is sarcasm).
In short, the ideology of Bolshevism has nothing in common with the Regina Manifesto, except some vague rhetoric about helping working class people, which Lenin and Stalin didn’t believe anyways.
Oh yeah, Commies are hypocrites too!
“They like to rant about hypocrisy within the family values group, while refusing to admit that their goal is to destroy the family structure”
I’m a little concerned by this. I’m actually planning on getting married next year, and starting a family shortly aftwards. How will the gay rights movement prevent me from doing this?
This thread seems to be filled with more stupid comments, from both right and left, than usual.
To the left: there are plenty of examples of the MSM giving a pass, or even sympathy, to the mis-deeds of the Liberals/NDP/Democrats. Svend Robinson commits grand larceny, cries a few tears, and doesn’t spend a minute in jail. (Let’s see any of us try that, and see how well it works.) It was reported in the press, but I don’t recall any MSM outlet calling for his resignation, or even expulsion from his caucus. I do remember some columns expressing sympathy for his plight. There are too many other examples to bother citing them (except I can’t help but note that there are guys going to jail just for having pictures of 15 year old girls on their computers, and Graham has sex with a 15 year old boy, and gets a complete pass? What kind of judicial hypocrisy is that?!).
To the right: C’mon, guys and girls – the Republicans rode into town in 2000, saying they were going to restore decency and honor (perhaps that’s why Americans spell it that way – there’s no “u” in honor in America!). And there has been a steady parade of scandals – not just the sexual ones, but venality and corruption (Tom Delay, Rob Ney, Jack Abramoff – the list goes on and on). In fact, one Republican congressman, Jeff Flake of Arizona said in USA Today “We Republicans have abused [our] power badly over the past several years.” That’s a quotation from a Republican, ladies and gents.
And these are the scandals outside the White House. The Plame affair, the whispers that Cheney funneled business to Halliburton, the Gonzales firing of US attorneys; I think GW Bush personally is unsullied, but there’s a lot of people on his team who aren’t above using their positions to ruin their opponents or pad their pockets.
So, since the Republicans made such a big deal of being the honest party, I think the media have every right to call them on it. And they are. Just this week, on CNBC – which I would never call left wing media – had a discussion where the pundits from both the right and left agreed that the GOP had better not try the “party of honor” card in the 2008 elections.
So here’s the bottom line: with the sole exception of the Lewinsky affair, I think the MSM will report the antics of the left wing, but will be quick to forgive and forget. And I think the GOP in the US and the Tories in Canada ran on certain non-economic planks, like honesty, accountability, and openess, and then failed to deliver. I mean, I know Harper got an accountability act passed, but it looks like dishwater, and he promised openess, but in practice, his PMO seems to be as controlling as any one run by Eddie Goldenberg.
I can’t remember who said “I don’t vote – it just encourages ’em”, but I have some appreciation for the sentiment. Or, as the Who put it, “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss” (and, hi there, Valerie Putin!). Both sides, right and left, have a lot to be ashamed of, and a lot they should have to answer for, and for all of us to sit around crying “You’re worse than us!” is to miss the important point: they’re both lying to us, stealing our money, and shoving crap down our throats. And we finally have this new tool in the Net that gives grassroot organizations the ability to organize and publicize virtually free, and what do we use it for? Name calling and labelling.
I have half a mind to start the “No Crap Party”, but I’m afraid I might get taken seriously, have to follow through, and then have to suffer a whole bunch of media colonscopies, which wouldn’t be a pretty sight.
I see the new liberal election strategy is to spread their oily tenticles to every right-leaning blog on the net and attempt to infuse said blogs with their failed socialist pathology.
Good work if you can get it I guess, but a real job pays better.
Self-loathing, you are too intelligent to misconstrue that.
Pay more attention to what ‘they’ say and what ‘they’ demand. And know that this has been years in the making. Also know, it isn’t over.
And, congratulations on your future marriage, and may you be blessed with two sets of triplets.
I think the best way to clean up a lot of this stuff – and the smell of this stuff – is to have term limits on all elected people – or at least contiguous limits for a particular office.
This would automatically clean out a lot of crap – get rid of the lifers and their political machines – and keep things dynamic – the power going to the head syndrome wouldn’t set in.
Chretien would have been gone, Svend would be gone, Polosi would be gone, everyone’s buddy Kennedy would be gone – and so would their political machines which means more people would be able to fight an election.
“I think his worst sin was to drop bombs on a few countries and kill a few thousand people to try to deflect the press from the story.”
Clinton’s action against Serbia was The Right Thing To Do and well executed to boot. We can only wish that Iraq would go 10% as well.
KevinB “And we finally have this new tool in the Net that gives grassroot organizations the ability to organize and publicize virtually free, and what do we use it for? Name calling and labelling.”
Well bloggers triggered the downfall of Alberto Gonzalez. It’s not perfect but the medium is maturing into something mighty. Televison didn’t develop the current all-consuming role it plays in politics overnight either.
It’s just a matter of time before the net dominates politics and the party machines start taking a back seat.
Gellen “The hypocrisy is among the strident group of self-centered pro-homosexual free-sex in public washrooms and lewd public behaviour in ‘gay’ pride parades who are daily forcing their agenda on the rest of society”
Poor Craig he was forced into screwing men in public bathrooms by peer pressure.
Supressing your sexuality isn’t a good thing. You’re a lot safer leaving your child in the care of those gay pride freaks than you are a Catholic Priest.
Yo, Stephen. If some nutjob is lobbing rockets into my backyard, I would not consider it unjust to blow that asshole to smithereens. Unjust use of force my ass. And when that idiot is using children as human shields, do not blame me for the death of the child, blame the hesboretard.
Jose. I would not leave my kids with a priest or a bonesmoker. There ya go.
So Aaron is willing to embrace an interview given by a male prostitute in a fringe magazine to be accepted as face value (fair enough, I suppose) but is willing to cast doubt on an undercover police officer’s report. The depths to which the right will go to protect its own perverts is astounding. You could have had a job on Clinton’s staff.
I guess Aaron thinks it’s equally permissible and above-board for men to stand outside playgrounds, carry digital cameras, wear sunglasses, etc.
KevinB, I just got to your comments: very nicely said. I don’t agree with everything you’ve written, but I fully agree with your take on the general state of the left/right debate.
I am confused.
No doubt you are.
Does Ben Sargent speak out on morale values?
To state the obvious for the benefit of the confused, pointing out alleged hypocrisy in others is a moral judgement.
That is why Sargent is just a criminal, while Craig is a criminal and a hypocrite.
Did Sargent draw a cartoon of himself engaging in “pleasuring” himself in a public place while making fun of another allegedly attempting to do the same thing?
Oh right, Sargent doesn’t specifically say he is a law abiding citizen. Although one can assume that if Sargent thinks hypocrisy is a moral failing, he also would agree that pleasuring oneself in a public place is illegal and also a moral failing.
That this has to be pointed out to you also illustrates your lack of moral discernment and precludes you from commenting on any supposed moral failings of others.
sooooo…. mr family values wants to ejaculate in the backside of some teenager and the right wing bloggers spin spin spin…..
some things never change eh?
Here is the thing:
The right stands for moral behaviour, traditional American values, freedom and prosperity for all people. A small minority of the right do not live up to those principals. When they are found out, the right asks them to leave.
The left stands for a utopian dream land where all people are “equal” in terms of outcome, not opportunity. It stands for nothing more.
Members of the left are free to run prostitution rings, have sex with underage pages, murder women by driving them into rivers, feed alcohol to underage sex partners in city hall while the wife sits at home, defiantly tell the public that thier affairs with married co-workers is their own business, get blow jobs from interns while acutally discussing putting our troops in harms way….. I could go on and on.
The reason some leftist politicians can be the true pigs they are and get away with it is that its members don’t care about personal behaviour so long as its leaders have the right political positons.
“I guess Aaron thinks it’s equally permissible and above-board for men to stand outside playgrounds, carry digital cameras, wear sunglasses, etc.”
I do that all the time. It is not against the law.
Do you want my name and address to send cops?
“Pay more attention to what ‘they’ say and what ‘they’ demand. ”
Again, can you provide some specifics.
OK Aaron, do you really, truly believe that the police officer who arrested Craig (and God, who in their right mind would want the job trolling restrooms to find people hoping to engage in a little public sex) misinterpreted the guy’s actions? Is that really what you think?
Are you that much of an apologist for ideology? If it was a Democratic Senator – if it was Barney Frank, for instance – would you be so hellbent to explain away his behaviour (which I’m not necessarily condemning, but which did attract the attention of a police officer, and for which he did plead guilty for)?
Barney Frank. interesting example. here is essentially a lobby list.
U.S. Congressman Barney Frank
Summary of Travel Funded by Non-Governmental Sources
(As reported in Rep. Frank’s annual Financial Disclosure Statements for 2001 – 2006, with supplementary information for 2007)
Category Number of Trips
Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, 38
Transgender Organizations
Advocacy and Community Groups 19
Colleges and Universities 16
Democratic Political Organizations 12
Financial Services Groups 9
Media Appearances 6
Non-Federal Democratic Candidates 3*
International Economic Forums 2
Once again, do you really want to play this game of “my side is so much ethically better than yours”? Both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of being swayed by private interests who foot the bill on travel. This is a rather revealing list, wouldn’t you say?
House: Top Recipients of Privately Sponsored Travel, 1997
Rank Member Total Cost No. of Trips
1 Bill Archer (R-Texas) $126,967 105
2 Bob Smith (R-Ore.) $123,866 107
3 Tom DeLay (R-Texas) $102,959 35
4 Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) $92,223 37
5 Bud Shuster (R-Pa.) $84,542 70
6 Dick Armey (R-Texas) $80,041 58
7 Thomas J. Bliley Jr. (R-Va.) $77,149 100
8 Michael G. Oxley (R-Ohio) $63,731 33
9 Rick Boucher (D-Va.) $45,174 20
10 Gene Green (D-Texas) $42,271 20
Senate: Top Recipients of Privately Sponsored Travel, 1997
Rank Senator Total Cost No. of Trips
1 William V Roth Jr (R-Del.) $90,014 36
2 Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska) $81,540 41
3 James M. Jeffords (R-Vt.) $53,728 37
4 Larry E. Craig (R-Idaho) $42,935 40
5 Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) $42,749 25
6 Craig Thomas (R-Wyo.) $42,144 14
7 Slade Gorton (R-Wash.) $40,456 24
8 Paul S. Sarbanes (D-Md.) $39,554 23
9 Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) 38,633 21
10 Max Baucus (D-Mont.) $38,374 17
Someone earlier mentioned that “The right stands for moral behaviour, traditional American values, freedom and prosperity for all people.” Are supporters of the right really this blind to the practices their own leaders engage in?
KevinB, good comments overall. I will, however, take exception to one thing. You mentioned the accountability act not being in keeping with Tory promises and comments during elecion. You left out something – the opposition rewrote the act in committee and Senate, so they are the ones who watered it down, not the government in a minority parliament.
Travel in 1997, surely you can google something with a later date than that.
note that in sex scandals republicans lead by a wide margin. are they morally inferior or just outted more?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_scandals_of_the_United_States#Sex_scandals
re: my own comments on Harper’s centralization of power:
John Ivison in today’s National Post has an excellent and even-handed examination on Harper’s concentration of power within the PMO. He traces the increasing centralization of power from King in WWII to Pearson to Trudeau to Chretien to Harper. He provides arguments that are both pro and con with the process. It’s an excellent piece of journalism; I wish there was more.
Of course, Andrew Coyne has an amusing piece on the vacuity of Canadian politics on the same page, so I got something I rarely receive: intelligence and entertainment in political reporting.
Recommended for reading over this extended weekend.
Happy Labour Day to all!
Seeing all the Leftoids banging their sippy cup on their highchair shouting HYPOCRISY, reminded me of one of my favorite Ann Coulter quotes:
“The reason any conservative’s failing is always major news is that it allows liberals to engage in their very favorite taunt: Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy is the only sin that really inflames them. Inasmuch as liberals have no morals, they can sit back and criticize other people for failing to meet the standards that liberals simply renounce.
It’s an intriguing strategy. By openly admitting to being philanderers, draft dodgers, liars, weasels and cowards, liberals avoid ever being hypocrites.”
From an article published by the LewRockwell website, by Roger Roots:
“In a way, we should all be appreciative of Senator Larry Craig’s post-conviction claim of innocence. At long last we have a member of the United States Senate who has acknowledged the phenomenon of the false guilty plea, if not the pervasiveness of wrongful conviction itself. Or better yet, by insisting he did ‘nothing wrong’ despite violating a statute, Craig may have finally expressed doubt in the laws that lawmakers have rained down on us. Viewed in their worst light, the allegations made against Craig hardly seem to rise to the level of criminal conduct. Yet Craig’s guilty plea to disorderly conduct charges will prevent him from formally appealing the conviction and will likely haunt him for the rest of his life.
“Senator Craig’s proclamations of innocence are ironic given his membership in one of the earth’s most punitive deliberative bodies….”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/roots1.html
I don’t know if this qualifies as rising above both sides in the struggle. Its theme is that ex-Sen. Craig was done in by a petard that was, in part, of his own creation. And no, Dr. Roots is not referring to any family-values crusade (at least, not specifically.)
Another teaser from it: “Hundreds of thousands of false guilty pleas are registered annually in the United States.”