Holier than Who?

27 06 2009

Charles Blow’s op-ed in the NY Times titled, The Prurient Trap, is the latest feeble attempt by liberals to broad-stroke conservatives because of Gov. Mark Sanford’s extra marital affair. Blow’s point can be surmised in this single paragraph:

There are Democratic (sic)* sex scandals to be sure, but Democrats didn’t build a franchise on holier-than-thou moral rectitude. The Republicans did. They used sexual morality as a weapon and now it’s shooting them in the foot. They could avoid this hypocrisy by focusing more on what happens in their own bedrooms and avoiding the trap of judging what goes on in everyone else’s.

He goes on to bolster his argument by illustrating how divorce, teenage birth rates, and  subscriptions to online pornography sites are higher in mostly red states. Perhaps Mr. Blow would do well do research his own party’s hypocrisy first: the most polluted states, states with the most uninsured, and states with the highest crime rates are mostly blue states, even though global warming, nationalized healthcare, and social justice are largely liberal issues. Mr. Blow’s obviously never heard of taking the plank out of his own eye before looking at the speck in his neighbor’s.

But I have a couple of questions.

First, since when does a political position on a moral issue become “holier-than-thou”? If liberals weren’t trying to dismantle the foundations of our society, such moral positions by conservatives wouldn’t be necessary in the first place. Liberals have driven the Democrat party to the far left by twisting moral issues into political ones, and vice versa. In doing so, liberals have designated themselves the judge and the jury. Poisoned the Well, as the logical fallacy is known. Tipped the playing field in their favor. Holier than who, exactly, I ask? There is right and there is wrong. And those standards apply to everyone. A moral slip-up, by a conservative is not hypocrisy. It’s simply sin. But Mr. Blow and his liberal friends are attempting to apply one standard to conservatives while giving themselves a pass on their own shortcomings.

That leads to my second question. Since when does moral failure by a conservative denote political collapse for the Republican party? Why do results only apply to the Republican party? They obviously never apply to liberals. No, with the Democrat party, it’s only about their good intentions. Take education for example. Liberals have had a stranglehold on the public education system for past 70 years with nothing short of a dismal record. And it’s getting worse. What answer do liberals have? Throw more money at the problem. Result: more failure. Any accountability for this colossal disaster? Of course not, because liberals meant it for good. Alrighty then, have a nice day.

I am not making excuses for any moral failure. Gov. Sanford was wrong. He admitted his mistake and he will probably continue to pay for his sin with his political career. But I have a feeling that we may see more of this liberal “stoning” of conservatives running for office in the future, namely, if Newt Gingrich decides to make a run for president. For now, I’d remind Mr. Blow that his party’s failures are no different that Gov. Sanford’s. Life could be easier for all of us if liberals could manage to compete on a level playing field. Then again, liberals aren’t about making life easier for anyone other than themselves…

* Sex scandals are hardly “Democratic.”

Advertisements




Blue Dog Democrats Voting for Cap and Trade

26 06 2009

There are 52 Blue Dog Democrats in the Blue Dog Coalition.

22 of them voted Yes on Cap and Trade (HR 2454, American Clean Energy and Security Act) earlier this evening, in a bill that narrowly passed the House 219-212. That’s just over 42% of supposedly “conservative” Democrats voting Yes on a VERY liberal piece of legislation than no one had a chance to even read.

Baca, Joe (CA-43)  225-6161
Bishop, Sanford (GA-02)  225-3631
Boswell, Leonard (IA-03)  225-3806
Boyd, Allen (FL-02)  225-5235
Cardoza, Dennis (CA-18)  225-6131
Chandler, Ben (KY-06)  225-4706
Cooper, Jim (TN-05)  225-4311
Cuellar, Henry (TX-28)  225-1640
Giffords, Gabrielle (AZ-08)  225-2542
Gordon, Bart (TN-06)  225-4231
Harman, Jane (CA-36)  225-8220
Hill, Baron (IN-09)  225-5315
Michaud, Mike (ME-02)  225-6306
Moore, Dennis (KS-03)  225-2865
Murphy, Patrick (PA-08)  225-4276
Peterson, Collin (MN-07)  225-2165
Sanchez, Loretta (CA-47)  225-2965
Schiff, Adam (CA-29) 225-4176
Scott, David (GA-13)  225-2939
Shuler, Heath (NC-11)  225-6401
Space, Zack (OH-18)  225-6265
Thompson, Mike (CA-01)  225-3311

If you live in any the blue areas below, and your representative’s name is listed above, you need to replace them with a conservative Republican. No excuses.

Blue Dog district map

Blue Dog district map

I count 9 that are from southern states that depend largely on farming. At least 2 others are from mostly conservative states (OH and AZ). We only needed 7 of these 9 to defeat the bill. Every one of these 22 needs be replaced in 2010.

Many are jumping on the  8 GOP turncoats who voted Yes: Bono Mack, Castle, Kirk, Lance, LoBiondo, McHugh, Reichert, and Smith(NJ). But these are mostly RINO’s. Are we really that surprised?

Michelle Malkin asks of the 8 GOP turncoats: “We still want to know: What were your payoffs/earmarks?” Who will ever know?

Dan Spencer at RedState is on the right track:

… it is possible to pass such a plan with a whopping seven vote margin – 219-212, with less than 4% of the favorable votes coming from the loyal opposition and more than 20% of the negative votes coming from the majority party.

It does make wonder what is hidden in all those pages that no Representative really had a chance to read, let alone study, that made the Democrats so determined to avoid a real honest to goodness debate.

I’m more surprised at the 22 of 52 Blue Dogs that voted Yes than I am of the 8 GOP turncoats. But I’m also more confident that conservatives can recruit and elect conservative Republicans in most, if not all, of these 22 districts.