Annals of Hypocrisy


More.

28 Comments for “Annals of Hypocrisy”

  1. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    So its your view that the accusations should not be investigated before the confirmation vote?

    If you want to hand the Democrats a midterm gift, go ahead, trash the accuser and ridicule those calling for an investigation, and muscle the confirmation through the Judiciary Committee and the Senate without investigating the accusation.

    Jesus, that scenario is a Democratic strategist’s wet dream. It will increase the turnout of Democrat-voting women by a third.

    I swear to God that you conservatives have a self-suicide pact going.

    Reply
    • posted by Ricport on

      “So its your view that the accusations should not be investigated before the confirmation vote?”

      The committee has bent over backwards to accommodate someone who, to this point, has not produced one shred of corroborating evidence. They’ve offered to hold an open hearing. They’ve offered to hold a closed-door hearing. They’ve offered to send staffers to California. She is in no position to dictate ANYTHING. She has a chance to be heard. If that’s what this is about, then she should act.

      And since you LibDems are so concerned with the truth, then I’m sure you wouldn’t have any problem with having Sen. Feinstein being compelled to testify and produce all records over this sordid affair?

      But, we all know damn well this has nothing to do with anything but pure politics. This is Thomas 2. The Dems have nothing left but to go to any depths to derail this nominee. Instead of debating the merits, they will once again reach the absolute nadir of repugnance in the defense of their holy grail: abortion.

      Perhaps not forcing the FBI to investigate will be a LibDem “wet dream,” but it could also be the spark to ignite complacent Repubs, Independents and Libertarians to dampen the Dems’ chances of capturing the senate.

      Reply
  2. posted by Kosh III on

    Hypocrisy? You mean Merrick Garland?

    Reply
    • posted by Ricport on

      Nah. More like the King and Queen of hypocrisy: Ol’ Happy Pants, and his “Lil’ Missus.”

      Reply
  3. posted by MR Bill on

    Y’all do know that Ken Starr, and his minion Kavanaugh didn’t find the Wiley, Broadderick and Jones allegations credible enough to act on, don’t you?

    Reply
    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      Yeah, Stephen knows it. He just doesn’t let facts get in the way of a good whine.

      Reply
      • posted by Matthew on

        More victim-shaming by white liberal men. Regardless of sexuality, the left is depraved.

        Reply
    • posted by Ricport on

      Y’all know that Ol’ Happy Pants settled with Paula Jones, right?

      Reply
      • posted by Matthew on

        You mean that cracker breeder goy good ol’ boy rapist who signed DOMA and DADT and said “those mean old Republicans made me do it”?

        Reply
  4. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    More victim-shaming by white liberal men. Regardless of sexuality, the left is depraved.

    I don’t pretend to understand the victimization culture of homocons, who are, for the most part, relatively wealthy white men in positions of political, cultural and business power. But the victimization culture certainly is pervasive.

    If I shame them from time to time by pointing that out, it is shaming to them only because their claims of victimization are petty, bordering on the fraudulent, and they know that.

    Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      Chatter chatter chatter project project project lie lie lie (you can’t spell “liberal”, a word the Regressive Left has corrupted along with “progressive” and every other bullshit euphemism for socialism, without it). Gay conservatives have been deplatformed and threatened and you act like we deserve it.

      A YouTube account is a position of power? Shadowbans from social media that do not target actual bigots are positions of power? And as much money as Peter Thiel has, he has far less name recognition than a hetero white leftist male useful idiot like Jim Carrey, star of such aptly named films as DUMB AND DUMBER and LIAR, LIAR, and thus he has less influence in our celebrity-worshiping anti-culture.

      Reply
    • posted by Ricport on

      “I don’t pretend to understand the victimization culture of homocons, who are, for the most part, relatively wealthy white men in positions of political, cultural and business power. ”

      I don’t understand the terminal white guilt white LibDems – many of whom reside in Silicon Valley, the Upper East Side and Hollywood – are crippled with.

      Reply
      • posted by Matthew on

        “I don’t understand the terminal white guilt white LibDems – many of whom reside in Silicon Valley, the Upper East Side and Hollywood – are crippled with.”

        The ones in Hollywood say what their employers tell them to say if they want to keep working. Name one openly gay Republican in Hollywood.

        Reply
  5. posted by Jorge on

    So says Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin, a long-time Clinton operative who did not believe ‎Juanita Broaddrick…‎Paula Jones…‎Kathleen Willey…

    Or the fourth one: Kathy Shelter.

    No matter how many times this is said, I do not ever expect any accounting for hypocrisy to top the spectacle that Donald Trump wrought when he held a press conference with the Bill Clinton accusers and brought them to the second presidential debate.

    And… it’s enough for that to have happened once. Donald Trump became president.

    If you want to hand the Democrats a midterm gift, go ahead, trash the accuser and ridicule those calling for an investigation, and muscle the confirmation through the Judiciary Committee and the Senate without investigating the accusation.

    And that is probably why the word is she will testify. I think that’s a very bad thing for the Democratic party. No matter what happens, it will give President Trump the bludgeon.

    On reflection, she could turn out to be as credible as the Roy Moore accuser who held a press conference (quite possible), her testimony could be just as pivotal (hmm???) and expose something just as telling (hmm…). I don’t see it.

    More victim-shaming by white liberal men.

    Okay, someone said victim-shaming, so I’m going to put this thought in this topic: Nobody likes a woman who tries to take down a powerful man.

    I’m thinking about a year ago when Bette Midler pointed to her something like 1991 interview with Barbara Walters in which she accused Geraldo Rivera of groping her and being “unseemly.” Except she was speaking in code, and what she was talking about was rape. She was worried she would get in trouble, so she said things like “It was not funny at all”, “He was unseemly”, and–perhaps most horrifyingly–she kept the tone of the conversation light. You have to watch the interview multiple times to catch where her body language freezes, that she’s using her powerfully charming personality to hide, rather than communicate, the sexual assault.

    Both of them kept their careers after that. She didn’t try to take down the powerful man.

    Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      At least one powerful man who wronged her, and one who has serious issues with women and gay men in general, is going bye-bye: Les Moonves, who pulled the red carpet from under her feet just as quickly as he rolled it out by cancelling her 2000-2001 sitcom (which wasn’t that bad, all things considered, and it had a gay character in it who managed not to be a total embarrassment). At the same time, Moonves also killed a gay-themed sitcom called SOME OF MY BEST FRIENDS (a TV version of the 1997 Paramount film KISS ME GUIDO) which co-starred Jason Bateman (of all the times one wishes life could imitate art…). Moonves was also at Lorimar when VALERIE, Bateman’s last sitcom before that that wasn’t a flop, was on the air, and the studio ended up in a bitter lawsuit over firing her, killing off her character, and setting fire to the family’s house to destroy as much evidence that she ever existed as possible. He also was partly responsible for enabling two of the worst shows ever with FULL HOUSE and FRIENDS (the latter made after Warner Bros. acquired and dissolved Lorimar), both of which had pretty contemptuous attitudes towards gay men, right before he joined CBS.

      Reply
    • posted by Ricport on

      “Okay, someone said victim-shaming, so I’m going to put this thought in this topic: Nobody likes a woman who tries to take down a powerful man.”

      No, it’s more like nobody likes a woman who has no corroborating evidence and who has a transparently political motive to take down someone.

      On a bigger point, MeToo started off nobly – women deserve to be heard and to have their day to produce the evidence necessary to hold men accountable. But, as with many movements that start with noble (or semi-noble) intentions, the left is desperately trying to swing the pendulum in the opposite direction: all a woman has to do is merely make an accusation, and a man is automatically found guilty.

      What’s wrong with this can be summed up in three, simple words: Duke Lacrosse Case.

      Reply
      • posted by Jorge on

        No, it’s more like nobody likes a woman who has no corroborating evidence and who has a transparently political motive to take down someone.

        What’s what woman’s name again? Paula Jones? Or was it Stormy Daniels?

        Identifying a nefarious motive to explain the observation only serves as evidence for the principle, whether or not the motive is accurate. One needs to look at each case to show the motive exists rather than relying on stereotype.

        No corroborating evidence? The alleged accomplice, Mark Judge was an admitted blackout drunk, and made a thinly veiled accusation that Kavanaugh, or did I get that backwards? The accuser was diagnosed with a mental illness that was linked to a past trauma. That is more than enough for an inquiry into whether we can narrow down place and time.

        A transparently political motive? I think you’d better clarify that which you think is so obvious, as it seems to me rather that her motive is a rather personal grudge. How can you tell the difference? Nay, I fail to see how you can read anything political at all in her actions. It is right to call for evidence. I ask for yours.

        Reply
      • posted by Matthew on

        “What’s wrong with this can be summed up in three, simple words: Duke Lacrosse Case.”

        And in that case, it was a white male (Mike Nifong, the DA) who went after them as payback because he couldn’t get into Duke although his parents could.

        Reply
  6. posted by MR Bill on

    Josh Marshall:”…Grassley is arguing that the committee is now essentially out of time because Feinstein respected the accuser’s desire not to have her accusation become public. He is also purportedly concerned that not respecting whistleblowers’ and victims’ desire to have their claims remain confidential will deter future whistleblowers and victims from coming forward. In other words, Grassley is arguing two contradictory sides of the same argument with the aim of saying that time for this particular alleged victim has simply run out and it’s too bad.” https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/grassley-s-shameless-lies-edition-57

    Again, this is as brazen and transparent as Senate Republicans’ corrupt decision to steal a Supreme Court seat two and a half years ago. The simple truth is this. Even by the most cynical standard, there’s plenty of time for a simple review of the facts. The problem with time is this: Grassley and his colleagues are worried that any investigation won’t go well for them or for Kavanaugh. If it doesn’t, they may not have time to push through a second nominee before the election. That’s the rush.”

    Reply
  7. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    [I]t could also be the spark to ignite complacent Repubs, Independents and Libertarians to dampen the Dems’ chances of capturing the senate.

    I don’t doubt that for a minute, given the demographics of the Republican base, and the predominance of older white men in that base. Back when (and I am old enough to be part of that demographic) “boys will be boys” was taken as a given and high school girls were held to account if a boy “went too far”.

    We are already hearing much more that we should, it seems to me, about the injustice of taking adolescent “horseplay” into consideration, and the sentiment that no man will be safe if adolescent “horseplay” is treated as sexual assault.

    I have no doubt that Judge Kavanaugh’s alleged behavior was relatively common among his peers. The accounts coming out of the other prep schools of that time and place suggest that is so. And, given that those prep schools were feeder academies for the Washington establishment, I don’t have any trouble understanding why the Washington elite is responding as it is.

    But those days are over, even for boys from “good families” (that is, white, upper middle class) whether the Washington elite knows it or not. In today’s world, boys who act as Judge Kavanaugh is alleged to have acted are likely to find themselves on the sex offender registry. Certainly so if the boys are not white and upper middle class.

    Reply
  8. posted by Jorge on

    Grassley is arguing that the committee is now essentially out of time because Feinstein respected the accuser’s desire not to have her accusation become public.

    A sign in one of my earlier offices:

    “Your failure to submit your request until the last minute is not an emergency to me.”

    He is also purportedly concerned that not respecting whistleblowers’ and victims’ desire to have their claims remain confidential will deter future whistleblowers and victims from coming forward.

    To that I say this:

    Submitting your work at the last minute does not protect you from the risk that I will return it for revision and require you to do it over.

    Grassley is arguing two contradictory sides of the same argument with the aim of saying that time for this particular alleged victim has simply run out and it’s too bad.

    There is nothing contradictory about having standards and a sense of honor in how you go about upholding them. Let us be clear on the opportunistic hypocrites are and are not.

    The accuser doesn’t want to testify on Monday after she agreed to do so? She was worried about being thrown to the wolves, and then she agreed to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Whoever advised her to make that decision was a class A idiot. She took the advice of an idiot and agreed to something stupid. It doesn’t take a degree in political science to understand that when a man agrees to do something, he follows through or accepts the consequences.

    Reply
  9. posted by Jorge on

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-brett-kavanaugh-accuser-congress-20180920-story.html#

    “Debra Katz, Ford’s lawyer, relayed the response to top staffers on the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, requesting to set up a call with them to “discuss the conditions under which [Ford] would be prepared to testify next week.

    “As you are aware, she’s been receiving death threats which have been reported to the FBI and she and her family have been forced out of their home,” Katz wrote to the committee. “She wishes to testify, provided that we can agree on terms that are fair and which ensure her safety. A hearing on Monday is not possible and the committee’s insistence that it occur then is arbitrary in any event.””

    ………..
    That’s a very good argument.

    However, the committee’s insistence that it occur Monday is not arbitrary.

    Tell the attorney the Committee Chairperson will personally pay all expenses necessary for Ms. Ford and her supporters in order to ensure that she can testify via closed circuit television at a federal office of her choice on Monday morning. The nomination and advice on a candidate for the Supreme Court of the United States is of the utmost priority. In the event of an unfavorable evaluation, it is important for the President to “have time to push through a second nominee before the election.” And my committee does not appreciate unwarranted delays in our proceedings once we have begun. There are a lot of questions here that Ms. Ford has raised that Mr. Kavanaugh would like an opportunity to answer. To quote Mary Beth Cahill, I think it’s fair game and I think she’s been treated very respectfully.

    Reply
  10. posted by Jorge on

    “The sin, if there was one, was not one of those that Catholic theology calls peccata clamantia—sins that cry to heaven for vengeance.”

    If rape by forcible compulsion isn’t horrible enough in Catholic theology to cry to heaven for vengeance because the attacker failed to complete the act, it is evident to me that Catholic theology is even more white and male than the Senate Judiciary Committee was during the Anita Hill hearings. I cannot believe you polluted this website with a link to this filth, Mr. Miller. That the Wall Street Journal saw fit to publish it is no excuse.

    Man is of the earth, and can be an instrument of vengeance when the power and majesty of heaven is not necessary. So is woman. The two cannot agree. Best if we try. The last time we waited for God to sort things out in Sodom and Gemorrah, he turned homosexuality into a death sentence.

    Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was over their inhospitality to Lot and his daughters and for temple prostitution, not for homosexuality. Gentile hucksters and charlatans have distorted the Bible this way for two millennia to justify their genocidal bloodlust, and their karma is coming. Now that it has been revealed that the Catholic Church is just a front for child molestation and Mafia money laundering, Protestantism and Mormonism are sure to fall like dominoes and Islam along with it as the world starts to realize that the Jewish God is God and homosexuality is the only normal form of human sexuality.

      Reply
  11. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    If rape by forcible compulsion … I cannot believe you polluted this website with a link to this filth, Mr. Miller. That the Wall Street Journal saw fit to publish it is no excuse.

    Lance Morrow’s screed is yet another attempt to minimize the alleged behavior as a more-or-less routine and innocent coming of age experience, this time wrapped in half-baked theology rather than put forth in plain English — “just horseplay”, “hijinks for boys” and so on. The list of moral/ethical evasions seems to grow by the hour.

    Looking at the credits at the bottom of the article, I wasn’t surprised to discover that Lance Morrow is “a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center”. We’ve seen more than our share of filth out of the Ethics and Public Policy Center this week.

    The most recent example is an attempt by the Ethics and Public Policy Center’s president, Ed Whelan, to pin the alleged behavior onto one of Judge Kavanaugh’s classmates who was not involved but whom Whelan named and of whom Whelan provided a current photograph that was widely disseminated in the right wing media bubble. Not that the classmate’s innocence — or the fact that as a middle school teacher, any hint of sexual abuse would destroy him completely — mattered to Whelan, to CRC Public Relations (of Swift Boat infamy), to Fox News, or to the numerous Republican politicians, including Kavanaugh’s defense team at the White House, who “hyped” the fabrication’s build up before the reveal. As more is learned about the build up and surrounding hype, it is becoming more and more clear that Whelan developed and orchestrated a coordinated effort involving numerous Republican players to cast doubt on the allegation against Judge Kavanaugh by substituting an innocent, substitute perpetrator.

    Talk about filth.

    Reply
    • posted by Jorge on

      Lance Morrow’s screed is yet another attempt to minimize the alleged behavior as a more-or-less routine and innocent coming of age experience, this time wrapped in half-baked theology rather than put forth in plain English — “just horseplay”, “hijinks for boys” and so on. The list of moral/ethical evasions seems to grow by the hour.

      I am hardly on the side of angels. Expediency is important; let someone else play the tissue card. It disgusts me when people who are working as the Devil’s Own advocates pretend they are on the side of what is right and just.

      …We’ve seen more than our share of filth out of the Ethics and Public Policy Center this week…

      Fine! I suppose being able to see somebody’s reputation destroyed is worth the ignominy of not being able to choose who it is.

      Were I on the committee or in the Senate, I would be switching my vote to “No” for that reason alone. This is, after all, a political circus; I think political acts deserve political judgment. Too bad neither of my Senators are Republican. Eh, I’ll write them anyway.

      Reply
      • posted by Matthew on

        Regressive Theftism is based on psychological projection and the idea that totalitarianism is justified as long as it is cloaked in love-bombing and other forms of emotional manipulation. That’s why fat, Star Wars- and Star Trek-obsessed regressive leftist hetero cuck soyboy boy-men prefer fantasy to reality: they can’t deal with it because it would force them to admit that the people they’ve vilified over the years were right about a lot of key points.

        Reply

Leave a Comment