Republican Hypocrisy category archive

Andrew Sullivan on Mitt Romney:

There’s something quite refreshing about his open refusal to have any principles, or even to worry about the slightest consistency between one statement and the next.

Ouch.

Brad Friedman at the Guardian:

It’s funny how when the American government itself – at its absolute highest-levels – was discovered to have tortured and abused prisoners at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, resulting in actual death, the very same wingnut apologists write it off as the act of a few low-level “bad apples”. No accountability for those who actually instituted the policies.

But when a few actual low-level bad apples – who happen to be African-American, and working for a group fighting for the American Dream for all Americans – commit petty stupidity, the entire organisation must be brought down in order to save the country.

ACORN helps poor people. We can’t have that, now, can we?

Those who protest the cost of government while demanding better government services.

They have no self-awareness.

Not a jot. Not a tittle.

All they have is blind ideolog–oh, never mind.

Words fail me.

Dr. Cole discusses the ironies of Wilsons:

This is the story of two Joe Wilsons, and two Americas. Both challenged a president, the most powerful man in the free world. One is a liar and the other is a courageous truth-teller. One enjoys impunity for his falsehood and epochal rudeness, bespeaking an America ruled with civility and tolerance. The other was subjected to a ruthless campaign of smears, and the career of his wife was ruined, bespeaking an America controlled by heartless men bent on achieving their nefarious ends by running roughshod over others.

I should be able to work Joe the Not a Plumber in there somewhere, but haven’t figured out how yet.

Via Noz

“R” for “Republican”:

There’s a transcript of much of it here.

Here’s the point:

Lots (I pointedly do not say nor mean “all”) of these “family values” Republicans spout “family values,” not because they have any, but because they think it will get votes.

And it is curious how “family values” in their parlance refers always to sexual behavior, not to business practices, not to treating persons with courtesy in publc discourse, not to lying the nation into war, not to giving away the store to “contractors” who cost more and provide less than full-time government employees, not to threats against the lives of elected officials.

Sexual behavior, so long as there is no hurt nor victimization, really is not the government’s business. Prattling on about “family values” to get votes is a misdirection tactic to distract voters from stuff that is the government’s business, such as, say, just for example, don’t know why I would think of these, fraudulent and reckless banking practices, e. coli in the food supply, and the broken health care system.

It is a deeply cynical manipulation of those who believe their rhetoric.

Video via Brendan.

“R” for Republican

One more time, it’s not the sex.

It’s the hypocrisy.

Health care rationing.

It’s already being planned in the Sanfordized State, folks.

We just don’t want to call it what it is.

She would be mortified.

I have a personal rule against giving serious attention to any piece of writing that has more than two rhetorical questions per page.

That, in fact, is one reason I gave up on the Wilmington paper. You see, I really enjoy the Letters to the Editor. Whatever paper I might be reading (and, because I spent years as a road warrior, I have read papers all over the country), I read the letters first, after glancing at the front page. The local paper frequently prints letters that consist of a series of inane rhetorical questions with no other content.

The ones without the rhetorical questions tend to be, well, just inane.

And herewith I break my personal rule.

Read more »

Have they no sense of decency?

No. Of course not.

Shamelessness. No sense of decency.

It’s Republican tradition.

Listen to the commenter point out the deeply hypocritical nature of the Senator’s response.

The government is damned answer. Health care should be a right, not a profit center.

Well-described here.

Maybe I’ve been wrong in characterizing the Republican Party and its fellow travelers as hypocrites.

If one has no principles, one cannot be charged with betraying them, now, can one?

The Anonymous Liberal speaks (emphasis added):

The Obama administration assumed (incorrectly) that the GOP has core principles that it will not sacrifice for the sake of political expediency. They were wrong. The party that has spent the four decades attacking Medicare and trying to cut its expenditures is now openly accusing the Democrats of trying to kill senior citizens by taking away their Medicare coverage. Republican-affiliated groups are running ads warning seniors that the Democrats want to take away their health care and euthanize them. The party that has literally spent decades complaining about Medicare demagoguery on the part of Democrats is now itself engaged in Medicare demagoguery to a degree that would make even the most shameless Democratic politician feel uncomfortable.

Jon Stewart has the–er–poop:

When you lie, the truth comes back to bite you (emphasis added):

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 Sun Hudson, a six-month old Texas baby died last week when health care providers at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, Texas removed his life support system over the objections of his mother. The action was authorized under the 1999 Futile Care Law which was signed into law by then-Gov. George W. Bush.

Under the Texas Futile Care Law, health care workers are allowed to remove expensive life support for terminally ill patients if the patient or family is unable to pay the medical bills.

Via Cookie Jill.

TPM on owning fruitcakes:

Technically, the resolution’s main purpose will be to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Hawaii’s statehood. And while commemorating that grand history, the resolution will of course mention how the state is Obama’s birthplace.

This gives Republicans a choice: Vote yes on the resolution, which would repudiate the Birthers; vote no, to endorse them; or skip the vote, which would basically be the same as voting no.

Put up or shut up.

Then, again, there are the complete nutcases.

From the Sanity Department: It doesn’t matter where Mr. Obama was born, though he was born in the United States. His mother was an American citizen. He would have been an American citizen had he been born on a planet orbiting the star Sirius in a galaxy far, far away, in a time far, far ago, for heaven’s (as it were) sake.

Read more »

Read the rest at the link.

Dear Mr. President:

I am writing you today because I am outraged at the notion of involving government in healthcare decisions like they do in other countries. I believe healthcare decisions should be between myself and my doctor.

Well, that is not strictly true. I believe healthcare decisions should be between myself, my doctor, and my insurance company, which provides me a list of which doctors I can see, which specialists I can see, and has a strict policy outlining when I can and can’t see those specialists, for what symptoms, and what tests my doctors can or cannot perform for a given set of symptoms. That seems fair, because the insurance company needs to make a profit; they’re not in the business of just keeping people alive for free.

Oh, and also my employer. My employer decides what health insurance company and plans will be available to me in the first place. If I quit that job and find another, my heath insurance will be different, and I may or may not be able to see the same doctor as I had been seeing before, or receive the same treatments, or obtain the same medicines. So I believe my healthcare decisions should be between myself, the company I work for, my insurance company, and my doctor. Assuming I’m employed, which is a tough go in the current economy.

Hmm, but that’s still a little simplistic. I suppose we should clarify.

I also believe my healthcare should depend on the form I fill out when I apply for that health insurance, which stipulates that any medical problems I ever had previously in my life won’t be covered by that insurance, and so I am not allowed to seek further care for them, at least not at my insurance company’s expense. That seems fair; otherwise my insurance company might be cheated by me knowing I needed healthcare for something in advance.

John Stewart shreds the Birthers: