Much noise is generated about this blog's alleged focus on conservative or Republican scandals while ignoring liberal or Democratic scandals.
Oh, there's a double standard all right, but it ain't from me. I noticed back in 1988 that the media hyped Democratic scandals and ignored GOP ones. At the time, I was a 15-year-old kid, and I could see it already.
So why would I pay more attention to conservative scandals than liberal ones?
Sigh. I know I've explained this before, so let me do it again: It ain't "the liberals" who are so holier-than-thou. The conservatives are.
It is generally the conservatives who waste time writing useless legislation dictating how people live their lives, especially regarding sex and personal relationships. So if they have a sex scandal, I'm likely to report it. "The liberals" typically ain't the ones who try passing useless laws. Thus, I'm just as likely to ignore similar travails on the liberal side.
People have personal problems. It might not be anything criminal, but it's a fact of life. It doesn't make one a hypocrite unless they tried dictating to everyone else how to live. That's what hypocrisy means. Is the original offense any worse than the public hypocrisy that might surround it?
No progressive ever called me a druggie or told me I was going to hell for listening to the "wrong" music. But conservatives have. Thus, if someone on the liberal side has personal issues, I have no reason to make an issue of it. If someone on the conservative side does the same thing, I sure as hell do, because conservatives sermonized about the "sins" of others.
Is that a double standard? No - at least not for its own sake. You can't criticize someone for hypocrisy when they have no hypocrisy to criticize. When someone rants about others' alleged immorality, you have to hold them to a stronger standard than someone who does not.
A lot of folks don't get that. But it makes perfect sense.
Of course, this makes the media's double standard that lets Republicans off the hook much more vexing.
Friday, August 8, 2008
A double standard?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
If you stand by your excuse for giving liberals a free pass -- let's call it the Bandit Standard -- I expect to see some blogging about liberal hypocrisy. Take a look into global warming warrior Al Gore's "carbon footprint" (hint: Bush's Texas ranch house is much more "green" than Gore's house).
ReplyDeleteI thought the Gore 'carbon foot print' story turned out to be a bust like everything else Rush spreads..
ReplyDeleteHere's some Edwards hypocrisy for you, Tim. He was lying about the affair throughout his primary campaign.
ReplyDeleteEdwards wrapped up a town hall in Exeter by arguing that New Hampshire voters have a special responsibility to repair damage done by the Bush presidency and elect a leader they can look in the eye and trust, regardless of their policy positions.
"You're in a position to understand and evaluate the honesty, the sincerity and the integrity of the presidential candidates," he said. "All of this other stuff becomes unimportant if you don't have a president that you believe will tell you the truth even when it's hard, and a president who is honest and sincere and that you can count on. I don't know about you, but I'm not interested in having the next great politician as president."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-10-30-3216958358_x.htm
It is like the man said...He was honest 99 percent of the time, and lied the other 1 percent. It is in the 1 percent when he got caught.
ReplyDeleteFWIW the affair ended in 2006...before EE's cancer returned. EE had known about the affair since before the cancer returned.
The affair had long ago ended, and for the life of me I don't see what the point is in going after JE now.
Let me guess what the point in going after him now is..
ReplyDeleteSo the Fox News/Rush/ABC krowd can score political points perhaps??