Gosh, this is just so much fun, I'm not sure where to start:
At a press conference this afternoon, Sen. David Vitter broke his silence and spoke for the first time since he acknowledged being on the D.C. madam’s list. A remorseless Vitter attacked his “long time political enemies and those hoping to profit from the situation.” Vitter said he would not answer questions on the issue, claiming that “might sell newspapers but wouldn’t serve my family or my constituents well.” ...
In Oct. 1998, Vitter attacked President Clinton, arguing the proper question was not whether people cared but rather whether Clinton was “morally unfit to govern.”
In other news, the "Biblical sanctity of marriage" Blogging Tories are, not surprisingly, nowhere to be found.
AFTERSNARK: Watch the video. Seriously, watch it, and be entertained by the kind of hypocritical dingbats who, having led a relentless, never-ending attack on Bill Clinton for his alleged moral failings, would now prefer to just move on because paying a hooker to smack your junk around is so ... so ... last week, know what I mean?
16 comments:
You have to remember that most of them know jack squat about U.S. politics, depsite pretending to once in a while.
RT: That's not the point, since those same BTs are never at a loss to comment on American politicos such as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Howard Dean, etc, etc.
Sure, they're hopelessly ignorant, but that doesn't stop them from being hopelessly hypocritical at the same time.
"most of them know jack squat about U.S. politics"
With all due respect, RT, I've been reading some of these BT blogs. It frankly does not appear to me that very many of them know "jack squat" about Canadian politics.
A fair enough point on both counts. Their outrage is highly selective, that’s for sure.
Ha, I love it when direct hypocrisy is illuminated. You do good work, CC!
Got to love it, when Clinton was attacked for his extra-marital sex life he wasn't a politician that made a career over being a morally upright person that followed the Bible and never cheated on or fornicated with anyone other than his wife as the cornerstone of his political career and political identity, yet that was so important it needed impeaching. When yet another GOPer politician is caught out having been unfaithful let alone using prostitutes after making their political career out of being someone that was morally pure and upright and so forth it is so last week and unimportant, indeed irrelevant especially to his political life/work/career. So when a pious prick of a politician is caught being a blatant hypocrite it only matters when it is not a conservative for these folks...hypocrisy doesn't begin to do justice to this kind of nonsensical thinking IMHO.
Has anyone noticed that married Republicans always have to pay for sex?
Ah! I think southernquebec is onto something.
There's the difference. It isn't solely IOKIYR (i.e. it's OK if you're Republican), it's also the market economy factor.
Paying for your diaper kink = Good!
Getting a free (socialist) hummer (e.g. Clinton) = Bad!
Hmmmmmm. Your link shows no returns for Vitter on the Blogging Tories.
If they were writing pieces explaining that Vitter's behaviour should be excused, that would be one thing. But they aren't writing about him at all.
I suppose you have to build something out of nothing, though. If you didn't, I suspect you'd have nothing to write about at all.
Patrick — Sort of like your comment. ;)
that's right patrick, vitter has disappeared down the memory hole.
patrick ross:
What part of the Blogging Tory "MIA" theme did you manage to not understand?
Why aren't the BTs writing about Vitter? Because he's not a significant figure in American politics, and this is a ridiculous scandal that really deserves no time in the real news, but maybe just on the E! network. The only people talking about this are on the left and apparently in Canada. No one here in Washington really cares about this because Vitter is a nobody. Bill Clinton, however, was President, and he lied UNDER OATH. Huge. Frickin'. Difference. Not that I supported impeaching Clinton, but apples and oranges, my friend.
Why aren't the BTs writing about Vitter? Because he's not a significant figure in American politics...
Really? Did you poll the BT's to find that out? Or are you just guessing? The BT's certainly sink their teeth into any minor American figure and event when it can be construed to be a manifestation of general "liberal" depravity and perfidy. Just put on a hazmat suit and wander around BT-land for a while.
...In their defense, they're usually just copying the latest retarded garbage from American news media, but still...
anonymous proposes:
"Why aren't the BTs writing about Vitter? Because he's not a significant figure in American politics, and this is a ridiculous scandal that really deserves no time in the real news, but maybe just on the E! network."
And yet, a number of the BTs manage to find the time to write about a scandal involving a no-name Democratic congressman in Louisiana.
Go figure, huh?
CC, RT, and other assorted intellectual lightweights of the blogging community:
You're trying to pretend that a lack of discussion of Vitter is tantamount to condonation of whatever actions he's seemingly taken.
It isn't.
It's a lack of discussion of Vitter.
Like I said: if there were any posts actively excusing Vitter's behaviour, that would be one thing. But there aren't.
But your little post just demostrates two things: first, that you have a bizarre obsession with the Blogging Tories, and that a lack of creativity, lack of originality and a blog tend to make a bad mixture.
Post a Comment