First they stand for this, oops, then they don’t. Then they're opposing that, uh oh, then they won’t. Perhaps the ultra-modern conservatives, or “neocons,” as some call them, would be more aptly referred to as “situational conservatives.” Forget about wishy-washy liberals, today’s brand of conservative is as moody as a chameleon sliding across a checkerboard.
And, now those same nu-style conservatives have climbed down from their moral high-horse, stepped over their obstreperous calls for less government intrusion in life, to insinuate themselves into yet another private situation. Thus, the nation is knee-deep in the story of poor Terri Schiavo, 41, the comatose woman down in Florida with the frozen gasping expression since 1990, whose family has been shanghaied by political goons.
Willing, or not, Shiavo’s husband and parents have become players in a game being dominated by an Orwellian White House propaganda machine, which has become indistinguishable from the so-called fourth estate.
Rather than argue to support either side of the Schiavo case, all I want to do is ask how anyone can say they oppose same-sex marriages -- because to allow for such unions undermines the traditional concept of marriage -- and then flip-flop to support Shiavo’s parents effort to trump the voice of her husband.
But, I suppose folks who like to claim they are conservative on fiscal matters, then switch into stupor mode -- so they can believe that President Bush’s radical tax policies and his bumbling adventures in Iraq and environs are actually “fiscally conservative” moves -- might just believe anything. Anything!
The Schiavo battle is hardly about morality. No. Neither was the similar Hugh Finn case, here in Virginia, on former-governor Jim Gilmore’s watch. And, what of dignity? Does "dignity" appear on the necocons’ up-to-date list of that which is worthwhile?