Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Truly convenient inconsistencies

The obsession that some of the most outspoken Republican/rightwing commentators and bloggers have with bashing gays, or just the subject of homosexuality, is easy to see/hear any day of the week. It’s been that way for a long time, and, it seems, it’s getting more that way all the time. One could easily get the idea that they fear if they don’t do all they can to stand firmly against same-sex relationships, that any number of practicing heterosexuals would hear the call to take a walk on the wild side.

So, to these anti-gay patriots, calling a politician such as John Edwards a “faggot” is one of the worst things one can say about a man who is running for president.

However, at the same time we have some of the same rightwing voices bashing Edwards (pictured left) because he is a guy who grew up poor, pulled himself up by the bootstraps and lives well today. It seems they feel that if Edwards is going to campaign on a platform of wanting to help the least fortunate in America, economically, that he should himself be a poor man, or at least live like one.

So, to those who criticize Edwards for being wealthy, I have to ask -- when did Republicans decide that making good money is a problem?

History has shown us enough about rightwingers who do all they can to persecute homosexuals -- J. Edgar Hoover and Roy Cohn come to mind first, more recently Mark Foley and Rev. Ted Haggard -- to understand about that syndrome.

But now, what in the world are we to think of rightwing Republicans who beat up on a politician because the guy has made a fortune and lives in a big house?

It seems that in truth, the convenient inconsistencies from the so-called cultural conservatives are getting more consistent all the time. Rather than put a label on that phenomenon, I’ll allow readers to draw their own conclusions.
Image from Edwards camp


Ward Smythe said...

No F.T., you miss the point.

Edwards is not being ridiculed for being wealthy. It's for being wealthy while trying to pretend to be the common man. It's for his comment where he presumes to speak for Jesus. It's for talking about two America's when he represents one of them. That's why Edwards is being ridiculed.

It's the same hypocrisy that grips Algore. He rages against global warming yet his own carbon footprint is roughly the size of Peru.

F.T. Rea said...

ward smythe,

You say I miss the point? That’s rich! How is Edwards pretending anything?

Look, if one wants to do it, they can cherry-pick any politician’s private life and their political statements to find such contrived ways to ridicule him.

Moreover, expecting a progressive politician to live like a pauper, to prove his sincerity, is something honest/realistic people would not do, but silly people playing a game would.

And, fools and partisans with no sense of propriety would say calling Edwards a “faggot” is all in the game. too.

Which is coming from somewhat the same place as your repeated use of the word “whine.” Which casts any Democrat who opposes the miserable Bush Iraqi war policy, or who advocates social justice as weak and sissified. Calling Rep. John Murtha a “coward” fits in with that shameless strategy, too.

Back to the rich guy being a phony issue, was wealthy Republican Teddy Roosevelt pretending when he called for housing reforms and trust-busting? Was he a sissy, too? The rich people and their sycophants who opposed his visionary ideas called Roosevelt “a traitor to his class.”

Both Edwards and Gore are getting the business from your Coulters and Limbaughs, et al, and the ditto-style bloggers, because they are Democrats.

That’s the point.

Ward Smythe said...


If you bothered to read my blog more often, you will see that I took Ms. Coulter to task for her statement. It wasn't necessary and it change the issues discused at CPAC to be issues about Ann Coulter. I am not a huge fan.

That said, there is still a considerable amount of whining from the left. And I'll continue to call it that.

Edwards and Gore are getting the "business" because they are wrong.

If you equate that with being a Democrat(ick), then so be it.