AH – I LOVE THE SMELL OF REPUBLICAN HYPOCRISY IN THE MORNING

Hypocrisy – many of us have had that dreaded word thrown at us. Most of the time those using it have no clue what it means. Hypocrisy is:

  • a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess
  • a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude

The Republican right-wing hypocrisy machine is in full gear with Sarah Palin. Before Palin’s pick, the right-wing was slipping away from McCain, suffering from a severe case of benign neglect. So McCain conjured up a magic trick by the name of Sarah Palin.

The right-wingers, once feeling alone and deserted, were suddenly touched by the spirit of a kindred soul. And she was on the Republican ticket. But here’s the hypocrisy: these hard-core religious right believe a woman’s place is in the home – having babies and waiting hand and foot on the husband. A wife’s role is to be submissive to her husband in all things. To the religious right, a two-bread winner family represents a modern-day travesty because the home is the little woman’s domain, not the office, and certainly not a governor’s office.

Enter Sarah Palin – a working mother of five who can sling a gun and shoot down the Alaskan wildlife with the best of the boys. Ah, and, according to those in the know, she’s “hot.” Palin doesn’t wear those old dowdy pantsuits that became Hillary Clinton’s trademark. The old song about bringing home the bacon and frying it up in pan aptly applies to Palin’s many talents.

Photo credit: Alaska governor’s office

____________________________________________________________________________

But ironically, Palin is the antithesis of what the religious right believes its women should represent. How do they reconcile that? They can’t. Their glee at having “one of their own” on a national ticket trumps their “values” system. Ah, I love the smell of Republican hypocrisy in the morning.

Advertisements

About Charlotte A. Weybright

I own a home in the historical West Central Neighborhood of Fort Wayne, Indiana. I have four grown sons and nine grandchildren - four grandsons and five granddaughters. I love to work on my home, and I enjoy crafts of all types. But, most of all, I enjoy being involved in political and community issues.
This entry was posted in Politics, Republican Party, U.S. Presidency and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to AH – I LOVE THE SMELL OF REPUBLICAN HYPOCRISY IN THE MORNING

  1. mark says:

    I don’t think you have any understanding of the millions of “religious right” that you write about. You have a stereotype and a set of prejudices that you hold about them. And when the objects of your bigotry don’t behave in accordance with the stereotype you impose upon them, then they must be hypocrites? How arrogant of you.

    Take a look at your own definition of hypocrisy. It begins with the pretense of holding a view that is virtuous or desirable. The man who is a self-proclaimed thief doesn’t become a hypocrite when he commits an act of honesty. You don’t find anything objectively virtuous or admirable about the views you claim the “religious right” holds, so you can’t reconcile their acceptance of Sarah Palin (“the antithesis”) by accusing them of mass hypocrisy. No, since you think they are acting inconsistently with the backward stereotype you impose upon them, you would have to accuse them of a “mass enlightenment.”

    What you can’t reconcile is your conviction that the “religious right” wants it’s women barefoot, pregnant and at the stove with their embrace of Sarah Palin. The two are not capable of being reconciled. To the anti-semite, charitable Jews must be hypocrites. To the racist, hardworking blacks must be hypocrites. Your accusation of hypocrisy is a way of clinging to your stereotypes in the face of evidence that your sterotyping is wrong.

  2. Mark:

    And just what is that “understanding” that I am supposed to have? Sorry, I know too many people on the religious right who believe that women belong in the home and not in the workplace. So you believe a view of women in the home is “backward” as you put it?

    While you have accused me of not understanding the religious right and clinging to my “stereotype”, you have failed to produce any evidence that I am incorrect. Look at the right-wing churches and the views they hold. Perhaps you aren’t as familiar with the religious right as you think you are.

    Please provide some evidence that the right-wingers want women in the workplace – not because they have to work but because women are equal to men and should have every right to work. Anyone can argue that women have to work – that is not the same thing as believing women should be able to work if they so desire – even if they have sufficient family income to allow them not to work.

  3. mark says:

    What is the “understanding” that you have? Well, let’s use your words:

    “these hard core religious right believe a woman’s place is in the home- having babies and waiting hand and foot on the husband.”

    “To the religious right, a two-bread winner family represents a modern day travesty…”

    “the home is the little woman’s domain, not the office, and certainly not the governor’s office.”

    “Palin is the antithesis of what the religious right believes its women should represent.”

    I assume you accurately expressed your own opinion of what you think the “religious right believes.”

    Do I believe a “view of women in the home is ‘backward'”? No, I find nothing wrong with women working in the home. What I do find ‘backward’ is a view that all women are supposed to work only in the home, which I think is one of the views you attribute to the religious right.

    You want me to disprove the factual basis for your prejudice? Perhaps while I am at it I should prove that blacks don’t prefer watermelon and chicken, Mexicans don’t steal hubcaps, gay men aren’t effeminate, and feminists aren’t angry man-haters. No thank you. One big chunk of evidence- the religious right’s enthusiastic embrace of Sarah Palin- not only escapes you but causes you to make the absurd assertion that millions of people are rejecting the very values that you claim define them for the opportunity to be a hypocrite.

    Let’s sum up:

    1. According to you, the religious right doesn’t want women in the workplace.

    2. The religious right enthusiasticly wants Sarah Palin in the Vice President’s office.

    What a contradiction! Ayn Rand, a favorite author of mine, had some advice about contradictions. She said they don’t exist. According to her, when you think you have a contradiction, it is time to re-examine the premises. One or the other is false.

  4. Kenny says:

    To the religious right, a two-bread winner family represents a modern-day travesty because the home is the little woman’s domain, not the office, and certainly not a governor’s office.

    Clearly a generational attitude. Not very Biblical. Find someone born since 1965 with that attitude. Very few indeed.

    Sorry for how many Christians have acted for the past 50 years,

    Kenny

  5. Mark:

    You are certainly free to accept Ayn Rand’s viewpoints if you so desire. If contradictions didn’t exist, there wouldn’t be a need to define them.

    According to Rand, “For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship—the desire to look up to man.” Good lord – if that is who you wish to admire, so be it. In a McCall’s magazine interview, Rand stated that while women are competent to be President, no rational woman should seek that position. Apparently, she later explained that it would be psychologically damaging to the woman. I guess she thought women weren’t strong enough.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand#Gender_and_sex

    The religious right wants Sarah Palin in office because she negates McCain’s stance on abortion. Palin is anti-choice and does not believe in exceptions for anything. This is a no brainer for the religious right.

  6. Kenny:

    Check out this website which provides statistics on the religious right’s view of women:

    http://sarahpalinforvp.blogspot.com/2008/09/christian-right-changes-view-on-womans.html

  7. Kenny says:

    Chanrlotte,
    Thank you for your reply. It was an interesting article. Here is the part I found most interesting:

    In 1987, a Pew Research Center survey found that only 25 percent of Republicans and 20 percent of white evangelical Protestants completely disagreed with this statement: “Women should return to their traditional roles in society.”

    In 2007, the numbers had shifted to 41 percent and 42 percent. Among Americans overall, the number rose from 29 percent to 51 percent.

    This is a direct quote from the Monitor Article.

    I think this reinforces my premise that it is very generational and not very Biblical.

    Thanks again,
    Kenny

  8. Kenny:

    Part of the reason for the responses may be simply asking that type of question may not draw a totally truthful answer. In addition, in today’s world, many couples find that they both must work in order to survive. Also, you will notice that the question doesn’t identify what is “traditional” roles in society for women. So what is a woman’s traditional role?

    Many of the polls today ask questions that, if answered in the way the person actually felt, would lead others to believe the responders were sexist, racist, etc.

    For example, if I asked a question such as “Would you vote for an African-American for President”, many would say “Sure”, but in reality, they never will because they are racist. The initial response is an avoidance of how they really feel. And, believe me, we still have people in the country who feel that way.

  9. Would you consider those stuffy mormons a part of the religious right? Did you know over 60% of married woman in Utah work outside the home. They are not shunned or excumminicated, they are what we like to call working mothers.

    http://jobs.utah.gov/opencms/wi/pubs/womencareers/thefacts.pdf

    If the religious folks in the party dont want women to work, why did we jump for joy when Pallen was chosen?
    I thought McCain picked her to insult women, and trick them into voting for him. But here you state that it was to pull in the neglected right wingers- make up your mind!

    Why is it so wrong for a woman to look up to her husband?– Admiring qualities that she doesnt have- and the same for him?

  10. Just by the way- I think our govt may be suffering from some type of hypocrisy. It wants to look good when the world is watching but could care less about us in the fly over country. What do I mean?

    I have been out of power for eight days with no end in sight. I have my roof in my front yard. I havent had food in the home for 7 days. I have four hungry kids. I havent been able to do laundry for eight days. No dishes done. I had trees down everywhere. I have broken windows. No running water. I didnt have a weeks warning.

    Where is my $2000 debit card? Am I not a tax payer? Am I not the right color? Do I not live in the right area? Tell me what it is Im missing here.

    I am being a little sarcastic here and really dont want help from the govt. But why are they not cutting checks?
    Our govt system isnt racist or hypocrits–it lets everyone down equaly. And to think, half this country wants it to be bigger!!!

  11. Andy says:

    “Where is my $2000 debit card?”

    “But why are they not cutting checks?”

    Clint –

    A $ 2000 debit card is pittance compared to the

    $ 700,000,000,000.00 (700 Billion) Government handout (bailout)
    being proposed to rescue the US financial market.

    I think you need to set your sights on the REAL problem bankrupting our economy and our country.

    Corporate greed is rampant – CEO’s earning millions of dollars of bonuses for running a company into the ground is absolutely ludicrous. Middle-class Americans who were on the verge of retiring and watched Enron collapse right before their eyes with the bulk of their life savings evaporating had to be completely and utterly disgusted.

    Haven’t you heard the age-old saying:

    “A man with a brief case can steal more money than any man with a gun”

    Our economy is and has been hijacked by greedy, self-serving individuals. The elaborate deck of cards which was built without any real oversight, or any long term planning, is starting to fall.

    Unfortunately, the American people will be the ones who bear the brunt of this collapse, while the real crooks who stuck it too us, will land gracefully with their golden parachutes virtually unaffected by the mess they caused.

    Keep those tax cuts in tact for the extremely wealthy – God forbid those of us earning less than $250,000.00 bite the supposed hand that feeds us and has our best interests in mind.

  12. I concur Andy. However, our govt had complete oversight on Mac and Mae. We have commities headed by dems and republicans who should be hung!!! I do know that Chris Dodd and all others on the finacial/banking committee should be brought to justice. All the libs running these finacial companies should be fired and not allowed to re-enter any business let alone run a Mcdonalds.
    Please look at what McCain at least tried to do 3 years ago!

    http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/17/mccains-attempt-to-fix-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-in-2005/

    If you agree with me that the economy is slipping, then you must agree with your boy Obama that the tax hikes should be suspended in the weak economy.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/07/obama-recession-could-del_n_124647.html

    So why suspend the tax cuts if it works to keep the economy going in a recession- wouldnt it spur a growing economy?

    Once again the govt that is to be using oversight to whatch our money fails miserably.
    By the way how do you like former ceos of mac and mae being advisors to Obama, (Johnson, Raines)

    I can also guarantee that if a republican in congress could be hung for this it would be done! Are you telling me there are no hearings? No oversight? Hell they had hearings for 911, plame, you name it. If the dems could nail a republican for this they would do it. Tells me the dems are not wanting to open this can of worms. Especialy when banks have been so good to Obamas campaingn.

    HELL NO TO BAILOUTS. HELL NO TO GOVT TAKEOVERS. HELL NO TO WHAT IS BECOMING SOCIALISM.

  13. One other thing, corporate greed has always been rampant (some of these guys/gals earn their keep), however, it didnt have gross incompetence to complement it! It was like when i was telling folks Im glad Palin is a common person and it would be nice to have common sence in the white house instead of Harvard, yale etc law degrees. A lady said that those degrees are great… yada yada and that I was jealous. Not at all! I just feel that if you look at all the degrees of our politicians and CEOS they would be very celebrated. However, in the real world these big time degrees are failing us miserably. You all know that person who doesnt belong in the position but since they hang out in the right crowd and have the right connections, they stepped right in and took your position you earned. These people make their way to the top and dont have a clue how to run a corporation or handle people.

  14. So, do Republicans believe in regulation or not? I thought all good Republicans shuddered at the thought of regulating industries. Yet, your boy McCain obviously supported imposing regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    I guess the flip-flopping confuses me sometimes. Aren’t Democrats supposed to be the ones who favor regulations? Aren’t Republicans the ones who constantly chant deregulation and hail to competition?

    I say let them collapse.

  15. I say let them collapse. The regulation was there and the govt failed. Most to the reason we are in this mess is because govt wanted everyone to have access to credit to get a mortgage they could never afford. Meanwhile, the big banks new they were failing and govt would back them up. I think the first couple of bail outs were to test the waters on this one. Let the sheeple get a little taste then we will hit them good and save our buddies. You want to throw stones at Mccain for a lobbiest tied to a company, fine, at least he did stand on the floor of the house and say

    Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
    The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
    The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
    For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
    I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
    I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

    Republicans, more correctly, conservatives as I see it dont mind the govt making sure everything in corporate America is on the up and up. I guess we may have a problem with making everything fair by making laws that constrict the successfull and give handouts to those not so successful. Something on the order of cap and trade would make a consertitive puke. Either way the govt failed us once again. Just like on my ss, just got my statement that I put over 56 thousand dollars and the next line says I wont get it back!!!!!!!!!!!! GO big Govt. Im pretty sure the privitazation could at least match the 0% return on my investment! Remember, McCain is not a Conservative, and basicly a RHINO. Kerry for gods sake considered him as a VP pick.

    Short answer, regulation, NO, Oversight, YES.

  16. Several thoughts:
    1.Ayn Rand was an agnostic, and not a member of the religious right.
    2. Not everyone on the right thinks the same way, and many of them are upset about the bailout. So you can be a female Republican and still hold a job.

Comments are closed.