HYPOCRISY BEYOND BELIEF
By Mary Starrett
March 25, 2008
This afternoon I emailed a radio talk show host, a former colleague at a local station. For years, this woman has called attention to the ravages of illegal immigration.
Now she tells her listeners that GOP presidential candidate John McCain is the answer to what ails this country.
I reminded her of her criticisms of immigration policies that have trashed our neighborhoods, highways, schools, hospitals, social service agencies, prison budgets and the like, and asked how she could now support a candidate who never met an amnesty bill he did not absolutely gush over.
I also asked the supposed “conservative” talker how she could push McCain when his track record shows he’s not pro-life, not pro-2nd amendment and not even close to being fiscally conservative. I also reminded her that the man she believes is the best choice for president sponsored some of the most horrific anti-first amendment legislation when he penned the McCain-Feingold bill.
“So exactly how is McCain any different on those issues than his Democrat opponents?” I wanted to know.
Her response was “well, he’d be a whole lot better than Hillary or Obama and at least he’s strong on the war.”
Responses like that are common from people who know in their hearts that once again, pushing the party line has gotten harder and harder to do.
Nowhere in her response did she try to counter my assertions that McCain is no different than the she-candidate and the Obama-nation who’s running against her.
The talk show host simply responded: “at least he’s strong on the war.”
“At least” McCain supports an illegal, immoral, unconstitutional incursion into a country that we now know (and perhaps did before the blood started flowing) had nothing to do with 9-11- the supposed reason we started the killing and mayhem 5 years ago. “At least” the war that’s costing us and our grandchildren’s grandchildren $2.5 billion a week is something this candidate’s “strong” on.
“At least” McCain has said he doesn’t care if we’re in Iraq for 100 years and it would even be advisable to “bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.”
“At least” there’s that.
GOP apologists across the breadth of this formerly blessed Republic are clinging to the war in Iraq as if it were some sort of mandate for electing a president who’d keep our boys and toys tied up in the bloody sands of first one middle eastern hellhole, then another.
“Conservative” commentator Linda Chavez appeared downright giddy over the prospect that Americans are seemingly less opposed to the war than they have been recently. Chavez cited recent Pew Research Center polls showing Americans are –to use Chavez’s words “more upbeat” about the war. Saying those polled had a hard time coming up with the correct number of casualties to date, she extrapolates that means they’re “less focused” on the dead bodies inside those flag-draped caskets we’re not allowed to see.
Chavez predicts that lack of “focus” will bode well for the Republican candidate come November, since, she reasons, both Democrats talk down the war.
Well, at least, now they do. Hillary voted for the war from day one; now she’s trying to cover those votes like a cat hiding piles in a litter box. Barack has criticized Hillary for her pro-war votes, but admits his voting record on the war isn’t all that different from hers.
Unlike neo-con Chavez, paleo-con Richard Viguerie predicts the Republicans will not do well in November. Pointing to the recent loss of the House seat held for 20 years by Dennis Hastert, Viguerie, chairman of Conservative HQ.com said “It's a wakeup call for John McCain... proof that conservatives are prepared to sit out the 2008 elections.”
Senator McCain… will pay the price in November. The farther we go down this road, the longer it will take to repair the relationship between conservatives and the Republican Party. The damage that’s being done will affect the party for years to come”, Viguerie predicted.
The Republican candidate who has a 100% constitutionally- correct voting record (including votes that make it clear this war was a mistake) and who believes that “earmarks” and pork barrel spending are not acceptable, is Congressman Ron Paul. However, the media, along with the man’s own party, have completely ignored him. “Conservative” pundits who purport to speak for the right wing of the Republican Party in no way represent a growing number of Americans who just do not swallow the party line anymore.
The Hannity’s and Limbaughs and O’Reilly’s are not telling it like it is for us. And time and time again I find myself asking, “Do they really believe what they’re telling us day in and day out?”
Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!
Thankfully, there is an alternative.
the fastest-growing third party selects
a presidential candidate in April, Americans will start hearing
about a man in whom they can believe, for the simple reason that the
candidate nominated by the Constitution Party really will believe the
things he’ll be telling us, because he’ll be telling us what the Founding
Fathers said two centuries ago.
© 2008 Mary Starrett - All