Ten years ago, Democratic President Bill Clinton is being investigated, and soon to be impeached, for lying under oath in a sexual harassment case.
Let me repeat that. He is investigated and impeached for perjury in a SEXUAL HARASSMENT case. Not for "lying about sex."
But who are called hypocrites? Feminists who vociferously defend a President of their own party who violated one of their sacred tenets?
Not at all. Instead, the charge of "hypocrite!" falls on Republican Congressmen found to be morally guilty of adultery, but who were NEVER investigated for sexual harassment.
Yet, in retrospect, we see how ridiculous Clinton's defenders really were. Those who a) defended Clinton, yet b) never criticized the laws for which he was investigated, held to a double standard: a Democratic President should be above the law. In the future, if a Republican President was guilty of the same act, could feminist Democrats rant on and on about how the President demeans women by treating them like sex objects? Can they claim it is okay for Clinton to get away with breaking the law, but then prosecute the Republican?
Well, they can do so, and they will. But they would have no credibility.
Fast-forward over nine years. Ron Paul is a candidate for President. And unlike other "pro-life" Congressional Republicans, he has actually done something about it. He has introduced legislation that would overturn Roe vs. Wade. No other candidate even bothers to sign on as a sponsor of the bill.
What does the Christian Right do with Ron Paul?
They can't stand him, because he was against the War on Iraq and, for standing up for the Bill of Rights against President Bush, was supposedly "soft on terrorism."
And what will they do this November? Vote for John McCain - and they will claim it's because, while not perfect, McCain is at least pro-life whereas Obama is pro-abortion.
They would be liars, for if abortion really was their #1 issue, they would have supported Ron Paul in droves, or at least insisted that other candidates publicly support Paul's bill. But during the primaries, abortion wasn't their #1 issue, and they rejected Paul for his foreign policy. At the time, slaughtering more Muslims was more important to them than saving a million unborn babies every year. The Republican winner was the one who promised more wars. Abortion would once again become an issue only in the unreliable and politicized judicial appointment process, of which McCain has already shown a willingness to compromise with liberals.
A vote for McCain is a vote for more war, with only a remote chance of an end to legal abortion. Republican voters may be lying to themselves and to others that abortion is the reason they're voting for McCain. Or, they may be ignorant of Ron Paul's position and Paul's bill. In either case, they've lost credibility on the issue.
The above issues, Clinton's impeachment and abortion, are but two examples where supporters of both parties have shown their double standards or ignorance. But the Big Bailout (or "Rescue bill") that has added $250-$700 billion to federal spending has made both parties, their values, and their rhetoric look utterly ridiculous. Not "credible" at all.
The Democrats can't rail against higher taxes for the rich or for corporations. By supporting the Bailout, they've essentially conceded they believe deficits don't matter and that money can be created out of thin air. $700 billion is more than corporations pay in taxes; if the money was used for that purpose, wouldn't corporations all over the world flock to America, creating jobs? Also, $700 billion is also more than half of the American people pay in income taxes. Why not a massive tax cut?
Can Democrats say "we can't afford it?" Five words are a sufficient response: "But you supported the Bailout!"
How can Democrats condemn the "greed," when this Bailout rewards it?
How can claim they are for the environment, when the credit-based economic system they are so desperately bailing out is the very cause of over-production and over-consumption that creates environmental problems to begin with? Democrats would also have a harder time railing against wasteful defense spending. Hey, at least it creates jobs!
Republicans have also lost credibility.
They, too, seem to concede that deficits don't matter. If poorly-run banks and investment firms can be rewarded with a Bailout, why not the people defaulting on their mortgages? Why not school districts and state and local governments running out of money?
How can they rail against earmarks and pork? At least these projects keep people employed! Indeed, any Republican suggestion that thus-and-so social program goes beyond the "proper role of government" can be replied with, "But you supported the Bailout!"
Any proposed spending cut - $100 million here, $5 billion there - can be replied to with "But you supported the Bailout!"
Neither party was very credible before the Bailout. Now they have no credibility at all. And even if this bailout somehow "works" over the short-term, there's still the problem with all that new money, created out of thin air, pouring into the economy. It will just jump-start the process again: high inflation and risky financial speculation.
When the system collapses again, there will be another Bailout bill. I will probably be in the trillions. Both parties created the conditions for our financial troubles, and both parties are equally responsible for this Bailout. They can't explain their actions with any credibility, all they can do is create an even bigger mess. It is time for both to go.