1

Frankly, I think you're playing a game of semantic word play in an effort to soften the fact that Vitter lacks character and is unworthy of the public trust. Vitter did what he did because he thought he wouldn't get caught doing it. Nothing more, nothing less (and no better than Bill Clinton). How can the public have trust in a man that so willingly compromises his morals for a piece of tail?

The man is making decisions that effect the lives of millions of people (and he knows it) yet he compromised his integrity and his office with his immorality. If the man can't be trusted to do the right thing in his personal life, how can we possibly trust him to do the right thing in the public sphere?

To be fair, nobody's perfect, and since he seems to be making the attempt to come clean, he should be forgiven. But his actions have consequences, and one of those consequences is that he should be removed from office if he won't do it himself (and he *is* being a hypocrite if he doesn't remove himself from the office that he compromised).

2

Phasespace, I think what Joe is doing is laying out a choice that Christians need to keep in mind. We can either have political (and even church) leaders who have high moral standards that they fail to consistently live up to or we can have ones with low moral standards that they do consistently live up to. Which do you prefer?

3

But his actions have consequences, and one of those consequences is that he should be removed from office...

I don't disagree with that. I'm certainly not saying that failing to live up to the standard is excusable or should be consequence free.

4

I don't disagree with that. I'm certainly not saying that failing to live up to the standard is excusable or should be consequence free.

But, at the same time, how much input do Christian-conservatives want to give Larry Flynt in the choosing of our political leaders? I don't particularly like what Senator Vitter did, but at the same time, it galls me to give a self described bottom-feeder like Larry Flynt a political victory and to reward his scummy tactics. I have to ask myself, who would I rather support? A man, like me, who espouses good values that he doesn't always live up to, or Larry Flynt; a man who has made millions by publicizing and celebrating the debauchery that Vitter, at least has the decency to try to keep private.

5

Phasespace:

Since you brought him up in this discussion, should Clinton have been removed from office?

Just to get you on the record.

6

Hey Joe,

Hope you're well, bro. I understand what you're getting at here, but I think that this might be a dangerous and probably unbiblical understanding of hypocrisy. The first place I would go on this one would not be Webster, but BDAG. The definition of the Greek word hupocritase ("hypocrisy") is essentially "acting in the sense of pretending." It is a word very much bound up with behavior and connotes anything one might do to create the impression that they are pretending to be something they are not.

Vitter's words and actions, in my view, imply that he was advocating for and pretending to be something he was not.

Them is my two pennies.

7

Found something. Does this make Vitter a hypocrite?

- - - - -

Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) first got his start in Congress after replacing former Rep. Bob Livingston (R-LA), who “abruptly resigned after disclosures of numerous affairs” in 1998. At the time, Vitter argued that an extramarital affair was grounds for resignation:

“I think Livingston’s stepping down makes a very powerful argument that Clinton should resign as well and move beyond this mess,” he said. [Atlanta Journal and Constitution, 12/20/98]

8

"This is why both Vitter and Flynt agree about the significance of integrity. What separates the two men (besides the fact that Vitter is a man of weak character while Flynt is a despicable pervert) is where they put the emphasis on this trait."

Take care not to think yourselves better than Larry Flynt. There but for the grace of God go you or I.

9

Larry Flynt is an American patriot in the best sense of the word. Period. His appeal to the Supreme Court against Jerry Falwell is something from which every American benefits, including Joe Carter.

Vitter and Carter, and Fred Thompson (watch for a nice juicy personal scandal there!) are the "despicable perverts."

They pervert the very meaning of liberty.

10

Joe,
I've been called a lot of things this past few years, but never a "pervert". That's a new one.

11

jd:

Short answer: Yes.

I think we need to be holding all our politicians to much higher standards than we have been. And that goes for the current administration and their unconstitutional grabs for power as well. That doesn't mean that we should expect them to be perfect by any means, but they should, at the minimum, carry out the duties of their office without betraying the public trust.

Of course, if I had my way, I'd throw out almost every democrat and republican in congress and the executive branch for malfeasance, but that's just me.

12

It is not hypocritical to claim something is wrong, do it yourself, and condemn your own actions. It is not hypocritical for Vitter to condemn adultery, commit adultery, and condemn his own adultery. This is what Joes is saying.

It is hypocritical to claim something is wrong, do it yourself, and then say the rules don't apply to you. If Vitter claimed that adulterers should resign, and then committed adultery, and then said that his previous statement didn't apply to him, that's hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy is said to be the tribute vice pays to virtue, and I would rather be governed by someone who did wrong but knew what was right than someone who did wrong because he believed it was right (certainly the best is someone who knows what is right and does it, but why would such a person enter politics). Apparently environmentalists agree, considering Al Gore's carbon footprint, as well as progressives, considering their support for super-rich John Edwards for President.

13

Oh, I see, if I believe and say something is wrong and then go out and do it...I am not a hypocrite as long as I admit I did the thing and continue to say it is wrong.

In other words, it the words you say and not your actions that determine if one is a hypocrite. Wow, talk about moral relativism!

14

JohnW-

Your first sentence is correct. The moral relativism charge is quite silly and has nothing to do with what I said.

"hypocrite" is not a stand-in for "legal" or "moral". You can be quite immoral and not be a hypocrite - just ask Larry Flynt. No one calls him a hypocrite; his immoral actions match his immoral beliefs. You can have committed an illegal action and not be a hypocrite; if Vitter committed a crime, he may not be a hypocrite but he may go to jail.

Words have meanings, and "hypocrite" doesn't mean "a bad person."

15

Found something. Does this make Vitter a hypocrite?

No. What Vitter did was make on observation that if what Livingstone did (having an affair) was reason to step down, then what Clinton did (having multiple affairs, at least one with a subordinate, then lying about it under oath, and sending out other subordinates to also lie about it) was certainly reason enough for him to step down. If Vitter actually called for Livingstone to step down, you could make the case for hypocrisy.

16

Indeed, the American Heritage Dictionary defines hypocrisy as "The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness." The British literary critic William Hazlitt once explained, “He is a hypocrite who professes what he does not believe; not he who does not practice all he wishes or approves”

But how do I know if Vitter really believes in marital fidelity (and just has trouble living up to that ideal) or if he doesn't believe in it but wants everyone around him to think he does (in which case he would fit your more exact definition of hypocrisy)?

By all appearances Sen. Vitter does indeed believe in such "family values" as marital fidelity. Where he has failed is in behaving in a way that comports with those values; a matter not of hypocrisy but of moral inconsistency.

You don't know this. For all you know Sen. Vitter could be a 'good ol' boy' who thinks he should get it on whenever he can but in Church or in front of the wife say 'amen' whenver someone praises marital fidelity.

The reason, some would argue, is that journalists don’t use such morally loaded terms. This is true to a point. Journalists do tend to refrain from using objective moral terminology in favor of subjective standards of internal inconsistency. A libertarian who advocated for the legalization of prostitution would not be condemned for being caught in a brothel. A social conservative who claimed to stand for families, on the other hand, would be charged with committing the grave offense of "hypocrisy."

Here's an important distinction that hasn't been picked up on. I'm sure Vitter never has supported the legalization of prostitution. But while you try to excuse him by saying he only failed to live up to his own moral standards you're missing that he committed a crime. People have had their lives ruined and had to spend time in jail because of laws people like him pass and support. The libertarian can honestly say his failure in going to the brothel was a personal failure to live up to the moral standards he holds himself too. Vitter's failure, though, was actually criminal and he supports it being criminal. But now that he was caught in the crime he would rather pretend he lives in the libertarian regime where it is just a 'personal failure' or 'personal sin' than to actually live up to the regime he has and continues to support.

Perhaps if Vitter was not a hypocrite he would march himself down to the police station, confess his crime and demand that the detective there file a complaint against him. Then he could plead guilty and pay the fine or serve a few days in jail just like the other people who are caught under the laws he supports.

But this sets an unreasonable standard for politicians. The higher the person's standards, the more likely they are to miss the mark. As Gary Bauer said when asked to comment on the Vitter scandal, "If a voter is looking for Jesus on the Republican ticket, they're not going to find him. There was only one perfect man, and all others have fallen short. They should look at how a candidate dealt with his moral failures."

An unreasonable standard? Vitter wasn't caught sneaking a peak at a Playboy magazine or glancing at a scantily clad woman who was a bit too young for him. He committed a crime that if I or you did in front of an undercover cop we'd be under arrest. Are you Republicans aware of how debased your morality has become? You're willing to excuse just about anything someone does if they are deemed a political ally.

phasespace:
Frankly, I think you're playing a game of semantic word play in an effort to soften the fact that Vitter lacks character and is unworthy of the public trust. Vitter did what he did because he thought he wouldn't get caught doing it. Nothing more, nothing less (and no better than Bill Clinton). How can the public have trust in a man that so willingly compromises his morals for a piece of tail?

Actually by Joe's own definition Vitter was worse than Clinton. Clinton was not a hypocrite here. He said he should be faithful in marriage but admitted he had not always been so. Vitter, though, has taken it a step beyond that by actually engaging in criminal activity. Doing something he has (indirectly) helped put other people in jail for.

ucfengr
We can either have political (and even church) leaders who have high moral standards that they fail to consistently live up to or we can have ones with low moral standards that they do consistently live up to.

I would assume you would have a bottom moral standard of not engaging in criminal activity. It's interesting that Flynt, therefore, remains more moral than your 'leader' whom you seek to excuse.

But, at the same time, how much input do Christian-conservatives want to give Larry Flynt in the choosing of our political leaders? I don't particularly like what Senator Vitter did, but at the same time, it galls me to give a self described bottom-feeder like Larry Flynt a political victory and to reward his scummy tactics.

How ironic you don't even see that here you guys have to work up to even get to the point of having a leader of Larry Flynt's morality!

17

Although it pains me to do so (wink), I'm going to have to agree with Boonton.

Vitter didn't just fail morally. He broke the law. To be fully consistent (and not hypocritical), he should turn himself in to the authorities and face the legal repurcussions.

18

Boonton, I think it says a lot about you that you think Flynt, the publisher of Hustler magazine and owner of strip clubs, who by the way has been accused of molesting his daughter, is more moral than Vitter, who at least has the decency to try to keep his infidelities private.

19

ucfengr:

Boonton, I think it says a lot about you that you think Flynt, the publisher of Hustler magazine and owner of strip clubs, who by the way has been accused of molesting his daughter, is more moral than Vitter, who at least has the decency to try to keep his infidelities private.

In other words you approve of criminal activity if you're able to keep it covered up. Vitter's immorality stemmed from his lack of foresight to use an alias so the madam's book wouldn't be traced back to him! Your morality is more suited to being a member of the Sopranos than what you call Christian. As for Flynt molesting his daughter, I haven't heard that charge. I know he hasn't been convicted of child molestatation. If he did such a thing I'd agree with you that it is much more serious than Vitter's criminality.

20

Vitter didn't just fail morally. He broke the law. To be fully consistent (and not hypocritical), he should turn himself in to the authorities and face the legal repurcussions.

In DC, prostitution is not a crime, soliciting prostitution is (in other words, asking or offering is a crime, the actual act is not); so it is not at all clear that Vitter actually broke any laws. In any case, soliciting prostitution is a misdemeanor and since Vitter's actions occurred in 1999, the statute of limitations has long run out, so it is unlikely that there would be any legal repercussions.

21

Bryan K Mills

Although it pains me to do so (wink), I'm going to have to agree with Boonton.

Thank you. This isn't really hard unless you are, like Joe and others on the right, more wedded to your political agenda than anything else.

Say I was a member of a diet club whose rule was if we ate something prohibited we had to do twenty sit ups. If I was caught eating the forbidden donut and I said "well I did it and I shouldn't have so now let me give you the twenty sit ups" that would be fully in line with what Joe is talking about. A person who espouses a standard but sometimes fails to live up to it. Vitter, though, seems like the type of person who can be counted on to make you do the sit ups (especially if he didn't like you to begin with) but would excuse himself (or in this case have his water carriers make the excuses on his behalf) with the old 'honor system'.

Joe then tries to make the libertarian out to be less moral because he recognizes standards for himself but does not seek to use the state to punish others!

22

In other words you approve of criminal activity if you're able to keep it covered up.

Actually, we don't know that Vitter broke any laws, only that he was involved with a prostitute in the late 1990's.

Your morality is more suited to being a member of the Sopranos than what you call Christian.

Oh, so having sex with a prostitute is the moral equivalent of "whacking" someone? What is speeding the moral equivalent of? Kicking an old lady down the stairs?

23

In DC, prostitution is not a crime, soliciting prostitution is (in other words, asking or offering is a crime, the actual act is not);

Actually I think your wrong. According to a law site I found:

In the United States, prostitution is illegal in almost every state. If a person, offers to, agrees to or engages in a sexual act for compensation, then the person has broken the law. The magic words necessary for the police to charge you with prostitution is “SEX & MONEY”. In most states, the following people can be charged with the crime of prostitution. The person who provides the service of prostitution known commonly as the prostitute, the person who pays for the services of the prostitute, commonly referred to as the “john” and any middleman, commonly referred to as the “pimp”. The alleged prostitute is charged with prostitution. The “john” will be charged with solicitation of prostitution. The “pimp” will be charged with pandering. Depending on the state, certain acts of facilitating prostitution can even be charged as felony

In other words, the customer can be just as guilty of solicition as the prostitute. The statute of limitations may or may not apply (you're assuming after 1999 he suddenly found a wealth of self-restraint and the madam just happens to have an extraordinarily good memory going back 8 years) but Vitter should waive it as a defense and accept the penalty or fine that is imposed on him.

24

Boonton & Bryan...

Yeah, when you put right-wing politics above morality, you get the sort of drivel that we see here.

To use what Ron Reagan said about George Bush in this context:

Larry Flynt crapped bigger ones than either Carter, Vitter, or Thompson.

Like I said, Flynt's a patriot, and Carter's a supporter of a Republican. 'Nuff said.

25

It is common to read on the Left blogs all complaints regarding evangelical inconsistency or error, whether real or fabricated, is automatically greeted with "Hypocrisy".

(It's not like PastorDan never expressed hate for rich people, accompanied with justification.)

Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com

26

I say I believe in all the teachings of Jesus Christ including "Blessed are the Peacemakers" and "Love Your Enemies", but I invade and occupy another country under false pretenses without any concern for the needless human suffering.

Am I a hypocrite?

27

Bryan and Booton, it sounds like your only problem with what Vitter did is that he did it in DC instead of Las Vegas.

28

JohnW,

I don't think that Eisenhower was a hypocrite, do you? Or are you making a refrence to Lincoln? Maybe Teddy Roosevelt? sorry I'm sort of dense.

29

I don't understand why hypocrisy or inconsistency should be any different from other sins. If there's no objective standard, and they take from that that they can't judge sins (which actually doesn't follow), then how can they judge inconsistency or hypocrisy? They might point out that it is inconsistent, but why can't someone have standards and then flaunt them? The charge that inconsistency or hypocrisy is wrong is a moral claim.

As for the moral evaluation of Vitter, see Francis Beckwith's comment on my post (the one Joe linked to at the top of the post).

30

"Bryan and Booton"... wow, now I'm a celebrity! Grouped with Boonton, tacitly praised by Mumon, chastised by Ufengr. I'm getting dizzy.

If hypocrisy is to mean "doesn't live up to the principles espoused," then the term becomes effectively meaningless, as it will encompass most humans (at least the ones that make an effort at virtue).

Vitter appears to have confessed to his God and his family. God forgives, and presumably his family has/will also.

I think he should present himself to the authorities, if there is a law that was broken (and if statute of limitations hasn't expired).

I think he should send a letter of fact and apology to his constituents and let them decide what to do with him in the next election cycle.

That should just about cover his accountability.

I am sorry that he has an R by his name, since the D's will beat us about the head with it for years to come, I'm sure. And the one-sidedness of the moralizing will be no surprise--it happens all the time. If you have a D by your name you can fall and be forgiven and even be praised for your courage. If you have an R, you are not allowed mistakes. Reminds me of the maxim, "The Right disagrees with the Left and thinks their ideas are wrong. The Left disagrees with the Right and thinks they are evil." Since virtue is by definition on the side of the Left, any failings they exhibit while pushing the agenda are excusable. Since the Right is by definition evil, a failure just proves such and demonstrates the need to get rid of them.

Mumon: "Yeah, when you put right-wing politics above morality, you get the sort of drivel that we see here." Spare me, please! Shall we trade anecdotes on which side of the aisle has more degenerates in it? Remove "right-wing" from your statement and I'll accept it.

31

Oclarki,

Hint: it's a recent President, one who said his favorite philosopher was Jesus Christ, "because he changed my heart". He also said he didn't want to be a "nation builder" and "a uniter, not a divider".

Hope my hint helps.

32

More details are emerging about Mr. Vitter's escapades. You should read nytimes [dot]com/2007/07/11/us/11vitter.html

From that article:
"In New Orleans, meanwhile, the madam of a high-priced brothel that was shut down by federal authorities in 2002 told a local television station, WDSU, that Mr. Vitter was one of her clients in the 1990s. The woman, Jeanette Maier, called him “one of the nicest and most honorable men I’ve ever met.”"

Also, Flynt says that there are at least five calls from Mr. Vitter to the DC Madam, beginning shortly after his erection - I mean election.

33

I think an important point to remember is that the vast majority of these scandals lately involve Republicans/Conservatives.

Mark Foley
Ted Haggard
Duke Cunningham
Bob Ney
Jack Abramoff
David Vitter
Should I continue?

Well just one more. FL state rep Bob Allen was busted in the last few days offering to service other men for $20 in public bathroom.

Am I saying that Republicans are more corrupt than Democrats? As someone who works in dem politics that would be a very convenient answer. Although the evidence points to that conclusion, I'm not convinced that is the problem. I think think the current batch has been corrupted by power, but long term both parties have plenty to be ashamed of.

I do think that these guys know that if they can avoid legal ramifications they can get off scott free with their base constituencies by saying that they have asked God for forgiveness and he has granted it. With an easy out like that why wouldn't they do these things?

When the evangelical community's forgiveness/support comes so cheaply the results are predictable. I don't say that as some NY or CA dem. I grew up in TX and my entire extended family are either Assembly of God or Southern Baptist. One of my 2 best friends from college is a former pentecostal minister. He told me how humiliating it was when Haggard was busted. Yet again and again I see my friends and family hoodwinked by these guys.

Here's my point: If you get busted doing something stupid I am forgiving. People are not perfect.

If, on the other hand, you talk the talk, you had better walk the walk. Period.

As soon as the evangelical community raises the moral price of its support and tells politicians that the ends don't justify the means, the politicians/public figures will fall in line. If you like being embarrassed on a regular basis, then stay the course. It sure is working out for me.

34

JohnW,

Sometimes it's ok to lay off the BDS for a few posts. Is there anyone who reads the comments here that doesn't know how you've decided give God a break and takeover judgement of the president's eternal soul?

35

BDS, What's that suppose to mean?

I don't judge anyone's soul. The post was about hypocracy. The president's policies regarding Iraq are glaringly opposed to the teachings of Christ. I don't damn his soul. I suppose he isn't a hypocrite though-maybe he truely doesn't see what he has done is wrong in anyway.

Evangelicals in other countries realized this before the war, yet the majority here still support the continued occupation of Iraq or atleast is silent about their opposition. A time comes when silence is betrayal. That time is now.

36

Bush Derangement Syndrome

Others on this site have argued with you and it doesn't seem like its been very productive. So I'll just state that it is possible for people who share faith in Christ to disagree about the justness and neccessity of the war in Iraq. Those of us who support the war and this president are just as fully members of the body of Christ as those who don't. Will you at least concede that?

37

So Joe, what you're telling us is that you're a hypocrite. First, we already knew that so this isn't news. Second, I don't see how you demonstrating once again that you're a hypocrite changes the fact that Vitter's a hypocrite.

Proposition:

Vitter is a hypocrite.

Vitter does not "stand for families". He seeks to control the sexual conduct of others, to define a limited set of sexual relationship as acceptable. He engaged in conduct that is WAY, WAY more immoral than any of the conduct that he inveighs against.

q.e.d.

Proposition:

Joe Carter is a hypocrite.

Carter pretends to be concerned with personal morality, yet falls all over himself making excuses for the hypocrisy of his fellow Republicans.

q.e.d.

38

ex-preacher Found something. Does this make Vitter a hypocrite?

Yeah, now I'd say that makes Vitter a hypocrite.

He should follow his own advice and resign. If I were from LA I wouldn't want him as my Senator.

39

Good on ya Joe for conceding Vitter is a hypocrite.

A couple more interesting items have surfaced.

- - - -

The Nation has discovered an October 29, 1998 op/ed piece in the New Orleans Times-Picayune in which Vitter says Clinton should be impeached on the basis of being "morally unfit" for office.

news[dot]yahoo[dot]com/s/thenation/20070711/cm_thenation/3212734_1

- - - -

And from The Sleuth at the Washington Post:

Margaret Carlson at Bloomberg News wonders if Vitter might be somewhere "nursing a critical wound to his manhood," considering what his wife said to Newhouse News in 2000 when asked if she'd be as understanding as Hillary Clinton if her husband ever had a Monica problem.

``I'm a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary. If he does something like that, I'm walking away with one thing, and it's not alimony, trust me.''

- - - -

I'm wondering what would happen if we applied the same punishment that King David received to modern day politicians. Instead of asking them to resign, we would kill their child by adultery, arrange to have another child have sex someday with all the father's wives, and split the country into two under a later ruler. But the leader himself could continue to reign, marry the woman he had sex with (in addition to his many other wives) and live to a good old age. If only we could live under God's beautiful law!

40

Oclarki,

Sorry, I can not concede that those who support the war and this president are just as fully members of the body of Christ as those who don't. I will not say this is true or false because to do so would mean I pass judgment on who is and who isn't a Christian.

I will say this: There were slave owners who considered themselves fine christians and there were many people who fought against civil rights for Blacks in the South during the 1960's who said they were bible believing christians. There were christians in Germany who didn't speak out against the Nazi's.

I believe our evangelical ministers have failed us and need to repent. Evangelicals throughout the world opposed the invasion of Iraq, but all we heard from the pulpit and christian media was George Bush is a true Christian, we trust his judgment, our cause is righteous, the war is just. I supported the war in the beginning too.

Read this article: www.thenation.com/doc/20070730/hedges
Our soldiers in Iraq decribe what is going on there. If this war wasn't neccessary-the person who caused it to happen, along with those who continue to support it are sinning. When I say Sin, I mean "missing the mark" or not following God's plan. I don't make a lot of value judgments against people, however, this type of thing is wrong. What's unclear about it?

41

The debate over whether Vitter has broken the law in DC is almost moot. Flint said there are other claims made in LA. We don't know yet if those 'claims' were before or after the DC incident. What are the laws in LA? I certainly feel they are more lax than in DC! Vitter could very well be facing criminal charges. He may not have a choice. So be it. Also, there are only two counties in Nevada that allows prostitution and Las Vegas is NOT in either one of those counties. Again, I don't know the laws in LV but as far as we know, Vitter didn't perform in LV. Right? Now those who live by the sword, will die by the sword. Vitter created his own sword. It was a choice that only he made. I was a very selfish choice. Some on this thread seem to want to offer excuses for his actions by defining definitions of words trying to find one that fits Vitter and his actions opposed to his beliefs. We don't know what is in this mans mind. He talks but does he say what will get him elected or what he really believes. Actions speak louder than words, and actions will be remember longer than his words. Again, it was his choice and he should be held accountable, either by public opinion or by law or both. End of the guessing games. He admitted to doing wrong and all the posturing isn't going to change the fact that he did it. So what is all the discussion about..... although I have thoroughly enjoyed the mostly intelligent conversation and for that I say thanks..... Good Night

42

I don't judge anyone's soul. The post was about hypocracy. The president's policies regarding Iraq are glaringly opposed to the teachings of Christ. I don't damn his soul. I suppose he isn't a hypocrite though-maybe he truely doesn't see what he has done is wrong in anyway.

When are you going to quit cherry-picking which of Christ's teachings President Bush should be following with respect to Iraq?

43

smmtheory,

I'm sorry, exactly which, if any, of Christ's teachings has Bush practiced as President?

44

Are you sure you want to imply that President Bush has not ever practiced any of Christ's teachings while in office Boonton? If I name one, especially one that was televised in a news report, you would look pretty silly and judgemental. Are you sure that is what you want?

45

smmtheory:

...Are you sure you want to imply that President Bush has not ever practiced any of Christ's teachings while in office...

Why Bush'd have to be outrageously evil not to have practiced any of Christ's teachings....well.... lessee, shall we?

Blessed are the poor in spirit, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven

Nah. He's one arrogant you know what...

Blessed are those who mourn, For they shall be comforted.

Notice it doesn't say "pretend to mourn."

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, For they shall be filled.

Heh...he'd have to like tell the truth to people...

Blessed are the merciful, For they shall obtain mercy. 8Blessed are the pure in heart, For they shall see God. 9Blessed are the peacemakers, For they shall be called sons of God. 10Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

No, no, and no.

"You have heard that it was said to those of old, "You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.' 22But I say to you that whoever is angry

No.

Le'ts go on, shall we?

46

...whoever says, "You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire....

Bush did that one the yesterdayday, in effect saying critics of his Iraq debacle were crazy.

Agree with your adversary quickly,...

Heh... need we say more on this one?

By this time, it's obvbious that no one who takes Jesus words seriously can be a vocal supporter of George W. Bush, but let's continue...

whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you;

George W. Bush does not have any great record of "adultery." But - the clear meaning of the latter 1/2 of the passage is that the writer of the Gospel is saying Jesus wants his followers to avoid sin.

See. All. Of. The. Above.

Divorce: No, you can't say Bush has been divorced.

let your "Yes' be "Yes,' and your "No,' "No.'

Let's not even go there. It'd be too embarrassing.

do your charitable deeds before men...

Ah, that's it! He's doing secret charitable deeds! Yeah, that's the ticket!

And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men.

Jesus might as well be saying here "Don't be a Republican."

One more:

Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me remove the speck from your eye'; and look, a plank is in your own eye? 5Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

This is Bush. And Vitter. And every last one of the religious right.

47

Sorry, I can not concede that those who support the war and this president are just as fully members of the body of Christ as those who don't. I will not say this is true or false because to do so would mean I pass judgment on who is and who isn't a Christian.

But John, you've already passed judgment on Bush; why stop there?

Re; Bush's Christianity

WTF guys, last year Bush was going to set up a theocracy with Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell; this year he's not even a Christian. How's a fellow supposed to keep up?

48

Are you sure you want to imply that President Bush has not ever practiced any of Christ's teachings while in office Boonton?

Of course they are sure, smm. Remember, Bush is pure, unadulterated Evil. Even the good things (not that there are any) he does are for Evil motives.

It's really quite amazing. Bush has been a more liberal president than any Democrat since JFK, maybe even FDR. He incorporated a drug benefit into Medicare. He supported and signed Ted Kennedy's education reform bill. He has been a consistent supporter of amnesty for illegals. And he actually finished the job that liberal hero, Bill Clinton started by getting rid of brutal dictator, Saddam Hussein (remember it was under Clinton that Saddam's overthrow became official US policy). He even improved on JFK's policy of domestic spying, by spying on people who actually want to destroy the US (i.e. al Qaeda members), instead of folks like Martin Luther King, Jr. How can liberals not love this guy? What's amazing is that he has any support among conservatives.

49

ucfengr wrote:

Bush has been a more liberal president than any Democrat since JFK

LOL! Bush has been the apotheosis of conservatism; to say that Bush wasn't is like an armchair Marxist saying about Stalin's Soviet Union & its aftermath, "Communism has never really been tried."

Both conservatism and Communism have been tried, and both have failed miserably.

Bush's response and staffing regarding Katrina are the very essence of the presupposition that "Government can't work" whichis why it made perfect sense for the conservative Republicans in chargel staff essential positions with incompetent cronies.

Every single decision that you could say was "big government" was a giveaway to Bush's cronies and their lobbyists- the so-called prescription drug card was a giveaway to Big Pharma (no negotiation please), - "No Child Left Behind" was a scheme to make public schools fail - and of course Bush's "immigration bill" was a scheme to keep labor compensation down.

The denial of the Bush-cult dead-enders is to be expected at this point, but the vast majority of America has woken up to the nasty, anti-democratic, unconstitutional regime made up of cronies, thugs, criminals and scoundrels that is too politely referred to as "the Bush administration" in the corporate media.

50

Are you sure you want to imply that President Bush has not ever practiced any of Christ's teachings while in office Boonton? If I name one, especially one that was televised in a news report, you would look pretty silly and judgemental. Are you sure that is what you want?

I'd be curious to hear a list, that's all. If you asked which Marxist teachings Hugo Chavez has implemented in Venz. it would be easy to rattle off a list such as nationalizing the oil industry, taking farms from wealthy landowners and giving it to peasents, silencing critics etc.

WTF guys, last year Bush was going to set up a theocracy with Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell; this year he's not even a Christian. How's a fellow supposed to keep up?

well now, shall we open a debate about whether these two are Christians? In the orthodox sense?

ucfengr
Of course they are sure, smm. Remember, Bush is pure, unadulterated Evil. Even the good things (not that there are any) he does are for Evil motives.

I wouldn't go that far, but I do notice this is a constant theme among Bush supporters. If you have issues with Bush you must be crazy...must have gone off the deep end. Intersting Marxists used to pull the same nonsense...having critics sent to mental hospitals and such.

It's really quite amazing. Bush has been a more liberal president than any Democrat since JFK, maybe even FDR. He incorporated a drug benefit into Medicare. He supported and signed Ted Kennedy's education reform bill. He has been a consistent supporter of amnesty for illegals.

I'm lukewarm on the drug benefit. It does seem like it has some positives and is an interesting meld of liberal and conservative ideas. I constantly hear conservatives attack the No Child Left Behind Act as 'Ted Kennedy's education bill' but I rarely hear them tell us what is so bad about it. From what I understand the bill basically says schools have to use standardized tests and have to make public how well students there perform on average and for schools that consistently fail they must give parents the choice to send their kids to a better school in the area. States get to choose the tests and could forgo the entire thing if they are willing to not take the Fed. funds. What's the beef?

Immigration Bush's measure IMO was better than nothing. You have two types of conservatives here, open borders libertarian types (lead by the Wall Street Journal) and close borders types like Pat Buchannan. Of course the closies love to say anyone who disagrees with them are left wingers but that doesn't really follow.

He even improved on JFK's policy of domestic spying, by spying on people who actually want to destroy the US (i.e. al Qaeda members), instead of folks like Martin Luther King, Jr. How can liberals not love this guy?

wow you really got to dig back don't you? Actually the domestic spying you're talking about is more of J. Edgar Hoover's policy than anyone else's. In his long tenure he was a force unto himself.

AS for domestic spying how do you know who Bush is spying on? I seem to recall the Dept. of Homeland Security tracking down Democratic state representatives in Texas who were refusing to attend the state assembly because they were trying to deny a quorum to Republicans redistricting the state. Consdering how pathetically incompetetant and corrupt this adminstration has been I wouldn't have such faith.

51

Mumon,

I've come up with a new term- BBS or "BUSH BLINDNESS SYNDROME".

Me and you, well, we have the BDS [BUSH DERANGEMENT SYNDROME].

We just don't see all the good President Bush has done for our country and the world. He is keeping us safe and spreading democracy and good-will all over the world. We should just shut-up and keep our un-american thoughts to ourselves. If you don't appreaciate Bush, you are obviously a member of "the left" and a "secular progressive", who doesn't know how God is working through our president.... Afterall, the problems in Iraq are the fault of the Iraqis and inflitrators from Al Queda...

We need to get over our "war fatigue" and rally around our president!

52

Both conservatism and Communism have been tried, and both have failed miserably.

Let's assume that the US is more conservative than France, Germany, Canada, and Great Britain and make some comparisons. We can also throw in Russia to represent a failed, former Communist country and China for a current one (All figures for CIA World Factbook):

Per Capita GDP
US--$44k
France--$31.1k
Great Britain--$31.8k
Canada--$35.6k
Russia--$12.2k
China--$7.7k

Life Expectancy at birth
US--78 years
France--80.5 years
Great Britain--78.7 years
Canada--80.3 years
Russia--65.8 years
China--72.8 years

Unemployment Rate
US--4.8%
France--8.7%
Great Britain--2.9%
Canada--6.4%
Russia--6.6%
China--4.2% (only includes major cities, rural areas are worse)

Public Debt
US--64.7% of GDP
France--64.7% of GDP
Great Britain--42.2% of GDP
Canada--64.5% of GDP
Russia-8% of GDP
China--22.1%

Percentage of Population below poverty line
US--12%
France--6.2%
Great Britain--17%
Canada--15.9%
Russia--17.8%
China--10% (rural areas probably not well represented in stat)

I'm looking real hard here, and I am not seeing conservative America as "failing miserably" when compared to more liberal countries. Maybe it's just you.

Bush's response and staffing regarding Katrina are the very essence of the presupposition that "Government can't work" whichis why it made perfect sense for the conservative Republicans in chargel staff essential positions with incompetent cronies.

Any failures associated with Katrina, especially with respect to New Orleans, can more appropriately laid at the feet of the Democratic governor and mayor of Louisiana and New Orleans, respectively. It's hard to envision a more incompetent response if they were trying to be incompetent.

Every single decision that you could say was "big government" was a giveaway to Bush's cronies and their lobbyists-

Proving my point that even when Bush does things you support, it's bad, because Bush is Evil..Evil..EVIL!!! If Bush proposed rainbows and puppies for everybody, you'd claim it was to pay off his cronies in Big Puppy and Prism.

53

I'm lukewarm on the drug benefit. It does seem like it has some positives and is an interesting meld of liberal and conservative ideas. I constantly hear conservatives attack the No Child Left Behind Act as 'Ted Kennedy's education bill' but I rarely hear them tell us what is so bad about it.

I actually like NCLB, but there is no disputing that it is largely Ted Kennedy's Education Bill. He voted for it and recently wrote an editorial in the Washington Post arguing for its reauthorization (www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
content/article/2007/03/25/AR2007032500910.html).

wow you really got to dig back don't you? Actually the domestic spying you're talking about is more of J. Edgar Hoover's policy than anyone else's. In his long tenure he was a force unto himself.

If Bush is responsible for everything bad that happens during his Presidency, than JFK is too. You can't blame Bush for Abu Ghraib and then give JFK a pass on his Justice Department's (led by his brother) wiretapping of MLK.

AS for domestic spying how do you know who Bush is spying on?

How do you know who JFK was spying on? But you are willing to give JFK the benefit of the doubt on MLK, even though we know he was aware of it and his brother approved it.

I seem to recall the Dept. of Homeland Security tracking down Democratic state representatives in Texas who were refusing to attend the state assembly because they were trying to deny a quorum to Republicans redistricting the state. Consdering how pathetically incompetetant and corrupt this adminstration has been I wouldn't have such faith.

I don't recall any details of that situation. Perhaps you could provide a source for you assertion.

54

One can believe as much as possible, but without a change of heart which can only be orchestrated by God moral inconsistencies will continue in one's life.

55

Any failures associated with Katrina, especially with respect to New Orleans, can more appropriately laid at the feet of the Democratic governor and mayor of Louisiana and New Orleans, respectively. It's hard to envision a more incompetent response if they were trying to be incompetent.

Let's see, we spent hundreds of billions of dollars on a Dept. of Homeland Security whose primary job is...well...homeland security which would include recovery if a major city was hit by something really bad (Katrina type damage could be caused by a massive attack as much as by a natural cause). Well out of all the cities in America the DoH's working assumption was that they would all have perfect local gov't's at all times? We have Bush himself on video tape attending a briefing where he says we are well prepared....not "ohhh no, we have a diaster about to happen and a incompetent local gov't that is unprepared to deal with it!".

As usual this has become so typical of the Bush years that we have started to become numb. No responsibility. Everything is always somebody else's fault but God forbid someone actually tries to interfere with or question "the decider's" decision making power.

I actually like NCLB, but there is no disputing that it is largely Ted Kennedy's Education Bill. He voted for it and recently wrote an editorial in the Washington Post arguing for its reauthorization

Ahhh so the problem is cronism then. It's a liberal bill because Ted Kennedy wrote it. Just like the commutation of Libby was good because...well Libby's part of 'our team' and the selection of Meyers for the SC was good because...well she was on the team too plus went to Church. I kid you not.

If Bush is responsible for everything bad that happens during his Presidency, than JFK is too. You can't blame Bush for Abu Ghraib and then give JFK a pass on his Justice Department's (led by his brother) wiretapping of MLK.

JFK has been dead over 30 years. 30 years after Bush is dead and gone I will care equally about his wiretapping policies if I'm still around.

How do you know who JFK was spying on? But you are willing to give JFK the benefit of the doubt on MLK, even though we know he was aware of it and his brother approved it.

Actually didn't Hoover demand it and Kennedy approve? Anyway no I don't give either Kennedy or Hoover the benefit of the doubt on domestic wiretapping. Should either of them be reincarnated and run for office I promise you I will demand they renounce their wiretapping policies.

I don't recall any details of that situation. Perhaps you could provide a source for you assertion.

Off the bat try http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0514-07.htm or http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2003_05_11.php.

56

"It's really quite amazing. Bush has been a more liberal president than any Democrat since JFK, maybe even FDR."

Haha, Digby, a couple of years ago, said that conservatism never fails, it can only be failed. Any failure of conservative policies is always a failure to adhere properly to conservative orthodoxy. No conservative politician is ever a failure, because as soon as his failure is manifest, conservatives portray him a as a liberal. When Bush was managing to scare people sufficiently that a majority of the country didn't see through him, conservatives couldn't fawn over him enough, they never questioned his bona fides. Well, guys, he's the same now as he was then. Bush's failures are the failure of a conservative. If you didn't believe he was a conservative, you would have repudiated him then.

What I want to know is, conservatism always seems to fail, so why does it matter why it fails. Either conservative policies are just bad, or else they're great, but it's impossible to practice a sufficiently rigid orthodoxy, so they never can be successfully implemented. In either case, the result is failure.

Why not just implement liberal policies, that are sufficiently flexible that they can give us prosperous liberal states like California, rather than conservative policies, which are either inherently bad, or impossible to execute, but, whatever the reason, give us godforsaken holes like Alabama, dependent for their survival on federal handouts taken by tax collections made possible by the superior industry and initiative of citizens of liberal states?

57

I'd be curious to hear a list, that's all.

OH, really, does that mean you are toning down the rhetoric then, because the way you phrased your question made it sound as if you had already made up your mind that you were going to cherry-pick what would qualify also. If that is the case, then answering the question would be just a setup for you to launch into another diatribe of derision.

I wouldn't go that far, but I do notice this is a constant theme among Bush supporters. If you have issues with Bush you must be crazy...must have gone off the deep end.

You call it just 'having issues' - continually harping about how every action of President Bush is corrupt, or deceitful, or any one of a dozen other character besmirching terms, devoting thousands of words in comments denying he has any redeeming qualities? I don't even want to consider what it might look like if those same people that just 'have issues' with President Bush were really upset with him.

58

Haha, Digby, a couple of years ago, said that conservatism never fails, it can only be failed.

I never said Bush was a failure, only that he wasn't a conservative. I think he has been reasonably successful; not the best, not the worse, but certainly better than his predecessor and, I think, better than any of his opponents.

59

ucfengr:

Thank you for making my point for me: even the CIA factbook is politicized!

What do they leave out? Any measure of economic disparity, or change in economic conditions.

You can readily poke around and find out that American's median income has been declining for the past several years (I won't do your research for you, I've done it in the past; maybe some of it's buried in my blog maybe not).

You can readily find out that "unemployment" rate means different things in the US and in France or Germany, and that if the unemployment rate in the US was computed as it was in Germany we'd have an unemployment rate of something like 10-12%!

BTW, funny you leaving Germany and Japan, not to mention Sweeden, Luxembourg, and Switzerland off your list.

Those "cheesemakers" live better than we do.

60

What do they leave out? Any measure of economic disparity, or change in economic conditions.

Actually they don't; they have a category that shows how much income the top and bottom 10% control. I didn't cite it because I don't recall it being significantly different between the countries. There were a lot of categories I didn't cite; each country's report is rather large.

You can readily poke around and find out that American's median income has been declining for the past several years

Even if this is true, is it true relative to Canada, France, and Great Britain? Doubtful.

BTW, funny you leaving Germany and Japan, not to mention Sweeden, Luxembourg, and Switzerland off your list.

I also left off Haiti, the Sudan, and Zimbabwe; your point? I chose the UK, France, and Canada because the seemed reasonable comparisons. A cursory look at Japan and Germany doesn't indicate that including them would make the US look any better or worse. Luxembourg is a Grand Duchy with a population of barely 500,000, so I don't think it would be a very valid comparison, any more than Haiti or the Sudan would.

61

Wow, this discussion has gotten a little bit off track. Are you ready to admit that Vitter is a hypocrite, ucfngr, or you sticking to the party line?

On the matter of relative prosperity, it seems that Western Europe and the US have found success through a combination of liberal and conservative policies. Nothing beats the free enterprise system for economic growth (see China), but it must be regulated and its effects tempered with a social safety net. It's worth noting that without the liberal programs of Social Security and Medicare, the US poverty rate would be far higher and life expectancy would be far shorter.

62

Wow, this discussion has gotten a little bit off track. Are you ready to admit that Vitter is a hypocrite, ucfngr, or you sticking to the party line?

From me on Post 15:

What Vitter did was make on observation that if what Livingstone did (having an affair) was reason to step down, then what Clinton did (having multiple affairs, at least one with a subordinate, then lying about it under oath, and sending out other subordinates to also lie about it) was certainly reason enough for him to step down. If Vitter actually called for Livingstone to step down, you could make the case for hypocrisy."

It's worth noting that without the liberal programs of Social Security and Medicare, the US poverty rate would be far higher and life expectancy would be far shorter.

It would be worth noting if there was any evidence to support your assertion. Since we have no way of determining what the life expectancy or poverty rate would be in the absence of Social Security or Medicare, there is no way to prove what it's effects are. It may be the case that they have had a detrimental impact on both.

63

It's worth noting that without the liberal programs of Social Security and Medicare, the US poverty rate would be far higher and life expectancy would be far shorter.

Then it is just as worth noting that without that busy-bodied governmental intrusive measure, family ties would have remained stronger and provided the societal structure to adequately make the Social Security and Medicare programs unnecessary.

64

Yea, see everyone was doing great and they just said "let's have Social Security and then Medicare for no particular reason" then family ties fell apart.

65

Seriously though, the breakdown of family ties SMM talks about is caused primarily by economic growth. If you're dirt poor you basically have nothing but your family to rely upon. As an economy matures, though, other options become available that did not exist before.

66

The same twisted logic (typical of republican bible thumpers) can be extended to ted haggart. No, he isn't a hypocrite. Give me a break.
I think it's a sad commentary on the republican leadership that Larry Flynt is this countries premier political journalist. It's also very funny.

67

Wnen Vitter agreed to pay the DC Madam for services of a woman, they conspired to commit pandering by inducing a woman to commit prostitution. When he paid the mioney, he committed pandering, a five year felony. DC Stat Sec.22-2705. The statute of limitations is six years. Sec. 22-113 (a) (4). The last reputed act was in 2001, so the time may have expired. Know any Federal prosecutor who wants to ge fired?

68

Wnen Vitter agreed to pay the DC Madam for services of a woman, they conspired to commit pandering by inducing a woman to commit prostitution. When he paid the mioney, he committed pandering, a five year felony. DC Stat Sec.22-2705. The statute of limitations is six years. Sec. 22-113 (a) (4). The last reputed act was in 2001, so the time may have expired. Know any Federal prosecutor who wants to get fired?

69

I have one thing to add about the article:

"It depends what your definition of prostitute is"

Just because he paid her AFTER sex doesn't mean it was FOR sex.

It could just as easily been a GIANT coincidence, whereby he happen to drop $300 on the night stand EACH and EVERY TIME he met her at the hotel to play SCRABBLE!

I love it that the very same people who attacked Clinton, are now defending Vitter.

March on Christian Soldiers!

Hypocrisy? I can't hear you!!! Nanahanahnahmamamalalalababa!

70

By all appearances Sen. Vitter does indeed believe in such "family values" as marital fidelity.

This is a parody site, right?