Don’t judge the best by the failures
This space frequently assails the hypocrisy of liberals, progressives, Democrats or whatever moniker they happen to be hiding behind these days. It isn’t that I’m ignorant of conservative hypocrisy; it’s just been my experience that genuine, bona fide liberals use conservatives’ hypocrisy as a means to justify their own agenda rather than advance any ideas of their own.
For example, they point to the “family values” crowd like Newt Gingrich (who’s been married and divorced like three times) and say, “Aha! Family values this, you hypocrite.” Then they feel free to denounce the whole concept without really articulating their reasons. I mean, come on, if you believe the whole concept of marriage, fidelity and commitment is so passé that it deserves to chucked under the bus, at least have the courage of your convictions to say so. But do not hold up the few who failed to meet the standard as an excuse to advance your own agenda. In my opinion, just because someone failed to live up to the high standard doesn’t negate the merits of the family-value message or the actions of the rest of us who do live up to it.
That leads me to the “it takes a village to raise a child” bullshit foisted upon the country by former First Lady and current White House hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton. Feminists and daycare owners held “coming-out” parties while the collective guilt of millions of parents was assuaged in that touchy-feely love-in. (ABC News recently reported that, according to the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 30 percent of all children are warehoused—er sorry—"placed” in daycare.)
The answer to the following question should help prove my point. Given the choice (whether at the age of 8 weeks, 8 months, 28 months, etc.), would you prefer to be raised by: A) a loving parent or B) a “caretaker” in a daycare facility with three or more non-sibling children.
And yet, people are brainwashed into thinking this is way cool.
Now, I don’t mean to suggest that daycare is not sometimes a necessity. But if you suggest it as the standard by which to raise healthy, well-adjusted children, then pass me some boots because the stuff is getting deep in here.
Finally, there is this piece of stupefaction. Democrats have always been for “jobs” and conveniently for (as they are wont to do) raising taxes to help pay for all those little socialist programs.
If you believe this is a prudent economic theory, then let’s recall some recent history. In the 2004 election, former presidential hopeful John Kerry popped off about raising taxes for months, and no one called him on it. He wanted to raise taxes on the “wealthiest 1 percent of all Americans.”
Now, first, let’s recall that both Kerry’s and the president’s tax returns and financial disclosures were bounced all over the Internet and back. If memory serves, Kerry had a net worth of two-to-three times that of George W. Bush. Yet Kerry paid less in taxes than the president.
The point is this: Do you really believe that those with the wherewithal to make huge sums of money don’t have the means or the brains to avoid such idiotic measures?
And even if you do, they still have yet to explain how raising taxes will create more jobs. (Because it won’t.)
Either way, I’ll take a Republican hypocrite over a Democrat every time.