Gingrich and the Republican Primaries

I am, as one can probably imagine, paying at least passing attention to the Republican primaries... as I'm sure everyone is. Republicans want to know who they think will replace Obama, and Democrats are curious who they'll be up against. That's not to say I'm watching the debates. I'm fine with just reading the highlights in the aftermath. They are all politicians, none of them really doing anything to stand out for me... well, not in a good way, at least.

Today, I think I'll mostly be pitching a bitch about Newt Gingrich... one of the biggest hypocrites in Washington. When asked about his affairs in a debate, he went off at the moderator who asked. While perhaps normally, I'd say everyone has a few skeletons in their closets and should be allowed to forget about them once in awhile, I would say that this is not the case with Gingrich. Am I holding a double standard here? I don't think so. Here's why:

Gingrich so far has had at least three extramarital affairs... that we know of. It seems like each time he asks for a divorce, it's when his soon-to-be ex-wife is sick. This is the same guy who led the charge against Bill Clinton on Capitol Hill for having his affair with Lewinsky. He spent millions of taxpayer dollars investigating Clinton for lying under oath when he shouldn't have even been under oath. An affair is a civil, not a criminal, matter. You know how a case gets thrown out when cops find something under illegal circumstances? Ie, searching without a warrant and the like? Well, they were trying to bust Clinton for perjury on, again, something he should not have even been put under oath for. He would have been well within his rights to laugh and flip them the bird when they tried to put him under oath. The affair was, by all accounts, consensual... and not even Hillary was asking for the investigation.

That's not to say I'm a huge fan of Clinton... he's the one that brought in NAFTA, which I think is stupidity. Letting foreign policy dictate economic policy is just stupid, and part of the reason we're in our current mess. Back to Gingrich, though.

What makes him a hypocrite is that while leading this moral crusade against Clinton, Gingrich himself was having an affair. That's why I don't feel mine is a double standard. If he can't even hold to his own morals, do we really want to entrust him with the highest office in the land and the Constitution? I sure the hell do not.

Gingrich is bitterly partisan, a liar, and a hypocrite. Much like a number of the kings of old that our founders fought and died to escape, he holds himself above his own laws. I'd say he deserves everything he gets - every bit of ridicule, every reminder that he's presented with. I'm sorry to say, but this is not a good guy. This is not one who attempts to learn from his mistakes, or apparently not one who even tries to be fair, just, or decent.

Back to the Republican race as a whole, it's reminding me of Kang and Kodos posing as Clinton and Dole on the Simpsons, running for president. They're all pretty much the same to me, and if this is the best the Republican party can present... well, hope they're ready for Obama having a second term.

The problem with the GOP

Who here is keeping up with the GOP primaries? If so, do you have a favorite? Mine recently went Libertarian after the GOP ignored him and called him a troublemaker. Other than him, I honestly don't like anyone running in the GOP.

With my politics, most who know me would probably expect me to support Obama. Well, I did. I supported him through the Democrat primaries and voted for him in the general election of 2008. The way I saw it was that he was fresh to politics and still had ideals, rather than just being another slippery turd in a business suit. I don't regret my vote. McCain would have been worse... it would have been like Bush having a third term. But I am disappointed in Obama.

I had hoped he would hold onto those ideals that had endeared him to me if he got elected. Sadly, he did not. He carried on many of Bush's policies, such as the inappropriately named "Patriot Act," and more recently, the NDAA. Other than that, much like any politician, he's too much a coward to make any big moves or to push for any big changes. It could be blamed on the obstructionism coming from Republicans, but no one said that being president would be easy, and only a fool would think it would be. Especially being the first black president, sadly. Birthers can deny all they want, but I doubt they would be making such an issue if not for his race.

With this - the bad economy and the continuing slow erosion of liberties, I think that people on both sides are taking a "it's just more of the same" mentality when they look at their leaders and candidates. It's hard to get excited about what either party is offering.

I'm firmly convinced that the TEA Party is going to be the downfall of the Republicans. While the movement in itself is not racist, many in it are. They also keep pushing the most extreme and theocratic candidates up to the front in the Republican primaries, forgetting that it's ultimately the Independents and moderates that decide, come the general election. I will say right now that as an Independent and a moderate, I do not want an extremist in office, and would happily vote Obama another term before accepting one of those the TEA Party has pushed.

Every Republican candidate has shown certain extremist ideas. I won't harp too much on Bachmann, only because she's dropped out already. But, let's look at Rick Perry, who seems proud that Texas has had so many executions under his rule (some of whom have later been proven innocent), or Newt Gingrich who is one of the biggest noisemakers and hypocrites that I've seen in my lifetime - lambasting Clinton from one side of Capitol Hill to the other over an affair while he, himself, is having an affair, which is nothing new. And yes, in general while I am not myself gay, I do consider equal rights for gays to be an important issue. If nothing else, one's stances on this is very telling of their character as a whole, I think.

To summarize, the GOP really isn't uniting on much of anything other than hate, whether it be of Obama or of gays. The candidates presented are weak and sometimes too much alike. None is offering real change... and as for the economy, they just keep presenting plans to balance the budget by the time they are long out of office. That's not fixing anything, it's just passing it to the next guy.

Prejudice and Hypocrisy

When talking about equal rights, it's generally very bad practice to make exceptions. In early America, there were several exceptions to the "all men are created equal" philosophy - basically anyone who wasn't white and/or Christian. Also, the "men" part of that philosophy was treated in a much more literal sense than it is today, as it was the accepted belief that women just weren't as important as men. And as for sexual orientation, forget about it. If you were anything other than straight, you were insane. In some cases, that would mean electroshock treatment, frontal lobotomies, etc. And that's just the institutionalized stuff, not the lynch-mob type of stuff.

Lately, bullying has been making the news a lot. The rather horrible consequences of it are becoming a lot more publicized where we are hearing about suicides and the like as a result of it. I realize I may be saying this phrase a lot on my blog, but "it's nothing new." When things like bullying, child abuse, domestic violence, sexual abuse, etc, become more publicized, there is a common misconception that it is new. Then the generation gets blamed, "ie, when I was that age, we knew to treat each other with respect, or we'd end up with a hot butt!"

But again, it's nothing new. In the older days, it was simply accepted that child abuse and domestic abuse, and sometimes even sexual abuse was "just the way things are." For a child to admit that they were being abused, especially if by a same-sex abuser, it would scandalize the whole family. So it simply wasn't talked about. Child abuse and domestic violence were "a family matter."

It's undeniable that huge strides have been made (though some still yearn for the days when they had the "right" to beat their kids and/or wives), and progress is still being made. As someone who has had to deal with a lot of bullying as a kid, I'm glad that more is being done about it.

But let's get back to why I titled this post "Prejudice and Hypocrisy," shall we? This is why:

OK to bully gay kids if you're Christian or otherwise philosophically or politically opposed

What's the fucking difference? Under this same hair-brained philosophy, aren't all bullies practicing free speech? "Now so-and-so, we know that he broke your nose and made you eat dog crap, but he was practicing his First Amendment right in free expression - he's philosophically opposed to wimpy kids with glasses, and you have no right to obstruct his First Amendment rights."

It's the same damned thing. It's a free country, but rights end where they begin to trample on those of others. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" - sound familiar to anyone?

Unfortunately, this seems to be a common tactic with the religious right, and they seem to see nothing wrong with it. They keep the rights for themselves to trample on the rights of others. If their rights become limited to the same as those of others, they scream about persecution. Sadly, it's human nature, though. It's not something that can be blamed on religion, only those who use it to justify their own hate and prejudice. Everyone wants rights, but few are willing to accept the responsibilities, even if the responsibility is as simple as respecting the same rights of others. But, with things like this, it is little surprise that so many are walking away from the church, and at times even becoming hateful of it.

I wonder... would these same lawmakers be supportive of an atheist bully's right to bully around Christian kids? Again, it's the same damn thing.