CNN: Only social conservatives can be hypocrites

I don’t typically watch cable news, but too many people I follow on Twitter were insisting that CNN’s Wolf Blitzer interview with Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) was must-see TV. I was able to watch a repeat of the interview, which was good TV, for what it’s worth. Afterwards, there was a segment on crisis communications and how poorly Rep. Weiner has handled the situation.

Now, I’m sure you’re all up to speed on this scandal. On Friday afternoon, a tweet went out from Rep. Weiner’s Twitter account announcing what time he’d be recording the Rachel Maddow show. It included a hashtag with a note about what time that would be for folks in Seattle. Several hours later, a tweet went from the account to a lovely young Seattle college student. It was a picture of man’s crotch, to put it mildly, and it was immediately deleted. At the same time, a flurry of tweets from Rep. Weiner — about hockey and the problems he was having with Tivo — went out. He also mentioned that his Facebook account had been hacked.

Well, since that time, his story has changed a great deal. He said it wasn’t his Facebook but his social media picture account that was hacked. Then he said it was a prank. Then it was spam. I think we’re currently back on the hack theory. Except that Weiner’s doing himself no favors by saying he’s completely uncertain whether it’s a picture of his own crotch or not. Which led people to wonder just how many pictures one must have of one’s crotch — and other crotches — to have such uncertainty. He’s normally very media savvy so this implosion has been something to see.

I’ve previously discussed my problem with delighting in sex scandals and I certainly hope the rest of you are more mature than me on this front. But the reason I highlight it all here is because of this amazing segment I heard on CNN about crisis communications. It’s embedded above and was hosted by anchor Jessica Yellin. Here is my transcript:

Yellin: Do you think he should stop talking now, Is that your …

Terry Holt, former Bush-Cheney strategist: In this case, less is more. The story has run its course, it should have run its course days ago. He just kept thinking he could get on top of it and he can’t.

Yellin: Let me ask you that, Chris, because He made the case that the media’s made too much of this.

And to be honest he’s never been a crusader on social issues so you can’t argue he’s been a hypocrite here, you know a morality hypocrite.

He, apparently, from all evidence we’ve seen, he didn’t break the law. So it does raise the question: is this getting too much media attention?

OK, so did you catch that line? “And to be honest he’s never been a crusader on social issues so you can’t argue he’s been a hypocrite here, you know a morality hypocrite.”

What? Hypocrisy has been redefined so much I can hardly keep up with it. But are we now saying that you can only be a hypocrite if you’re a “crusader on social issues”? I’m not even going to focus on the crusader language but the more general idea.

For all I know, Rep. Weiner really was hacked and is responding to it in the weirdest, most self-destructive way possible. But at the very least, Rep. Weiner, one of Forward‘s 50 most influential Jews, is married. He’s married to the lovely Huma Abedin, in fact. And I don’t know about his marriage, but generally speaking, if he took and sent pictures of his clothed but aroused manbits and sent them to a lady who was not his wife, that would be behavior contrary to his public persona as a married man.

I’d also like to note, here, that hypocrisy isn’t falling short of one’s standards but, rather, pretending to have standards that one doesn’t have. It’s a much more difficult charge to prove than the reckless use of the phrase would indicate. But we know how the media use that phrase.

In any case, Yellin’s comment is just completely bizarre to act like social liberals shouldn’t be expected to honor their marriage vows. We could take that further, too — if Weiner wasn’t hacked pranked spammed whatever, and he is instead lying, that would also be bad moral behavior. Voting 100% in line with NARAL doesn’t mean you get a free pass on infidelity, lying, or whatever else might be in play here. If there is one thing that confuses me the most about scandal coverage, it’s how the media pretend that there are only like three sins in the world and the chief one is hypocrisy. Come on, people.

Print Friendly

  • http://bobblarghblargh.tumblr.com Bob Blargh-Blargh

    Well, I think the point that you’re missing here is that the marriage vows of a politician, really, aren’t any of our business. It’s their own private, personal life. It makes for a salacious story, but it doesn’t effect how they do their job.

    What makes a politician a hypocrite when caught having an affair is if they’ve campaigned on family values and the sanctity of marriage. Best example I can think of is Newt Gingrich, who was calling for Clinton’s impeachment for an affair, while having an affair himself. Liberals typically don’t campaign on these issues, so you can’t really call them hypocrites.

    You can think he’s a jerk, sure. Which he would be, if he was cheating on that foxy wife of his. But it’s a little premature to label him guilty. He’s definitely bungling these interviews, but there’s enough evidence out there that it was a frame job by Andrew Breitbart, Dana Loesch and friends. But that’s off the point. Have a good day!

  • http://www.ecben.net Will

    “Is this getting too much media attention?” LOL. Now the “news” media are taken up with metadiscussions.And following their usual sense of priorities about what is important in the world.
    All I can say is, maybe now he’ll shut up about our statue.

  • http://www.ecben.net Will

    P.S. But does the picture show his distinguishing characteristic?

  • http://bobblarghblargh.tumblr.com Bob Blargh-Blargh

    I should also comment that the idea that you could judge someone’s political character by their moral character is erroneous. You can’t read people’s minds. Any moral judgement you make on another person, unless you know them directly, is going to be an assumption. Your opinion based on whatever limited POV the press provides us.

    Furthermore, plenty of politicians have learned to take advantage of religious voters by suddenly finding God and going to Iowa, when they’re running for office. Most of them don’t “champion” the moral causes they hope they do, or background them at least to more insidious issues. It sucks, and it’s creepy. I guess my point is that you’re not going to get anywhere trying to analyze perceived moral fortitude, so why even bother? Look at what they do, not what they say. How they vote, where they’re getting their money. You can far better judge someone’s character by looking at who’s pulling their strings.

  • http://www.ecben.net Will

    Er, “morality hypocrite” as opposed to what other kind?

  • http://blog.emergingscholars.org Mike Hickerson

    Bob said,

    What makes a politician a hypocrite when caught having an affair is if they’ve campaigned on family values and the sanctity of marriage.

    What if you’re caught sending sexually suggestive photos to young women via social media when you’ve campaigned for tighter restrictions on sexually suggestive uses of social media?

    In his own words:

    Sadly, the Internet is the predator’s venue of choice today. We need to update our strategies and our laws to stop these offenders who are a mere click away from our children.

    A 21-year-old college student is NOT a child, but has anyone asked Weiner questions about his work to clean up the internet in connection to this mess?

  • http://bobblarghblargh.tumblr.com Bob Blargh-Blargh

    Anybody that does opposite of what they say. If a politician doesn’t campaign on family values, how can you call them a hypocrite for not honoring his wife?

  • http://www.ecben.net Will

    So Gary Hart was not a hypocrite because he did not “campaign on” fidelity? Give me a break.

  • http://bobblarghblargh.tumblr.com Bob Blargh-Blargh

    Well, yeah. A 21 year-old is not a child. If he’d sent the picture to a child, maybe that would be relevant.

    I also believe that it’s foolish to think a politician, like Weiner, who embraces Twitter so much for campaigning, would also use it seduce women. I’m not saying he’s morally above cheating – how am I supposed to know? – I just think logic suggests he’d have found a smarter way to do it.

  • http://bobblarghblargh.tumblr.com Bob Blargh-Blargh

    No, Gary Hart is a creep, but not a hypocrite. Or at least not a hypocrite for that.

    I think being a creep is FAR worse than being a hypocrite.

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Bob Blargh-Blargh — can you tell us how you’re defining “hypocrisy”? Perhaps that would help, since you seem to have a particular definition …

    And a gentle reminder to keep the discussion on media coverage.

  • Kevin

    I disagree with Bob re: marriage is private an therefore none of our business. When one marries, one enters into a institution, which has public and private aspects. Surely what a married couple do together consensually in the privacy of their own relationship is none of my/our business. But the pubic aspects of their instantiation of the institution is my business. When a person pledges/vows to another person to reserve particular aspects of themselves (a particular range of expression of affections, the sexual) for the other person in that particular instantiation and then violates that pledge, he or she does a violence to the other member and is behaving hypocritically. Seriously, if one does not want others to help them stay accountable in his words/pledge/vow, why marry?

  • Ann

    Mollie,

    How do you define “social liberal?”

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Ann,

    For the purposes of this situation, I’d say opposite positions than a social conservative.

    I prefer, in general, to just describe positions. For instance, Rep Weiner has a 100% rating from NARAL. I don’t care whether people call that social liberal or social whatever — better to just stick to something more specific.

  • http://www.post-gazette.com Ann Rodgers

    What everyone seems to be forgetting here is that the secular feminist movement has a very finely tune sense of morality when it comes to problems such as sexual harassment. Seems to me that this is a very blatant violation of that moral standard.

  • mer

    Um, where’s the religion angle?

    I’ve leveled this complaint before regarding sex scandals, but this seems more like a conservative knee-jerk reaction than true religion journalism. Mostly since religion and morality are not the same things.

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    mer,

    In general, religion and values is the beat we cover and it’s usually the way the beat is defined by media outlets. This story does have religious angles, of course, but even if it didn’t, it would fit in with our general coverage area.

    And if it bothers you, I can completely understand that, but would just advise you skip these posts.

    Mollie

  • Oakwood

    Hypocrisy
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    For other uses, see Hypocrisy (disambiguation).
    Not to be confused with Hippocrates.
    Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have. Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie.
    Hypocrisy is not simply failing to practice those virtues that one preaches. Samuel Johnson made this point when he wrote about the misuse of the charge of “hypocrisy” in Rambler No. 14:
    Nothing is more unjust, however common, than to charge with hypocrisy him that expresses zeal for those virtues which he neglects to practice; since he may be sincerely convinced of the advantages of conquering his passions, without having yet obtained the victory, as a man may be confident of the advantages of a voyage, or a journey, without having courage or industry to undertake it, and may honestly recommend to others, those attempts which he neglects himself.[1]
    Thus, an alcoholic’s advocating temperance, for example, would not be considered an act of hypocrisy so long as the alcoholic made no pretense of constant sobriety.

  • Dave G.

    But are we now saying that you can only be a hypocrite if you’re a “crusader on social issues”?

    Yeah. That’s an old one. They were saying that when I was in college, and I’m no spring chicken. It depends on just which social issues of course. But I clearly remember hypocrite being defined as ‘someone who says one thing, and does another.’ Thus, it was usually better to say nothing at all. At least, again, when it comes to certain issues.

  • Bram

    Liberals harp on “feminist” values just as much as conservatives harp on “family” values, and they are every bit as much hypocrites when they get themselves in positions like the one that Weiner is in, and likewise when they make apologies for and/or cover up for and/or otherwise enable fellow liberal hypocrites.

    Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Al Gore, Barney Frank, Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson, Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Teddy Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., David Patterson, Eliot Spitzer, Antonio Villaraigosa, Jeremiah Wright

  • http://www.ecben.net Will

    I find that these days “hypocrisy” seems to mean “disagrees with me” on the rationalization that “we KNOW that they don’t REALLY believe that”, assuming the ability to look into the hearts of people they dislike. Or perhaps it is “NOBODY can possibly REALLY believe that”, thinking their own standards are absolutes.

  • Mollie

    In conversation with someone else, an interesting point was made. Party of the etymology of hypocrisy is “play-acting.” And if, as might be the case here, Weiner is play-acting the part of a victim while knowing himself not be, that would be pretty much a prime example of actual hypocrisy as traditionally defined.

    But no one tell Jessica Yellin.

  • Mark Baddeley

    The thread so far almost functions as a worked example of Mollie’s post.

    Mollie queried whether it really is the case that this is newsworthy only if the culprit is a hypocrite.

    So far the comments have generally been over the question as to whether or not Weiner is a hypocrite.

    The media question here is, is hypocrisy (and apparently two other sins that Mollie alluded to but didn’t ‘name and shame’ :) ) the only grounds to justify the newsworthiness of a story of personal immorality by a public officeholder.

    From a culture war point of view, if so that certainly gives a tactical advantage for what Mollie has called the ‘social liberals’ – who rarely campaign on questions of morality and so therefore, presumably, should get a pass on the airing of any of their dirty laundry.

    But from a journalism point of view, is hypocrisy the only reason to make someone’s personal, non-criminal, actions in the public interest and therefore news? That seems to be the question of the post.

    My hunch is that there is a contradiction here in those who will say more or less ‘yes’ to that question – an officeholder’s personal life should not be an issue in the public square unless they make it an issue by campaigning on it.

    If that is the case, then the person’s hypocrisy is yet another non-criminal act, like sexual behavior, lying, being mean or the like, and so shouldn’t be in the public interest either. All that should matter is what the person is campaigning for and how well they do their job. Whether or not they are a hypocrite is as irrelevant as whether they are sexually faithful, truthful, or kind. All of them are personal acts and the person should get a pass on them all. Hypocrisy about one’s public profile, or one’s policies does not necessarily prevent one from being effective in doing one’s job, and so, on the logic, not be newsworthy.

  • Bram

    “From a culture war point of view … that certainly gives a tactical advantage for what Mollie has called the ‘social liberals’ – who rarely campaign on questions of morality and so therefore, presumably, should get a pass on the airing of any of their dirty laundry.”

    Completely and utterly wrong.

    Social liberals campaign *incessantly* on questions of morality, just like social conservatives do.

    Socials liberals never stop accusing their opponents of being cruel, greedy, fascist, warmongering bigots, racists, sexists, homophobes, and theocrats intent on destroying democracy by taking away Grandma’s social security check and then kicking her dog as quickly as they can before the polar ice-cap melts and drowns us all.

    Who was it after all who recently accused their political opponents of inciting an assassination attempt that was in fact committed by someone from their own side?

    Who has been engaged in that kind of moral misdirection for more than fifty years — ever since a Democratic president was killed by a man of the left?

  • melxiopp

    Being a hypocrite is different than being an adulterer. One can also be both at the same time, of course, but unless Weiner was regularly speaking out for marriage or holding his marriage up as exemplary and the like, his adultery doesn’t really equal hypocrisy.

  • Jerry

    If there is one thing that confuses me the most about scandal coverage, it’s how the media pretend that there are only like three sins in the world and the chief one is hypocrisy. Come on, people.

    For what it’s worth, Dante identified hypocrisy as a form of fraud also including “Pimping and Seducing, Flattery, Simony, Sorcery, Political Corruption”

    The offenses of circles 8 and 9–the lowest two circles of hell–all fall under the rubric of fraud, a form of malice–as Virgil explains in Inferno 11.22-7–unique to human beings and therefore more displeasing to God than sins of concupiscence and violence.

    http://danteworlds.laits.utexas.edu/circle8a.html#fraud

    Based on that, I’m inclined to cut the media some slack while recognizing that the odds of them knowing their Dante are about as strong as me winning the lottery.

  • melxiopp

    the secular feminist movement has a very finely tune sense of morality when it comes to problems such as sexual harassment.

    Unless the college student was working or interning for Weiner, I’m not sure simply being older and more powerful would make Weiner guilty of sexual harassment. If the photo was unwanted, unwelcome, sent randomly, out of context, as an overture, etc., then it would be harassment, as well.

    However, we don’t know A) if Weiner sent it, B) if he sent it to her in particular, or C), if he did send it, what their relationship is/was and D), if they had a relationship, whether sending a photo like that might have been typical of their relationship. It’s also possible Weiner may have sent this very photo (or a less enhanced version of it) to his wife, but that a hacker then sent it to this college student (and Weiner’s Twitter followers).

    I’m also not sure if Weiner’s knowingly denying he sent this photo would properly be termed ‘hypocrisy’ rather than simply ‘lying’.

  • melxiopp

    Social liberals campaign *incessantly* on questions of morality, just like social conservatives do.

    Socials liberals never stop accusing their opponents of being cruel, greedy, fascist, warmongering bigots, racists, sexists, homophobes…

    I agree. Thus, in general, a liberal would be guilty of hypocrisy were he to campaign against the above and was later found guilty of cruelty, greed, bigotry, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.

    Weiner does not seem to have campaigned on the strength of his marriage and commitment to marital fidelity, against sexually explicit images, or older men dating or seducing younger women. Had he, he would be a hypocrite.

    The closest one gets its the above mentioned position Weiner took for tighter restrictions on sexually suggestive uses of social media, but this was specifically focused on children, internet sexual predators and social media – he wasn’t simply saying social media shouldn’t allow sexual images or language. So, it’s a bit of a stretch.

    If one looks at the particulars of the two incidents, I don’t think the Gary Hart analogy holds.

  • Mollie

    Friends,

    Let’s watch our language so we don’t say “liberals do this nefarious thing” or “conservatives do this nefarious thing.” Stick to the particulars and remember to focus on media coverage.

    Two thoughts here. One is that some people seem to think that hypocrisy is something that only politicians or other very public people are capable of.

    Two is that some people obviously view hypocrisy as a much greater evil than immorality. That is fascinating and it’s fascinating how media coverage advocates such a view.

    Using the broad definition, I’d argue everyone’s a hypocrite. Using the actual definition, I’d argue that it’s a difficult charge to stick. But either way, immorality — such as sending a picture of an aroused penis to a lovely young co-ed who is not only not the woman to whom you’ve pledged your fidelity but also someone to whom you’ve not similarly pledged — is another thing entirely.

    Hypocrisy is a boring, lazy charge. Sexual morality can make for interesting copy — we’ve just lost the vocabulary to even broach it intelligently.

  • Dave G.

    Hypocrisy is a boring, lazy charge.

    I don’t know if I would go that far. It does speak to things. Newt and the Clinton scandal leaps to mind. But then, Clarence Thomas and the Clinton scandal also leaps to mind. There are times when it is a way to find out if those yelling for moral purity are really yelling for moral purity, or is there some flaw they are protecting, or is it just a quick way of getting the other guy.

    Plus, quite frankly, it is sometimes an appropriate charge because the subject in question is guilty. Just ask Jesus. :)

  • Bram

    melxiopp,

    Weiner, like other liberal partisans, wraps himself ostentatiously in the feminist and anti-sexist flag.

    And Weiner, like many powerful men, and like many, many, many, many, many powerful *liberal* men appears to be an adulterer, a womanizer, and a cad.

    Ergo the very well-warranted charge of hypocrisy.

    Liberal politicians like Weiner and those I list above are to the secular left what conservative clergy like Ted Haggard are to the religious right.

    The only difference is that the religious right does *not* have the MSM to broadcast that fact and that the secular left *does* have the MSM to cover up for liberal politicians’ hypocrisy by not recognizing it as such.

  • Bram

    I agree with Mollie that what appears to be Weiner’s hypocrisy is the least of his problems, as compared to what appears to be his adultery, womanizing, and caddishness.

  • Bram

    Dave G.,

    I’d switch your terms and ask: “What about Clinton and more importantly Clinton supporters and the Clarence Thomas scandal?”

    Liberals rhetorically lynched Clarence Thomas for precisely the sort of behavior which they then covered up and/or defended in Bill Clinton’s case. They wanted to “move on” when it was one of their own, even after they had moved in for the rhetorical kill when it was someone from the other side.

  • Mollie

    Bram,

    What does that comment have to do with media coverage?

    This really is not the place for general discussion of hypocrisy but, more importantly, media coverage of same and related issues.

  • Dan Crawford

    Only social conservatives are blasted by the media as hypocrites? Where were you folks when Barney Frank and Eliot Spitzer had their fifteen minutes of fame? I think the media does a fine job on hypocrisy of any kind – except hypocrisy committed by media folks.

  • Dave

    Mollie, I think you’re missing a crucial point. It is indeed more hypocritical to espouse moral standards and then betray them in your actions, than to have no contradictions between word and deed.

  • Bram

    Mollie,

    The last comment was in response to Dave G. I thought that a response was fair game since you didn’t take his comment down. In any case, the journalism angle is implicit: that journalists are major accomplices in all of the liberal hypocrisies that I have described, that they are enablers of their fellow liberals’ hypocrisies, both by covering them up and by holding their conservative political opponents to standards that they don’t hold fellow liberals to.

  • Julia

    Eliot Spitzer I can see, since he was prosecuting prostitution rings. but Barney Frank wasn’t running on any morals platform.

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Dave,

    Well, then, here are two potential contradictions between word and deed in the matter at hand:

    1) Was Weiner giving pretense that he was a faithful married man?

    2) Has Weiner been claiming to be a victim when he knows he’s not?

    Again, though, I suppose the ax murderer who rails against ax murdering is more despicable and newsworthy than the ax murderer who doesn’t, but I just think the underlying morality deserves its own discussion, too. Hypocrisy. Yawn.

  • Julia

    Agreed – the elevation in the media of hypocracy as worse than just bad behavior has got out of hand.

  • Deacon John M. Bresnahan

    City councillors become extremely close and knowledgeable about each other. A number of years ago I was an elected city councillor in a large city.
    And if anyone thinks that someone who cheats on his wife, trashes his marriage vows, etc. can also be a man-or woman–of integrity, honestly doing the people’s business, not quietly back-stabbing voters in the 98% of work he does behind the scenes out-of-voters-sight, then I have a few words to describe such people: gullible, fools, morons.
    So why does so much of the media seem to sympathize with pols who don’t have any idea what it is to be loyal to one’s wife and family? Why don’t they want voters to pay any attention to whether politicians know how to keep vows and one’s pledged word, and their pants on. They then frequently ridicule those who think it IS a major issue. (As O’Donnell on MSNBC insultingly did the other night.)
    Well, look at the marriage and family statistics of so many in the mainstream media.
    Media alley cats and family abandoners are not about to see too much wrong with pols who are their mirror image.

  • Ann

    Rep. Weiner’s story is far more complicated than what is included in this blog or even most news reports. In addition, the blog and some of Mollie’s comments are confusing and sometimes not logical concerning hypocrisy, social liberals, and morality.

    I completely agree that Weiner has acted guilty; however, I think it is wrong (Biblically) to gossip/slander/assume things about the situation until all the facts are known. Weiner could have a legitimate reason for being evasive with his answers, such as to not impact the investigation. Weiner has emphatically said he did not send the pictures. He may be lying, but we do not know that at this time.

    Summary of a just a few suspicious things:

    The only person (Dan Wolfe/@patriotusa76) that saw the picture predicted at least twice during the past month that pornographic pictures of Weiner would be found.

    yfrog.com was the physical location of the picture that was linked to Weiner’s twitter account.

    yesterday, techies proofed that it was not difficult to hack yfrog.

    techies have done some interesting analysis of the picture’s metadata.

    today, yfrog has shutdown their photo service to further evaluate security

    today, Andrew Breitbart sent a tweet to @patriotusa76:

    AndrewBreitbart AndrewBreitbart
    Is there a real ‘Dan Wolfe’ @PatriotUSA76 or has someone for months elaborately pretended to be? #Weinergate gets more confusing!

    CBS June 2, 2011 6:46 PM

    The sensation that is Weinergate gets just a little bit stranger. … The first person to notice Weiner’s dirty picture is having the heat turned up on him as his claims and persona become more and more mysterious. According to reports from The Smoking Gun, when Weiner’s picture hit the Twitter feed only one person noticed it and publicized it before it was taken down. That person is the maybe-real, maybe-fake @patriotusa76 – aka Dan Wolfe.

    … Embarrassing emails between Wolfe and Breitbart that were obtained by The Smoking Gun have surfaced and begs the question: who is Dan Wolfe?

    http://tinyurl.com/3tptwrt

    It appears that Dan Wolfe does not want to be found.

    Voting 100% in line with NARAL doesn’t mean you get a free pass on infidelity, lying, or whatever else might be in play here.

    There is a very long list of politicians with various NARAL voting records that Mollie can call out for lying, include members of Congress that have voted 100% against NARAL. I agree that far too many get a free pass, including from GetReligion.

  • mer

    Mollie,

    I don’t really buy that this is a website that covers “values” (which is also broad enough to encompass whatever you would like it to). But I suppose you chose that word purposefully, since it allows you personally to report on sex scandals, which you yourself have claimed to be fascinated by. However, if you can’t actually give a good defense of how this constitutes in any way as a religious ghost, I’ll know to stop reading your posts from here on out.

  • Karen

    I think it premature to accuse Weiner of hypocrisy when when we don’t know what happened. His evasion on whether it is him may have to do with potential photoshopping of an image he would have preferred to keep private. That squares with the metadata issue. According to our local political club here in his district, an ex-girlfriend is the current suspect, but it could also be hacked. But Ann is right, it is loshon hara (Biblically prohibited gossip) to assume guilt or hypocrisy at this point.

  • http://www.muchmorethanwords.com gfe

    For what it’s worth, a short while ago I was listening to CNN, and a theme of the reporting on John Edwards is that he was a hypocrite (yes, they used the word) — not because he was a “family values” candidate, but because of the image he presented during his campaigns of being a family man.

  • Julia

    In case anybody is still reading:

    Clinton’s impeachment for an affair

    Actually, Clinton was impeached and lost his law license for lying during filmed testimony for a trial, not for having an affair.

  • Ninong

    I think Jessica Yellin’s comment about “morality hypocrite” should be read in the context of nationally prominent politicians. For example, Eliot Spitzer, a prosecutor famous for busting prostitution rings, was caught engaging the services of a high-priced prostitute. Or David Vitter, who campaigned as a “Family Values” Christian conservative, accompanied on stage by his wife and kids, caught patronizing prostitutes on a regular basis.

    I think, Mollie, that you are reading too much into her comment.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X