Homophobes, Zealots, and Racists

Just when I was beginning to like Mitt Romney, he belligerently goes after Larry Craig, a strong supporter of Romney’s campaign, with the wholly unflattering disgusting describing his alleged indiscriminate behavior in a men’s public rest room.

Larry Craig’s handling of this whole incident suggests his guilt, and he has definitely made a mess of his long political career.     It is not surprising that Romney felt it necessary to jettison this loyal supporter, but his demeanor and aggression in casting aside this man chimes of rhetoric we would expect from Hillary Clinton.

Romney’s disgusting adjective calls into play the sort of low-class demagoguery designed to enrage a narrow-minded and prejudiced base.   (If any gay or lesbian people do intend on voting Republican, Rudy will get those votes, Mitt.)  

It seems to me Mitt Romney could have dismissed this supporter with the sort of self-deprecating humility that would have shown appreciation for his loyalty, but understandably, not embrace his support during this difficult time when trying to wage a conservative campaign.

Why the Democrats are not protecting this guy I can’t imagine.   Calling on his hypocrisy, instead of praising his humanity and embracing his weaknesses to undermine his position on the Defense of Marriage Act seems to me, passes up a great opportunity.   Isn’t it empathy, forgiveness, and understanding that Democrats consistently regard as the foundation of their philosophies?   I guess that only applies if there is no Republican blood in the water but Democrats are the compassionate ones.   Yeah, right.

Democrats pride themselves in protecting every homosexual indiscretion; they don’t just protect them they laud them.   Larry Craig ought to be their patron saint!   Obviously the Democrat propensity to embrace homosexual values is not connected to any under-riding liberal ideology; it is only done to buy votes.

This latest media spectacle has been emblazoned with the favorite epithet from both the left and the right, hypocrisy.   I am convinced this word is destined to become meaningless.   The conservative position in the Defense of Marriage Act is simply that marriage should be recognized to only occur between a man and a woman.  

Larry Craig has supported this act, but somehow, given this alleged indiscretion and behavior which he himself might describe as a sickness (not unlike alcoholism is a sickness), supporting the Defense of Marriage Act makes him a hypocrite.

That is like saying a heroin addict ought not to pontificate to his children that the drug is dangerous and should be avoided, or hearing a man on death row lament that capital punishment could result from murderous activities.   Having sickness or indulging indiscretion doesn’t change facts inherent to right and wrong or good and bad.

The hypocrisy epithet suggests, any bad behavior engaged by any individual is an endorsement of that behavior by that individual, but unquestionably it is not.  

Saying, I can do it, and you cannot is hypocrisy.  

Saying, None of us can do it, but I have succumbed to my weaknesses and did what I should not have done is not hypocritical.   It is an important distinction.  

At this time Senator Craig has alleged he pled guilty only to dispatch this fairly unimportant charge, and move on.   Perhaps he is lying, perhaps not.   He definitely has not said, I can do it and you cannot.

There was a time when homophobia, zealotry, and racism identified particular extreme positions of fringe groups in our society; today they are only perverted monikers our public officials throw at each other to try and gain some partisan political advantage.  

To politicians on the left and on the right hypocrisy is nothing more than a good cuss a nine year old would throw at his brother, integrity on the other hand, only means you’re on our side.

No wonder congress has the American people’s approval of less than 20%, ten points below the President’s anemic 30.


Copyright 2007 Jim Pontillo  

3 thoughts on “Homophobes, Zealots, and Racists

  1. You’re out to lunch on this one. I’m a Duncan Hunter guy but I applauded Romney for calling out that scumbag right off.

    Of course, I’ve got the advantage of another 5 days on your post during which that egocentric maniac from Idaho has f’d up everything he’s done. He’s an arrogant bastard as dumb as a bag of rocks. In other words, a typical Republican legislator.

    I have to ask where does a supposed “conservative” get off pulling the Homophobe card. It’s a pity even supposedly conservative youngsters have been brainwashed by their educators to swallow the leftist mantras. Do you think the Minutemen are vigilantes like Presidente Bush?

    You need another decade or two of growing up before you’ll really be a conservative.


  2. Richard, 

    You might be right about that growing up thing, however, something tells me your suggestion that I am not conservative may be off base.

    Remember…Reagan’s golden rule…never speak ill of another Republican!

    Romney could have gotten rid of Craig without the sanctimonious rant, and yeah he might be an arrogant dumb bag of rocks, but that’s still better than what the Democrats offer. 

  3. “You’re out to lunch on this one. I’m a Duncan Hunter guy but I applauded Romney for calling out that scumbag right off. ”

    Hmmmm. I thought it was a Conservative value to support the consitutional doctrine of “innocent until proven guilty”? Oh sure, he pled guilty to a lesser charge. Has anybody looked at the court system critically lately? Bush fires 9 judges and he gets hammered for it. Clinton fired THEM ALL and replaced them all with liberal, activist, left leaning judges. At the local level, in the city he was passing through and had to use that infamous bathroom, it’s a liberal enclave. Jurisdiction would have meant going to court with the cards stacked against him. Plus, as soon as he appeared, he was GUARANTEED to have it all hang out in the media. He made the human decision to try to avoid a guaranteed loss in public court for a relatively minor misdemeanor charge. How many truly innocent folks I wonder have accepted a lesser charge to avoid rolling the dice on a heavier charge in unpredictable courts and in a society where the charged are often convicted in the media before the case ever comes to trial?

    Be that as it may. Mitt Romney was mean spirited. More politician than honorable. He could merely have said that he would reserve judgement until it played out in court or the full details had been examined. Period. Homosexuals exhibit their conduct for years. If Craig was truly homosexual, MANY partners would have come out of the woodwork over this calling him a hypocrit for his denial, if only to justify their lifestyle. Nobody has done that. Ergo, I surmise the charges are not true, and that he may well have been set up. I myself have done a happy dance tapping my feet while on the toilet in a restroom. I am no homosexual. I was sending no signals. I myself have looked to see if anybody was in the stall before opening the door. Doesn’t mean I was cruising.

    Liberals rush to judgement. Conservatives aren’t supposed to.

Comments are closed.