Wow, anyone catch the wave of political hypocrisy that has been sweeping through America these past couple of weeks? Did you see that Tennessee's 4th Congressional District re-elected "family values" Tea Party Congressman Scott DesJarlais to return to Washington? I know, so what? So what is that Congressman DesJarlais parlayed his down to earth family values positions to get himself elected the first time in 2012, yet the guy is not exactly the role model constituents think of when it comes to family values. With all the Anti-Abortion talk from the Far Right and the Tea Party, can anyone explain to me how in the world folks in Tennessee's 4th District could re-elect a guy that has pressured former girlfriends into having abortions (perhaps as many as three) and who was slapped with ethical violations for having sex with patients (DesJarlais is a physician, a practical Dr. Freelove)? See
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/scott-desjarlais-reelection-110028.html?hp=t1#.U_DX4IBdWHY
What is crazy is that despite overwhelming evidence that this guy is a hypocrite, his stance of being Anti-Obama on everything is good enough for his voters. So as long as you have zero integrity it is okay, as long as you claim Obama has none. Go figure!
We then have the news that Texas Governor Rick Perry has been indicted by a Texas Grand Jury for "Abuse of Authority" for vetoing funding for an Anti-Corruption Committee headed by a District Attorney. On the surface, it obviously looks suspicious that a governor can be indicted for exercising his/her right to veto legislation, I mean that's part of the job. But in this case, the District Attorney, not appointed by Perry but elected by the people of Texas, was told by Perry to resign after pleading guilty to drunk driving, or else Perry would eliminate all funding for the anti-corruption investigation group she heads. Hmm. Perry and his ilk have made a fortune in social awareness and money attacking Obama and his administration for overreaching in their handling of matters, yet here is Perry, clearly taking a faux moral and ethical stand against someone not responsible to him? By threatening to veto and then in fact vetoing appropriation bills that fund investigations that have been looking into Perry's own administration for allegations of corruption? According to Perry, his veto was appropriate because “I very clearly, I very publicly, said as long as that individual was running that agency, I had lost confidence in her, the public had lost confidence in her." But voters get to decide when officials they elect need to go, not the Executive (as a reminder, while running for President, Perry also said if elected he'd "fire Ben Bernanke"...even though the Fed Chair cannot be fired by any President). Perry also chimed in with demands Obama fire officials relating to the VA problems, yet Career Senior Executive Officials are protected by Civil Service and the president cannot fire any of them, only Congress can. Does Rick Perry have so little understanding of the law? If so, how can he be taken seriously (and he still is by many), when he publicly states that he is simply standing "up for the law." (See http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2014/08/perry-on-indictment-i-stood-up-for-the-rule-of-law-194061.html?hp=l2). But whose law? And this guy is seriously considering running for president again in 2016? My bet is he'd accept a VP slot, right behind Rand Paul (to carry Texas). Only problem is, Rick Perry fits the Dan Quayle model for Vice Presidents (if this reference is too old for you, feel free to Google Mr. Quayle).
My point is simple. Folks today are so blinded by ideology that they cannot even hear themselves think...at least hear themselves thinking. You elect a guy on his claim of family values and he turns out to be a real leech of a man. What do you do? You re-elect him because he has great rants against Obama - whom you have been led to believe has completely destroyed America (even though "your guys" control the House of Representatives and with the Senate have done as little as any Congress in the history of the United States). Some then turn to Rick Perry and glorify him for his macho confrontations against, well everyone. But who can forget Perry's campaign appearance where he stuttered and appeared intoxicated, once approved of Texas secession and then denied it, and had trouble remembering talking points created by his staff (because he is incapable of creating them on his own) and now claims he has the right to establish moral standards to ensure he gets his way. And he claims Obama is acting "imperially?" The rule of law does not change to fit the facts. The rule of law is the rule. It is set in stone. When will Americans wake up and realize they are being played by cynical politicians?
As President Woodrow Wilson once wrote; "What we seek is the reign of law, based upon the consent of the governed and sustained by the organized opinion of mankind." If politicians insists they are enforcing the rule of law, perhaps it's time Americans require them to know what the rule of law actually is (is anyone paying close attention to the mess in Ferguson, Missouri this week)? Until then, isn't it high time the governed begin withholding their consent to politicians!? Have a great week!
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/scott-desjarlais-reelection-110028.html?hp=t1#.U_DX4IBdWHY
What is crazy is that despite overwhelming evidence that this guy is a hypocrite, his stance of being Anti-Obama on everything is good enough for his voters. So as long as you have zero integrity it is okay, as long as you claim Obama has none. Go figure!
We then have the news that Texas Governor Rick Perry has been indicted by a Texas Grand Jury for "Abuse of Authority" for vetoing funding for an Anti-Corruption Committee headed by a District Attorney. On the surface, it obviously looks suspicious that a governor can be indicted for exercising his/her right to veto legislation, I mean that's part of the job. But in this case, the District Attorney, not appointed by Perry but elected by the people of Texas, was told by Perry to resign after pleading guilty to drunk driving, or else Perry would eliminate all funding for the anti-corruption investigation group she heads. Hmm. Perry and his ilk have made a fortune in social awareness and money attacking Obama and his administration for overreaching in their handling of matters, yet here is Perry, clearly taking a faux moral and ethical stand against someone not responsible to him? By threatening to veto and then in fact vetoing appropriation bills that fund investigations that have been looking into Perry's own administration for allegations of corruption? According to Perry, his veto was appropriate because “I very clearly, I very publicly, said as long as that individual was running that agency, I had lost confidence in her, the public had lost confidence in her." But voters get to decide when officials they elect need to go, not the Executive (as a reminder, while running for President, Perry also said if elected he'd "fire Ben Bernanke"...even though the Fed Chair cannot be fired by any President). Perry also chimed in with demands Obama fire officials relating to the VA problems, yet Career Senior Executive Officials are protected by Civil Service and the president cannot fire any of them, only Congress can. Does Rick Perry have so little understanding of the law? If so, how can he be taken seriously (and he still is by many), when he publicly states that he is simply standing "up for the law." (See http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2014/08/perry-on-indictment-i-stood-up-for-the-rule-of-law-194061.html?hp=l2). But whose law? And this guy is seriously considering running for president again in 2016? My bet is he'd accept a VP slot, right behind Rand Paul (to carry Texas). Only problem is, Rick Perry fits the Dan Quayle model for Vice Presidents (if this reference is too old for you, feel free to Google Mr. Quayle).
My point is simple. Folks today are so blinded by ideology that they cannot even hear themselves think...at least hear themselves thinking. You elect a guy on his claim of family values and he turns out to be a real leech of a man. What do you do? You re-elect him because he has great rants against Obama - whom you have been led to believe has completely destroyed America (even though "your guys" control the House of Representatives and with the Senate have done as little as any Congress in the history of the United States). Some then turn to Rick Perry and glorify him for his macho confrontations against, well everyone. But who can forget Perry's campaign appearance where he stuttered and appeared intoxicated, once approved of Texas secession and then denied it, and had trouble remembering talking points created by his staff (because he is incapable of creating them on his own) and now claims he has the right to establish moral standards to ensure he gets his way. And he claims Obama is acting "imperially?" The rule of law does not change to fit the facts. The rule of law is the rule. It is set in stone. When will Americans wake up and realize they are being played by cynical politicians?
As President Woodrow Wilson once wrote; "What we seek is the reign of law, based upon the consent of the governed and sustained by the organized opinion of mankind." If politicians insists they are enforcing the rule of law, perhaps it's time Americans require them to know what the rule of law actually is (is anyone paying close attention to the mess in Ferguson, Missouri this week)? Until then, isn't it high time the governed begin withholding their consent to politicians!? Have a great week!
RSS Feed
