Hypocrisy of the Left knows no bounds - Two Tales of Contradictions

[jbg]

The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds. Recently, the leftist governor of New Jersey opposed New York City's imposing congestion pricing, saying there was simply no way for more New Jerseyites to ride mass transit to their jobs in New York City. What he's saying is the suburban voters would not favor huge parking garages built at train stations. The time savings are startling; travel time from Metro Park-Iselin by train is about 38 minutes; by car, about 100 minutes, during rush hour. Corzine is suppose to be a "green", very liberal Democrat. Contrast this article, where Corzine, in signing a bill requiring New Jersey to reduce emissions, "called on individuals to do their share with simple acts like driving less and using mass transit" (link), with his opposition to "congestion pricing" (link) (which I have my own issues with) in neighboring New York City, where many New Jerseyans work:

Congestion pricing (the New York City proposal to charge motorists in certain areas of Manhattan more during rush hour): "I have some concerns about how it would (affect) New Jersey commuters. We don't have the capacity to handle dramatic surges in additional riders on our mass transit system. ...It's an economic hardship. ...We have some real work to do with our neighbors, but we would like to be cooperative."

I detect some cognitive dissonance on this matter. Clearly, Corzine favors his own re-election over the cause of reducing greenhouse gases.

In another, somewhat older breathtaking example of hypocrisy, the liberal, hippie "flower children" of the early 1970's suddenly abandoned their faith in human potential and the value of rehabilitating people battling mental illness, with their inglorious betrayal of Thomas Eagleton at the hands of the "peace, love and helping-hand" liberals in the US, who supposedly cared about people.

(link to article) After others were considered, the campaign settled on Mr. Eagleton, at 42 a young, Roman Catholic senator with a liberal voting record and the good opinion of labor. That afternoon, on July 13, 1972, Frank Mankiewicz, a top McGovern aide, asked Mr. Eagleton if there was anything in his background that might embarrass the campaign.

Mr. Eagleton said there was not. He did not tell Mr. Mankiewicz that he had been hospitalized three times for depression and that his treatment twice involved electroshock therapy.

But rumors began circulating among politicians and journalists. Mr. Eagleton held a news conference on July 25 in Custer, S.D., where he had just briefed the vacationing Mr. McGovern over breakfast. Mr. Eagleton told reporters that he had been treated for "nervous exhaustion." But in response to questions, he acknowledged that the treatment had included psychiatric counseling and electric shocks.

That day Mr. McGovern said, "I think Tom Eagleton is fully qualified in mind, body and spirit to be the vice president of the United States and, if necessary, to take on the presidency on a moment’s notice." As objections to Mr. Eagleton mounted, Mr. McGovern insisted that he was "1,000 percent for Tom Eagleton."

But the pressure from party leaders, campaign contributors and members of Mr. McGovern’s own staff was unrelenting. On July 31, the candidates met again, this time in Washington, and Mr. McGovern forced Mr. Eagleton to withdraw. He stepped down after 18 days as the nominee, saying he had done so for the sake of "party unity."

This sorry episode is part of what started my path away from believing that liberals are necessarily good people. I had thought they really believed in love, help and compassion before that. I was 15 at time, and had bought into the "peace, love and helping hand" myth the liberals and Democrats presented themselves as adhering to. I believed strongly then, and still do believe, that people are capable of making something of themselves after facing obstacles. To have unceremoniously tossed such a person off the ticket showed a total lack of spine and leadership we see all too often.

My feelings on the rights of people who have undergone treatment to be given the benefit of the doubt is deeply personal, and is at the core of my personal and religious beliefs in people taking charge of their destiny, in their ability to improve and make something of themselves. If anyone wants details on my feelings, which are too strong for bulletin board posting, my PM, e-mail and MSN are often open.

Edited August 5, 2007 by jbg

[jbg]

I'm guessing, from the lack of comments, that people admire this leftist hypocrisy.

[jdobbin]

I'm guessing, from the lack of comments, that people admire this leftist hypocrisy.

Or tired of posts that help you rationalize why you are a Republican.

If there is one thing a candidate for presidential elections must be is candid. Nothing escapes notice after a time.

McGovern should have had better checks on who he asked. If he had, he might have found out that some of the most damaging commentary that Republicans used against McGovern came from Eagleton.

Edited August 6, 2007 by jdobbin

[bush_cheney2004]

Or tired of posts that help you rationalize why you are a Republican.

If there is one thing a candidate for presidential elections must be is candid. Nothing escapes notice after a time.

McGovern should have had better checks on who he asked. If he had, he might have found out that some of the most damaging commentary that Republicans used against McGovern came from Eagleton.

jbg a Republican? Guess again.

McGovern had no shot....zero...zip...nada. Peace is way overrated, especially when they want to burn down a nation.

[jbg]

Or tired of posts that help you rationalize why you are a Republican.

I am not a Republican. I am a Democrat!!!

If there is one thing a candidate for presidential elections must be is candid. Nothing escapes notice after a time.

McGovern should have had better checks on who he asked. If he had, he might have found out that some of the most damaging commentary that Republicans used against McGovern came from Eagleton.

I'm not familiar with that commentary. What was it?

The problem was that McGovern had few options for his Veep candidate even before the Eagleton fiasco. McGovern had beaten most of the other worthies in the primaries, and they had their own (Republican dirty tricks caused) meltdowns, such as Muskie's crying in the New Hampshire snow after a vicious slur aimed at his wife (accused her of public use of the term "Canuck", which in New Hampshire is derogatory), and a near-death experience for Scoop Jackson (the airport to which his plane was destiend, which generally closed at night but was being kept open, was told by GOP operatives to close, almost causing his plane to run out of fuel before getting to Jacksonville).

McGovern's campaign, by then, was the "perils of Pauline". I worked on that campaign, as a member of a devoted Democratic family. I still am a Democrat.

[jbg]

Peace is way overrated, especially when they want to burn down a nation.

Quite right. "Peace" candidates do not fare well in the US.

[jdobbin]

I am not a Republican. I am a Democrat!!!

I'm not familiar with that commentary. What was it?

The problem was that McGovern had few options for his Veep candidate even before the Eagleton fiasco. McGovern had beaten most of the other worthies in the primaries, and they had their own (Republican dirty tricks caused) meltdowns, such as Muskie's crying in the New Hampshire snow after a vicious slur aimed at his wife (accused her of public use of the term "Canuck", which in New Hampshire is derogatory), and a near-death experience for Scoop Jackson (the airport to which his plane was destiend, which generally closed at night but was being kept open, was told by GOP operatives to close, almost causing his plane to run out of fuel before getting to Jacksonville).

McGovern's campaign, by then, was the "perils of Pauline". I worked on that campaign, as a member of a devoted Democratic family. I still am a Democrat.

Fine, you are a Democrat who now votes Republican.

Robert Novak revealed that the most damaging comment against McGovern came from Eagleton. You can look it up. It was the "triple A" comment that the press and the Republicans used against McGovern.

Eagleton should have disclosed his background. If a presidential nominee can't trust his running mate (in many ways), he becomes a liability. I don't know that if Eagleton stayed, it would have helped in the least. As you say, the campaign was running off the rails.

[jdobbin]

Quite right. "Peace" candidates do not fare well in the US.

That's funny because Nixon succeeded with a get out of Vietnam policy. Guess it is important which party does it, right?

[Sulaco]

I'm guessing, from the lack of comments, that people admire this leftist hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy is the smallest sin. Anyone with aspirations engages in it. There are far better reasons to attack the dems.

[jbg]

That's funny because Nixon succeeded with a get out of Vietnam policy. Guess it is important which party does it, right?

That wasn't quite Nixon's campaign. It was a secret plan to end the war, which remained...well, secret. To this day. Nixon deserves a place in h*ll alongside Trudeau, King, FDR and Field Marshal Petain.

[jbg]

Fine, you are a Democrat who now votes Republican.

I am a Democrat who is capable of voting Republican.

[Guest coot]

I am a Democrat who is capable of voting Republican.

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

[jbg]

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Huh?

[Drea]

Means you talk out of both sides of your mouth jbg.

Either you are a democrat or a republican. Either you are black or white. Either you are with 'em or against 'em.

Can't be sittin' on the fence now!

[Black Dog]

jbg, Aug 4 2007

The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds.

jbg, Jun 16 2007

Basically, I am liberal and left of center.

Draw your own conclusions.

[jbg]

Means you talk out of both sides of your mouth jbg.

Either you are a democrat or a republican. Either you are black or white. Either you are with 'em or against 'em.

Can't be sittin' on the fence now!

In my country, people are free to vote their consciences. My philosophy is closer to that of the Democratic party, hence I am a Democrat. If a Republican shows me that he or she has more to offer, I vote for that candidate.

[Guest American Woman]

jbg, Aug 4 2007

The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds.

jbg, Jun 16 2007

Basically, I am liberal and left of center.

Draw your own conclusions.

My curiousity is piqued. Were you referring to yourself with the whole "hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds," jbg? To make a generalization like that as you claim to be left yourself makes one wonder.

[Black Dog]

In my country, people are free to vote their consciences. My philosophy is closer to that of the Democratic party, hence I am a Democrat. If a Republican shows me that he or she has more to offer, I vote for that candidate.

Ah, but can we trust the word of an admitted hypocrite like yourself?

Or maybe you should try being a little more percise in your writing. For instance, a sloppy writer would start a thread about the leftist governor of New Jersey like this:

Hypocrisy of the Left knows no bounds

Whereas a more precise writer would probably start a thread about the leftist governor of New Jersey like this:

Hypocrisy of the leftist governor of New Jersey knows no bounds

Not only is it more accurate, it also allows the writer to avoid being tarred with the same broad brush he wields against others.

[jbg]

My curiousity is piqued. Were you referring to yourself with the whole "hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds," jbg? To make a generalization like that as you claim to be left yourself makes one wonder.

Got me on that one.