Nov
04

Hypocrisy – A Definition

By David

Representative Joe Wilson, (R) South Carolina, (best known for his “shout out” to the President during a joint session of Congress) sent an email to his district last week announcing that his wife, Roxanne, had been diagnosed with the swine flu and urged his constituents to get vaccinated. Then, he proceeded to blast the Obama administration for not providing enough vaccine for all Americans.

“The current administration is solely responsible. They can’t blame this on any prior administration,” said Wilson. “This is the responsibility of the current administration. They’ve put the lives of Americans at risk.”

What Wilson fails to mention in this interview with conservative news blog CNSNews.com is that in June he voted against a supplementary appropriations bill which contained special funding to combat H1N1 both domestically and internationally. He was joined by 95% of his republican colleagues. So, had Joe and company had their way, the swine flu pandemic would have been even worse than it is now.

There is no question that the Obama administration promised more in swine flu relief than it had the power to deliver, but does anyone seriously think that the President of the United States has absolute control over the speed and quantity of flu vaccine manufacturing? We all hope for Mrs. Wilson’s complete and speedy recovery from the flu.

hy · poc · ri · sy — the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform; pretense

Comments

  1. Gwendol Bowling says:

    Well put. Appreciate the definition for an apt word. The scientists had no clue that the eggs would be so uncooperative in growing out this flu. Too bad that us humans lack the resistance of the cultured eggs. Is that Obama’s fault? No. Is it the scientists fault that the eggs simply do not cooperate? Probably not. We started too late, the fact there was going to be a pandemic was written in concrete. People have jumped through hoops on this one. In the beginning, many people were blaming Obama for trying to frighten us. The Mexican government took a beating with their strident response early on to this pandemic.

  2. Kent says:

    Nobody can argue that Wilson is a politician, and that like most he qualifies as a hypocrite. Please be equally disappointed in Nancy Pelosi telling the world she was going to drain the swamp and change the “culture of corruption” but turning a blind eye to (D) Charlie Rangel’s blatant tax fraud while serving on the Finance Committee of the Senate, for example. You don’t have to look very far down either aisle to find hypocricy. Republicans didn’t invent it, like Al Gore invented the Internet. If they had, they would have never shared so much of it with Democrats.

  3. David says:

    Wow. Since this seems to be your counterpoint to every issue, I’m surprised you didn’t post it on the Streisand review.

  4. Kent says:

    Charlie Rangel is Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, not in the Senate as I stated above in error. As Chairman, he presides over the group who write our tax laws. If that’s not the definition of a hypocrite, what is?

    ….and in what part of that swamp does Congressman Rangel swim?

    (This page is now officially fair and balanced.)

  5. Kent says:

    It’s facetious to pick out a conservative, label him a hypocrite and display a good example of his hypocricy with a smug joy and a sarcastic flourish – - – when both sides of politics are replete with examples of blatant hypocricy. The impression you therefore leave with the reader is slanted. If you find compelled to do that, don’t be surprised when someone of a different political party seizes the opportunity to point out one of your own who’s equally hypocritical, because there are plenty from which to choose. This could go on forever back and forth, and neither of us would run out of ammo. John Kerry used his war hero status in his campaign for President and trapped himself with his own past; it came out he turned against his fellow soldiers during the war, threw his medals at the White House in an angry anti-war protest rally, testified before Congress that our soldiers were barbaric Gengis Khan prototypes and helped bring disdain to returning war veterans. He had every right to do those things under the Constitution and I support even Lieutenant John Kerry’s right to bash America at wartime because freedom of speech is more important than a few hurt feelings. But later running for President as a war hero and mentioning his 3 purple hearts? The same medals he threw in anger at the White House a few years earlier? John Kerry, populist, man of the simple people, environmentalist…. with 5 houses, a jet, 2 huge SUV’s and some very wasteful, environment-consuming habits? Does the word ‘hypocrite’ come to mind? Or is that only reserved for conservatives? Is it okay to have a House Ways and Means (Tax Law) Chairman who’s a serial tax cheat himself? So Wilson voted against funding for Swine Flu and later criticized the administration for not having enough vaccine…good one. Is that even close to as bad as the man most in charge of making our tax laws, blatantly breaking them? Conservatives are often hypocritical when they come from a position of moral authority…From Jimmy Swaggard in a hotel room with a prostitute, to Newt Gingrich having a girlfriend on the side while criticizing Clinton for his Lowenski, they’re all sickening. But no less so than their Liberal counterparts. John Edwards, family man. Marion Barry, tough on crime. Kennedy the devout Catholic abortion rights advocate. Gore the Green Guy with the Gulfstreams. Pelosi the Swamp Drainer. The Reverend Jesse Jackson, moral stalwart with Love Child.

    If you would like to be a fair and balanced blogger, a far-flung concept, I know, you might consider being angry when you see hypocricy at all…no matter which letter goes in the parenthesis next to the name. To do otherwise is sort of…dare I say it….hypocritical?

  6. Gwendol Bowling says:

    I appreciate the simplicity of this particular blog entry. It deals with one issue and one only. It is short and to the point. It is simple enough to look at the issues surrounding the pandemic all the way to the World Health Organization and the CDC closer to home. Rather than look at politics and individual. From this one microcosmic issue with global implications, one can the much easier look at the health issue debate. For example: With a pandemic in progress, does it matter if an individual is an illegal immagrant (or alien) and if the vaccine is available (which basically it is not) should it be automatically provided to ALL individuals for the good of the masses and many, rather than to the few who either have insurance or can afford it? To move into general politics and swat every fly at once becomes counterproductive to a real possible discourse. People, even in political situations should have the ability to change their minds and grow with the situations. Now, sometimes I disagree with the World Health Organization, and sometimes the CDC lags…we did indeed lag a bit in this situation. However, some of us did recognize the dire potential of this particular situation. Check the time line of of the Black Plague and what it did to the shipping industry a number of centuries ago. Thus far, we are managing somewhat better. Both sides are to be commended that things are not worse at the present moment. At times, we all err.

Leave a Reply