He’s inauthentic. This from a woman who supports Hillary Clinton notwithstanding the Glacier’s own shifting opinions on Iraq that just so happen to coincide with shifting public opinion, notwithstanding her sad, solemn pronouncements about how “tragic” abortion is while rolling up a 100% rating from NARAL for five years running, notwithstanding the multitude of petty personal deceptions and image “makeovers” she’s had over the years from her stupid accent to the evolving surname to her apocryphal attempt to enlist in the Marines to the “I was named after Edmund Hillary” garbage to, yes, even the Cubs fan/Yankee fan vacillation. She’s the most two-faced character in the race and indistinct from Giuliani on the pro-life issue that seems to matter most to KP, but she’s a Democrat so she gets a pass while Rudy’s derided as a phony and a “dictator” in the making. As reasonable as she is, this has always been KP’s blind spot — she rails endlessly about Republican hypocrisy but can’t see it when it comes from a Democrat. What about the Democrats who screamed for privacy when the GOP was after Clinton but now support outing closeted conservative gays? What about the Democrats who say that Bush should have targeted Saudi Arabia after 9/11 instead of Iraq when we all know that if he had targeted the Kingdom, they’d be screaming that he attacked the cradle of Islam, the land of the two holy mosques, that he did it all for oil, etc? What about the Democrats who call right-wingers “chickenhawks” even though most of them backed the war in Afghanistan and didn’t go running off to enlist? What about the Democrats who screeched about the falsehoods in “Path to 9/11” and couldn’t give less of a shinola about the falsehoods in “Fahrenheit 9/11,” which has actually been used in enemy propaganda? What about the Democrats who call themselves feminists and pro-gay yet look the other way when Islamist savages beat women and kill homosexuals in the Middle East? What about the Democrats who weep for genocide in Darfur but shrug at the prospect of it in Baghdad? And on and on and on. But then, what’s all that compared to Rudy having donated to Planned Parenthood?
As for her point about applause for McCain last night signifying some sort of ambivalence among Republicans about amnesty, she must be joking. Here’s the Times transcript; Tancredo got applause when he called for ending legal immigration. Ron Paul got applause for saying we should pull out of Iraq ASAP. They all got applause — that’s what happens when you have supporters in the audience. She’s trying to equate the Republican outrage towards McCain now to what it was (or wasn’t) toward the universe of GOP incumbents last November, but that analogy doesn’t wash for the simple reason that McCain is the face of amnesty in the Senate. It’s one thing to go to the polls and hold an open-borders vote against some no-name congressman from your district whom you’ve never heard of, but McCain is a national figure who’s consistently championed this position to the mounting anger of conservatives he’s betrayed on too many issues. And now he’s doing it again — in the middle of a presidential run, with snide accusations of bad faith among his opponents, practically daring us to punish him for it. Well, here’s a newsflash: he’s finished as a serious candidate and it’s for precisely this issue. I can’t believe she doesn’t understand that.
Maybe it’s time to give Crazy Jane Fleming another chance.