The GOP candidates are guilty of ideological hypocrisy
Begin by asking yourself why so many conservative politicians say they’re anti-government but spend long careers in office drawing paychecks from the taxpayers. Also: Why do they bash government largesse while seeking as much of it as they can get for their constituents and friendly interest groups?
Why do they criticize “entitlements” and “big government” while promising today’s senior citizens — an important part of the conservative base — never, ever to cut their Medicare or Social Security? Why do they claim that they want government out of the marketplace while not only rejecting cuts in defense but also lauding large defense contracts that are an enormous intrusion in the operation of the “free market”?
The contest between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum is unearthing all sorts of double standards of this sort, and I salute each of them for drawing attention to the other’s inconstancies.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Shut it
cmsinaz on February 20, 2012 at 9:43 AM
The judge has administered his judgment…..
ted c on February 20, 2012 at 9:44 AM
As much ink as the lefty, and establishment righty, columnists are using to attack the republicans, its going to be a long summer.
cozmo on February 20, 2012 at 9:49 AM
It’s Dionne. Anything he writes is, by definition, a waste of ink.
And anyone who takes the things he writes seriously is as immune to logic and intelligence as he is, so there’s really no point in even commenting on what he says.
PetecminMd on February 20, 2012 at 9:55 AM
This column is one giant facepalm.
teke184 on February 20, 2012 at 9:56 AM
But Obama is ideologically pure?
I counted 33 Obama flip-flops (“Barack And Forth”) as of two years ago before I grew weary of counting:
http://jgapinoy.blogspot.com/2008/07/barack-and-forth.html
itsnotaboutme on February 20, 2012 at 9:57 AM
The only time I ever agreed with E.J.
rickv404 on February 20, 2012 at 10:01 AM
Why does he criticize Republicans when Obama breaks every single promise he ever makes….?
Who does he think he is convincing?
NeoKong on February 20, 2012 at 10:01 AM
Ricky- don’t worry Santorum won’t keep you from the love of your life..that is the only reason you claim you agree with this turd.
—
CW on February 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM
Because they’re anti-BIG government, but still acknowledge the need for some level of government. It’s a matter of size and scope, moron.
Because it’s arguably stupid to put your constituents at a relative disadvantage when every other lawmaker or governor is getting on the gravy train.
Because we do need fundamental entitlement reform, but it’s not fair to have it affect those who currently depend on them or will depend on them within the next few years.
Because national defense is the primary role given to the federal government by the Constitution, and we live in an increasingly dangerous world (al Qaeda, Iran, China, Russia, etc.).
And does Dionne really believe that defense contracts distort the free market? Defense contractors exist almost exclusively to serve the national defense apparatus. Something like 90% of their contracts come from government. You know what really distorts the free market? Medicare. Obamacare. Subsidies. Tariffs. Protectionist trade policies. A massive federal budget deficit and mounting debt. Crazy inflation-stoking monetary policy.
steebo77 on February 20, 2012 at 10:03 AM
Yeah…why do we have a hard time acknowledging that?
MadisonConservative on February 20, 2012 at 10:05 AM
Sadly, Dionne is largely right. He misses on a few things, but largely he’s right.
And in what universe is Bush a conservative?
Dante on February 20, 2012 at 10:09 AM
Because the elderly have paid into the system their entire lives and don’t have the time or the ability to re-plan their retirement. THAT”S why dummy.
It never ceases to amaze me how simple concepts such as this is beyond the comprehensive abilities of those on the Left.
HotAirian on February 20, 2012 at 10:09 AM
Well done. Let me add to this part:
Sorry, but in the interests of national defense, I’d prefer not to rely on those in the marketplace who can supply us with nothing more than sticks and stones.
BuckeyeSam on February 20, 2012 at 10:09 AM
When in Rome …
OldEnglish on February 20, 2012 at 10:10 AM
The lie about being anti-government raises its head again.
Like when Kasich and Walker turned down money for large rail projects? Is that what you mean?
You mean the promises made to those people are to be kept and not yanked out from under them when it is too late? The GOP plan is to change it for people that do have time to adjust.
Hmmm for one the Constitution states the Federal Government is supposed to provide for the defense of the country. You really should read it …for once.
How so?
Now let’s see your column on Obama and such inconstancies. Why don’t you unearth them and then I will appreciate you.
CW on February 20, 2012 at 10:11 AM
I agree with your point about their planning their retirement. You shouldn’t change the rules of the game after it has already begun. Nevertheless, at some level of wealth, the feds might consider some form of means testing.
That said, your point about having “paid into the system” is nonsense, when you consider how much ultimately is withdrawn from the system compared to what’s contributed over a career. And it disappoints me greatly that Republicans don’t find some authority that’s quantified this difference and to repeat those numbers over and over again so that they become ingrained in voters’ heads as the lie of 45 million uninsured was ingrained during the Obamacare debate.
BuckeyeSam on February 20, 2012 at 10:16 AM
The
GOPDemoncrap candidates are guilty of ideologioticalhypocrisystupidity!Back atcha EJ !!!
cableguy615 on February 20, 2012 at 10:20 AM
National defense. Not Iraq defense, not South Korea defense, not Afghanistan defense, not European defense.
So we should never cut defense spending? Isn’t it possible to cut defense spending while maintaining a strong defense? Of course it is.
Dante on February 20, 2012 at 10:20 AM
Old attack: The Republican candidates are a bunch of extremists who have to pass a conservative purity tests.
New attack: The Republican candidates are a bunch of hypocritical pragmatists.
What will they try next?
zmdavid on February 20, 2012 at 10:20 AM
Didn’t we read this article (twice) a few days ago?
thebrokenrattle on February 20, 2012 at 10:23 AM
Honesty isn’t one of his values. Big government run by him and personal entertainment are his value, so as long as he advances those by any means necessary, he’s not a hypocrite.
zmdavid on February 20, 2012 at 10:24 AM
I don’t totally disagree but Afghanistan did take part in an attack on us. Also, where did EJ bring up this argument???
CW on February 20, 2012 at 10:24 AM
So what did you agree with EJ on anyway? Funny was your selective response.
CW on February 20, 2012 at 10:25 AM
I agree with your point about their planning their retirement. You shouldn’t change the rules of the game after it has already begun. Nevertheless, at some level of wealth, the feds might consider some form of means testing.
I’ve always been a fan of means testing for entitlements.
It’s not nonsense. It is a point of fact. These folks paid into the system as they were required. It’s not their fault that those who engineered the SS system failed to do the math or plan for the future.
HotAirian on February 20, 2012 at 10:29 AM
Afghanistan did not take any part in attacking us.
Dante on February 20, 2012 at 10:30 AM
You can’t be a hypocrite unless you actually have values. Sometimes we fall short of those values. Nobody’s perfect.
They’re not anti-government. They’re anti-YOUR VISION of government. And if you’re going to work in govt or anywhere, you get paid. Romney was Gov of MA for no salary. He could afford it.
Sometimes you have to accept the system. Like how rich liberals rail against the low taxes paid by millionaires, but never send in money to the govt to make up the difference in what they pay. Never, ever.
The consensus is, to those retired, Social Security is a promise, and that reforms have to be made on the backs of those who are not yet retired.
There aren’t bids for defense contracts? Really? Also, consider that Defense is one of the few legitimate purposes of the Federal government. You know … the CONSTITUTION? I don’t know why they ever got involved in social programs. They’ve changed the country for the worse. And pretty soon the bill will have to be paid. Or as Rev. Wright said, “The CHICKENS … will come HOME … to ROOST”.
Paul-Cincy on February 20, 2012 at 10:32 AM
They hosted the guys who did attack us and who had been attacking us for years in East Africa and the Gulf of Aden, amongst other places.
teke184 on February 20, 2012 at 10:33 AM
I gave your same answers. I guess I’m just totally predictable.
Paul-Cincy on February 20, 2012 at 10:34 AM
I sad sadly, not funny. I agree with him in that alleged conservatives talk the talk, but don’t walk the walk, even if he got some examples wrong. That’s why I said I largely agree with him.
Dante on February 20, 2012 at 10:34 AM
Which is not the same as saying they took part in an attack on us.
Dante on February 20, 2012 at 10:35 AM
Bin Laden was made the equivalent of our “Secretary of Defense” of Afghanistan. That’s a fact. In that way, the Afghanistan government, what there was of it, was responsible for 9/11. Remember the head of the “Northern Alliance” resistance in Afghanistan was a$$a$$inated in Afghanistan on 9/10.
Paul-Cincy on February 20, 2012 at 10:39 AM
This pinhead is guilty of drive-by-ism. He drove by the facts and ignored them in favor of the trash-the-GOP meme.
platypus on February 20, 2012 at 10:43 AM
You lie.
WHERE Did EJ even talk about Afghanistan or Iraq?
I said funny. Sheesh.
CW on February 20, 2012 at 10:52 AM
Oh and I do love how smug aholes like yourself are soo selective. I have tired of it. GFY.
CW on February 20, 2012 at 10:53 AM
Oh, give me a break. The only way to be ideologically pure about small government is to let big-government types hold all the public offices?
J.E. Dyer on February 20, 2012 at 10:54 AM
.
Not according to the Bush FP Doctrine of “you’re with us or you’re against us; those who harbor terrorists are terrorists.”
.
I’ll bet this E.J. Dionne character would brown his britches if those who paid taxes were allowed to select those agencies, programs and departments they wished to support with their tax dollars. There would be very few “transfer of wealth” programs funded by non-taxpaying, tax beneficiaries who have elected “rob the treasury” Democrats. It would be “line-item tax payment” rather than “line-item veto.”
ExpressoBold on February 20, 2012 at 10:56 AM
It is debatable whether or not war efforts in Iraq, etc., are necessary to our defense. Even IF you are correct, Dante, that does not make it HYPOCRITICAL to hold the opposite position. Conservatives who believe that certain actions abroad are essential to defending our national interests are acting in concert with their beliefs. That is never hypocritical.
topdog on February 20, 2012 at 11:00 AM
E.J. discovers the difference between a Republican and a conservative.
Film at 11.
Purple Fury on February 20, 2012 at 11:05 AM
Try New Diet Meme sweetened with Hypocrisy! Get Some!
Mimzey on February 20, 2012 at 11:09 AM
All of us knuckle-dragging neanderthals must be totally predictable.
steebo77 on February 20, 2012 at 11:52 AM
Nicely said. Not that Dante has the power to comprehend. His previous posts suggest he cannot read and understand what he has read. For some reason he only picks out things that he thinks he can refute and ignores the rest . Well maybe it is not an comprehension thing but rather an honesty issue.
CW on February 20, 2012 at 11:54 AM
I suppose they could be like Dems and not have any standards or principles…that’s the easiest way to beat the hypocrite label.
Left Coast Right Mind on February 20, 2012 at 11:58 AM
Why are most American one-percenters Democrats???
andycanuck on February 20, 2012 at 12:20 PM
I was responding to you and your comment regarding national defense, not EJ Dionne.
Dante on February 20, 2012 at 1:13 PM
That doesn’t mean Afghanistan attacked us. They didn’t, and nothing can change that fact.
Dante on February 20, 2012 at 1:15 PM