Oh The Hypocrisy of it All
Like most people I’ve been watching the Cindy Sheehan circus and the latest development demonstrates, I think, the hypocrisy of both sides. On the one hand we have Michelle Malkin who notes that Patrick Sheehan has filed for divorce. This is the same Michelle Malkin who was upset that John Kerry brought up the fact that Dick Cheney’s daughter is a lesbian. And we also have this example of the deranged Left. She is enraged that Malkin brings this up, but at the same time brushes off Kerry’s bringing up the fact that Dick Cheney’s daughter is a lesbian. We get to see in stark relief two outstanding examples of the ideologue. Opposite sides of the same coin. Of course, in Malkin’s defense she didn’t advocate destroying John Kerry. Still the hypocrisy is so thick you need a knife to cut it.
Update: Based on James’ extended post up above (sorry I’m too lazy to link) I just want to point out I don’t object to either of the instances (Sheehan’s divorce and the mentioning of Mary Cheney’s sexual orientation). I just find it amusing how each side thinks one is acceptable, but the other is not.
Um, I think there’s a not very subtle point here: Patrick Sheehan has made it pretty clear that he’s unhappy with the circus Cindy has made of their son’s death. You might have a better case if someone was claiming that Cheney’s daughter was a lesbian because he was running for vice president.
Really? Where has Patrick Sheehan made this statement? I’ve heard people ascribe it to him, but haven’t seen him make it, AFAIK.
For the record, I don’t care one way or the other about the Sheehan. I didn’t really care all that much about Kerry’s quip about Cheney’s daughter other than it lacked class. What I do find interesting is the hypocrisy….hence the title of the post.
Quite honestly, Cindy Sheehan’s family could be behind her 100% and it still wouldn’t make the accusations she’s throwing out about the Bush Adminstration any less nuttier.
In other words, I don’t really care what Cindy’s family thinks of her campout in front of Bush’s Crawford ranch. That’s between her and her own family.
I’m not sure about the “irony” angle in Malkin reporting the divorce, especially since the fifth post below this one is headlined, “Cathy Sheehan Husband Files for Divorce”.
Help me out on this one.
The usual deflect from the truth (a war based on lies, people dying for lies and profit) and turn it into a soap opera by defaming those wanting the truth.
If divorce is really in the air, it’s none of my business. The amount of couples that manage to keep their marriage intact, through a childs death is very, very small.
Read this link
http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/politics/national/features/9221/
This is the first hand account of the Kerry intern whose life was destroyed by Matt Drudge in one of his full scale slime attacks.
Those allegations were not only never proven. They were disproven.
If the Earth swallowed Matt Drudge, Charles Taylor and Saddaam Hussein the world would be a much better place.
Steve’s logic circuit isn’t working again.
Sheenen brought in her family in a “my family is behind me” meme. Even the MSM is bringing up the divorce angle since this news essentially discredits Sheenen’s statement.
An equivalent would only be if Cheney had brought up “my daughter is against gay marriage”. Then she would have been legit to bring up since the statement would have been a lie. To bring up a family member when the person in question has not made them an issue is totally different.
So, Seven, this isn’t the same. Although I know you WANT it to be.
Well by that token we could say that the Cheney’s “brought their daughter into the debate”. She was “out of the closet” working for her father. Further, we have her parents stand on gay marriage.
First off you are aware there is more than one person here writing posts at OTB…right? Second, I don’t know what James’ view was of Kerry’s reference of Mary Cheney. There may not be any issue there at all with James.
Just checked, here was the bulk of James’ post on the Mary Cheney issue,
In other words, James had little problem with (maybe even less than me) and he has not problem with the Sheehan’s divorce being discussed. I see no hypocrisy.
I’m certainly aware there is more than one person posting at OTB, and y’all do a great job. I just don’t see the hypocrisy you are talking about.
First, when you move yourself into public view (as Sheehan did), you’re there, for all to see, good and bad. There are thousands of divorces a year and practically none of them get reported on OTB, Malkin, or any other outlet. This one is important because this woman is claiming she has more of a right to speak and be heard because of a family connection: her dead son. Reporting that her husband is divorcing her, a man that has the same dead son but isn’t protesting, helps puts Cindy’s protesting into context. The inference has been that Cindy was speaking on behalf of her family. If that inference was wrong, why did the rest of her family feel it necessary to release a statement announcing that they disagreed with Cindy? So, reporting on Sheehan’s divorce is no different than reporting on any other public figure’s divorce. Again, Cindy put herself in the spotlight and if she didn’t like that, she shouldn’t have gone there.
Second, Sheehan getting divorced is a matter of public record, a fact anyone could go look up. I’m sure there are no public documents listing all the homosexual people in the country. So outing Cheney’s daughter in a political context is nowhere near the same thing as reporting on a legal affair in the public record.
Don’t be offended, I’m just not following your logic and trying to explain mine.
Jack,
I agree with everything you wrote (save the part about Cheney’s daughter as she was already “out”). I’m not saying lay off Sheehan’s marital problems, but that both sides pull out the sanctimony card when it suits them.
The Right: Cheney’s Daughter’s sexual orientation. I’m sorry that is public information, she isn’t/wasn’t trying to hide it. She at one time did work for her father while VP.
The Left: Sheehan’s divorce is verboten. Which is stupid for precisely the reasons you noted.
James’ view is similar to mine in that both are “fair game”. So no hypocrisy there on James’ part. Don’t get me wrong, I like Michelle’s site and visit it almost everyday. I just think she dropped the ball on this one.
Ok, now I get it, Steve. I see where you are coming from but I’m still not sure I agree. Whether Cheney’s daughter was out or not doesn’t really change whether it was appropriate or not to bring up her sexual orientation in a political debate. Sure, I understand that Dad says he’s against homosexuality but still loves his daughter. Seems like a contradiction, but it’s not really. The person is more important than the idealogy. We can love each other and have differing opinions, right?
For example, I am against abortion, but if my daughter gets one despite that doesn’t mean I’ll disown her. But I also don’t think that because my daughter exercised her Supreme Court-given right to an abortion means that I’m a hypocrit because I’m anti-abortion but I still love and support her. Am I making sense?
I don’t see the problem. As noted she was “out” and she worked for her father who is the VP. Plus her parents stance on homosexuality and gay marriage had come up prior to the debate.
Uhhhmmm no, that wasn’t what I was referring too. I was referring to Malkin’s claim that referring to Mary Cheney’s sexual orientation was a “new low”. I thought it was a bit tactless, but not unexpected. So the contratidiction isn’t in regards to what Dick Cheney feels/thinks about his daughter and her sexual orientation, but Malkin’s displeasure with Kerry mentioning it, and then Malkin turns around and mentions Sheehan’s divorce. It strikes me as Malkin wanting to have her cake and eat it too.