This past weekend, DNC chairman Howard Dean appeared on NBC's Meet the Press. He defended his mocking of talk show host Rush Limbaugh's drug addiction problem during a recent DNC function. From the press...



Dean spent a lot of time on the "hypocrisy" theme. His position seemed to be that being declared a "hypocrite" is the worst possible thing that a person could be. I found it ironic given the fact that Dean insisted that Bin Laden be considered "innocent until proven guilty". (http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004489).

The questions for debate are:

1. Is hypocrisy worse than "evil"?

2. What does the DNC intend to gain by the emphasis on "hypocrisy" especially given the fact that many (if not most) of the politicians in their own party are often guilty of the same charge?

1. Is hypocrisy worse than "evil"?

Of course not, but I'm not sure where you get this comparison.

Everyone is a hypocrite. Smokers will often tell their kids not to smoke. Drug addicts don't want their kids to start. The list is endless.

I don't really want to defend Rush Limbaugh here, but I will... .

Getting addicted to painkillers is really not that difficult. When you take them for legitimate pain (as Limbaugh did) and then get addicted, then I can have a little more sympathy than someone toking up on a crack pipe because there is no legitimate excuse.

Now, let's ask ourselves: which would be preferable

-advocating drug use because you yourself are an addict.

or

-continuing to stress the bad effects of drug abuse even though you, yourself are using a prescription drug illegally?

I'd take the second option. A leader should always advocate the moral or legal or ethical position even if they themselves are guilty of hypocrisy.

Everyone is weak, everyone has their flaws. To expect perfection out of a human being is simply asking too much.

Remember that Rush Limbaugh does not represent the Republican Party. He says on his show that the views expressed are his alone. George W. Bush represents the Republican party.

I find Dean's mocking of a drug addict's problem to be hypocritical. I wonder if Dean sees the irony in his comments?

2. What does the DNC intend to gain by the emphasis on "hypocrisy" especially given the fact that many (if not most) of the politicians in their own party are often guilty of the same charge?

All people are hypocrites at some level. We all ask things of others that we cannot (or will not) do ourselves.

Politicians are hypocrites almost by definition because they must take the "high road" position regardless of their personal lives. I'd expect that any politician that did not espouse the moral course would not last long in politics.

What does the DNC intend to gain by focussing on "hypocrisy"? It's a red herring issue. They are trying to say "Even though you agree with the Republicans, they are not living up to the standards they ask of you so vote them out."

I guess they expect people to vote for candidates that don't agree with their views because the candidates are more honest? I simply don't see that happening. The elections are so close in so many districts that this red herring issue might sway the results.

The answer to that is votes. Mainstream media isn't the venue for higher-level analytical thought. It's the venue for soundbites...and they happen to be effective. The left paints the right as hypocritical, and the right paints the left as morally bankrupt. Both sides can provide direct examples, because most politicians (or partisan entertainers like Rush) display either or both qualities. Wash, rinse, and repeat 1000x.

1. Is hypocrisy worse than "evil"? No.

2. What does the DNC intend to gain by the emphasis on "hypocrisy" especially given the fact that many (if not most) of the politicians in their own party are often guilty of the same charge? See above.

The questions for debate are:

1. Is hypocrisy worse than "evil"?

2. What does the DNC intend to gain by the emphasis on "hypocrisy" especially given the fact that many (if not most) of the politicians in their own party are often guilty of the same charge?

There isn't much to discuss here. Hypocrisy is a form of evil; it makes no sense to compare the instance with the generality. "Are rabbits more four-legged than mammals?"

Your second question is an accusation phrased in interrogative form. "Does President Bush really believe that his war crimes will not be noticed by others?"

I was just thinking that hypocrisy "is a form of evil" when I saw your post Erasmussimo. Good point. I have some problems with both the terms "evil" and "hypocrisy" as employed here. There are degrees of evil and degrees of hypocrisy. There is habitual evil and occasional evil. We have intentional evil and incidental evil. We can apply the same parameters to hypocrisy. Some people can be evil and/or hypocritical without even being aware of it. The human mind is quite complex.

I have a hard time finding any compassion for Rush Limbaugh. To me he is calculated and habitual evil mixed with calculated and habitual hypocrisy--nearly 20 years worth.

BTW: lordhelmet Dean got OBL and SH mixed up briefly yesterday. If he's ever captured, Dean is right, Bin Laden deserves due process in whatever forum he's tried in.

So you agree with Dean when he says Tom Delay should be convicted (without due process) but that the mass murdering terrorist Bin Laden should be treated more charitably?

And, is it right to show compassion for only those who are either in ideological lockstep with you or are those you feel sorry for? Is that the same sort of selective "care for one's fellow man" that Dean is exhibiting? What if the person addicted to pain killers was a "liberal"? Would Dean (and yourself) suddenly find compassion for this suffering human?

When I referred to "evil", I referred to people like Bin Laden who Dean seems to cut slack for that he doesn't cut Rush Limbaugh.

And, to my original point, do you believe that being a "hypocrite" is worse than being a terrorist? And if not, where is Dean going with this line of argument and what does he intend to obtain?

This statement is a falsehood. With respect to OBL, Dean was insisting that he should be treated in the same fashion that we treated the Nazi war criminals, the Japanese war criminals, and every other criminal: through some sort of trial. He was rejecting the notion that OBL should be summarily lynched.

With respect to DeLay, Dean was asserting his expectation that a trial would yield a guilty verdict. He was not suggesting that DeLay should be summarily lynched.



I don't believe that being anything is wrong. It's what you do that constitutes evil, not what you are. So if you want to compare two acts, let's compare them. And yes, killing thousands of people is more evil than lying -- unless the lie leads directly and inevitably to the death of thousands of people.

I think this is your interptretation  of what  Dean said about DeLay, but for the record, I am on this board regarding other trials--Scott Peterson and Michael Jackson-- opposing trial in the media (a form of denying due process)  and demanding that the principles of "due process" and "presumption of innonce" be follow. This applies to possible criminal proceedings against DeLay, not ethichal proceedings in Congress, some of which have already been decided.



Actually, this is not the way you framed your original question. Go back and read your original post. Do you remember those commercials Shaquille O'Neal did where basketball got harder when they installed the moving basket? Well, you just attempted to move the basket.

But "being" something is based on what one "does". One cannot "be" a terrorist unless one commits an act (or assists in such an act) that we would define as "terrorism".

So, where is Dean going with this line of reasoning making such a big deal of Limbaugh being a "hypocrite" when, as I said, his entire party (including himself) are just riddled with them?

As opposed to Rush having no pity for people who ruin their lives like Jerry Garcia?

I agree there are degrees of evil and hypocrisy, and hypocrisy is a form of evil. I never vouched for Dean as chairman having lived in Vermont and knowing what he was made of. In an ironic turn of events liberals in the Democratic party, wanting to retake the "Republican-lite" party back to its roots, turned a deaf ear to Dean criticism from liberal organizations from his own state. To their disappointment Dean is still a Republican in drag. While there's something to be said for balancing the state's budget and leaving Vermont better off than other states in debt when the recession hit Dean is still deriding. It's just not liberals these days.

But I'm an even bigger hypocrite and super evil with a cherry on top for wanting Saddam to have a trial and preferring the "terrorists" in Gitmo be charged and tried instead of detained indefinitely so I'll just bow out. Nothing surprising, really. Especially when you consider I'm a card carrying member of that unilaterally hypocrite party.

I didn't move the basket. I clarified what I meant by "evil" since apparently a few posters didn't comprehend my question.

Can you address my second point? Where is Dean going with this line of attack when his own party (and himself) are demonstrably hypocrites on a number of issues?

Oh, so it's our fault you can't frame your questions appropriately on the first try.



There are no Meet the Press 1.0 vs. Meet the Press 2.0. You saw the same show I did. I would suggest this is just an attempt to further the Republican cause. Did you get some ideas from FNC last night before posting this morning.

The Republican National chairman will be on MTP in a couple of weeks. If you want to continue along these line, I'm sure we can find a tun of hypocrisies to throw at Ken Mellman.

The RNC chairman is not the issue of this thread. The question I posed was related to Dean's position with respect to "hypocrisy" and why he elevated that "sin" to justify his mocking of Rush Limbaugh's addiction to pain killers when he, himself, is a medical doctor. At a minimum, Dean was highly unprofessional by doing that. But, by rationalizing his behavior with an argument of "attacking hypocrisy" it seems to me that he opens himself up to even stronger charges. The other question I asked was related to that. Just where is Dean going with this? I can't see any positive outcome for his line of attack.

Hugo wrote in another thread that America's Debaters are more political than most ordinary folks and this proves it. WHO CARES if a partisan Democrat bashes a partisan Republican? This is just a case of manufactured outrage that doesn't make a dime's worth of difference to how most Americans live their lives.

The GOP is in control in Washington and what Dean is doing is little more than throwing red meat to the party faithful. What else is going to talk about? How the Democrats are going to "throw the rascals out" in 2006? Three words: not-bloody-likely. Here's why:

Now, as then with the other party, Republicans' ethics are under assault. Their opposition denounces their vicelike control as "arrogant." Their ambitious agenda risks overreach and public backlash. Their popularity is sinking. A unified opposition party is holding off until closer to the next election before offering its own agenda - thus withholding any good target for counterattack.

There's one major difference. Both parties have redrawn House of Representatives district boundaries to make their members safer. That makes it much more difficult than in 1994 to sweep the ruling party out of power in a single wave of voter anger. Also, Republicans have more than a year to improve their standing, plenty of time in politics.

http://www.bergen.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcn...2Y3dnFlZUVFeXky

As regards the questions for debate:

1. No. Evil is far worse than hypocrisy. hypocrisy is a luxury many of us indulge in. Even here on this board.

2. That's a loaded question, lordhelmet, but then you knew that when you phrased it, right?

Who cares? Me. And the rest of the people who responded in this thread. I'd say that also people who are politically active care about such things. You know, the people who sit in front of their TV's on Sunday and actually know who Tim Russert is, that George Stephanopoulos is not a popular Greek Restaurant and that Brian Lamb is not a children's bedtime story.



We are in agreement with respect to the shrewd tactics of the republicans with respect to redistricting and about Dean's raw meat. But, that's why I asked the question. I don't see where he gains anything by that tact.



I fully agree. That's why I thought it odd that Dean made it the centerpiece of his assault on the GOP.



Moi? Loaded question? Actually, that was my "serious" question (the first one was the loaded one). I'm curious what the people on this board think (i.e., the politically active enough to spend time in here) as to Dean's strategy on that issue. What is he trying to achieve? Is it part of a broader strategy or was Dean acting a loose cannon yet again? I'm a republican and can only look at it through my eyes. If Dean would have simply addressed that issue with, "well, you know we all say things in the heat of battle and I'm sorry I mocked Limbaugh's problem, but I disagree strongly with his views, yada yada yada..." it would have been a better play in my opinion. Dean's inflammatory rhetoric on an issue that can easily be rebounded on democrats just seemed to be very "unwise" and a poor strategic move for a guy charged with running that party. All it did was get the republicans fired up. Is that what the head of the opposition party should strive to do?

Point granted. But I still think this is a non-story and manufactured outrage. Dean saying bad things about DeLay is about as big a news flash as "water is wet."
What else would you expect from the DNC chairman? Dean's not going to offer DeLay a helping hand. If he did it would only be to better position him for a swift kick in a sensitive area.



Howard Dean may merely be reminding folks why most Democrats chose John Kerry over him. His shoot-from-the-lip style is better suited to rallying the troops than working over policy differences with the opposition party. To the extent that he ticks off Republicans is probably exactly the response he was hoping for. Kicking the GOP when they're down is his job and I guess he wants to earn his paycheck.

I think Dean was trying to pick a fight. To quote the late Senator Paul Wellstone, "sometimes you have to start a fight to win one." The Democrats haven't had much to smile about. The troubles of Tom DeLay is one of the few reasons they have to put on a happy face. Dean was just trying to fan the dying embers of a story that has pretty much faded from the news cycle. That's all.

Okay, you got me. Maybe I do care.

I think that Dean's strength lies in his outspoken nature. He has a real Truman like air about him. For someone who "calls it as he sees it"-- flagging and criticizing hypocrisy is a natural. To the extent he does this in a forthright fashion, I think it will help the Democratic party. However, when he crosses the line and seems to pick at overplayed issues (like DeLay), I think he is ineffective.

Hypocrisy is arguably "evil" and should be criticized. But the criticism is not helpful when it appears to be small minded.

I find it hilarious that people make a mockery of Rush Limbaugh's addiction to pain killers for a documented back problem. I find it extremely hard to crucify a man in RADIO and act as if he's a GOP poster child, while one of Liberal's most villified Presidents was addicted to a very similar drug while in the WHITEHOUSE (i.e. JFK). The funny thing about the Kennedy's is that the DNC kept giving them nominations even though the whole family was of questionable moral character. (Ted is a raging alcoholic that legitimately drowned a woman, JFK was literally a drug addict while in the whitehouse, etc). I have a hard time listening to American Liberals making a moral stand against Rush, while Clinton was impeached yet is still their hero... while Hillary really should've been prosecuted for Whitewater but got elected to NY office... etc. Come on. When did liberals become a moral sounding board? Seriously. Stick to something you know, something you're good at... protect the poor and down-trodden. Let us handle the moral part, ok?

I have a very hard time hearing America's liberal media lambasting a man that purchased pain killers illegally. A hypocrite for 20 years? Why. I would imagine because, in the same light as Ann Coulter, he speaks the truth that liberals in American can't refute. Brett Favre (one of America's greatest QB's) also had a very similar addiction. Why aren't liberals lambasting the NFL? Come on...

Please don't respond with talking points... let's discuss objectively this morning.

Your position is exactly why I thought it was unwise for Dean to make a big deal out of "hypocrisy". Why would he do it other than it was in his mind at the moment and his mind has a hot link directly to his mouth?

Was Dean's position a DNC "strategy" or was he just shooting his mouth off?

Ok, Rush is on radio: today, not in 1964 (JFK). He said that drug addicts should do heavy jail terms, yet considered himself beyond those laws in buying off the street and using. Clinton was impeached by the House of Reps, not the Senate, and Hillary was investigated and millions were spent and found no cause for legal action against her.
What ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, but a load of unsubstantiated crap.

The questions themselves are an excuse for flaming, useless and unproductive. Im suprised they are even allowed as promotes an open forum for unregulated hatred to be spewed for no end result. This is not a debatable topic and extremely biased. Go figure. Lets pray ( in school) for all secular Democrats to jump in a river and die, then the right wing can just control all forums and preach to the choir unmoderated.

1. Is hypocrisy worse than "evil"?

Yes, because hypocrisy is living a lie. It is self-delusional thinking wrapped in denial and tied with a projection string. The whole package stinks.

Attacking gays while being a closet gay is a classic example of hypocrisy.

Evil is Live spelled backwards. It is a wrong way to be, bass-akwards, but those living this way are generally not aware of the folly. A few are and make the choice with full awareness. I think Saddam Hussein is like this. He decided that the best way to keep control of Iraq was to rule with an iron fist. Other figures in history have made this same conscious choice.

A classic example of this is that the village had to be destroyed to save the village. Here, the thinking is simply not logical. Another example is to save the economy by killing all the Jews, or securing the nation by conquering the world.

2. What does the DNC intend to gain by the emphasis on "hypocrisy" especially given the fact that many (if not most) of the politicians in their own party are often guilty of the same charge?

Um, you must prove the "guilty of the same charge" point. Examples?

Has anyone in the Demo party been hooked on drugs while preaching about the evils of drugs?

Or maybe run a company into the ground, taking huge gains for self while destroying the investments of the shareholders? Well, that's just crooked. Hypocrisy isn't a part of it at the core, only along the edges -- cooking books for instance, while talking up the investments.

Has anyone in the Demo party given an Earth Day pro-environment speech while intending to sign away environmental protections?

So I put the ball in LH's court. Let's have some examples of Demo hypocricy from the last, oh, two or three years. But let's make sure that it really is hypocricy, not some other thing substituted just because it's convenient.

Meanwhile, what Dean probably has in mind is to differentiate the Big Two so that voters see clear differences in policy and practice. Marketing people do this all the time for their products.

Vote Republican and know you are about to be, well, screwed.

Vote Democrat and know that . . . what? For Colorado it has meant that our budget situation is getting better through compromise. Notice that the filibuster thing was worked by Senator Ken Salazar, a Democrat we elected last season, and now an agreeable compromise has been reached.

Vote Democrat and know that your government will work for your best interests? Something like that. I'm not a marketing pro, nor is Dean, but the DNC is very likely trying to hammer out a message that'll stick in voters' minds.

I also think that the DNC is getting close, and that this has Republicans nervous about 2006 elections. If a 40-year-old dominance in Colorado was lost . . . what next? Will Demo bashing continue to work? What's the positive message?

Indeed. Better economy? Nope. Peace? Oh, please. Cleaner air/water? Arf Arf. Better retirement security? Hardy-har-har. Tax breaks for the rich? Not enough of the rich to make a difference. Practical, down-to-earth thinking? Haven't seen any of that yet. Better public schools? DOA. National security? That might fly again, but the wings have lots of holes in them.

I bet Dean and other DNC types see the problem that the RNC has for the next election season. This could be too much for even Rove to figure out.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1175600,00.html

This year Professor Leonard Aldeman submitted Rush Limbaugh name for an honorary doctors degree from The University of Southern California.

http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/zerothread?id=346236

It seems the best Limbaugh, a dropout from a college in Missouri, can do is attract an honorary something or other. Sam Rayburn, the late powerful Speaker of the U. S. House of Representatives, liked to use the word “pipsqueak.” It now seems some pipsqueak Congressmen voted in 1994 to make Rush an honorary member of the club. Now Professor Aldeman, who must be the laughing stock of the USC campus, nominates him for an “honorary” doctorate. What does any of this mean? It has no real meaning. Can Rush actually earn anything? What has he achieved other than attracting a herd of self-proclaimed “dittoheads,” who are only too happy to let Rush do their thinking for them? He seems to achieve this by growling into and slobbering all over that golden microphone of his.

He sounds like a GOP poster child to me.



Just who has vilified John F. Kennedy? There may be some who do, but I would suggest there is more adoration for Kennedy than vilification. It is true that President Kennedy had a lot of medical problems. It is true that he was on medications for a number of health problems. There is a difference. Kennedy’s prescriptions were written by his medical team. Rush obtained some OxyContin legally, but much of it was obtained illegally. While Pat Boone may not have known how to duck back in Little Richard’s alley, Rush apparently had no problem. There are other issues. Rush has long sought harsh jail terms for drug offenders. The hypocrisy is that Rush wants to avoid the punishment he so vocally asked for others. Is this kind of hypocrisy an evil in itself? You tell me.

Then there is the matter of timing. Rush is still doing his thing and Kennedy has been dead for nearly 42 years. Kennedy’s ailments haunted him from childhood, The extent of his problems was not known until presidential historian Robert Dallek published his definitive work An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963 in 2001. I’ve read Dallek's book Mr. aevans176--all 700+ pages. Have you?



There is nothing quite as refreshing as a vicious and intellectually vacant blanket indictment of the entire Kennedy family. Actually, the voters of Massachusetts, not the DNC, have kept Senator Edward M. (Ted) Kennedy in office all these years. Take heart though aevans176. You just might be able to do something about it. I notice in this morning’s local paper that the second largest chunk of campaign change for Hillary Clinton Senate campaign is coming from Texas. Perhaps you could make a donation to whatever, if anything, Massachusetts Republicans choose to run against Kennedy the next time he’s up for election.



Clinton isn’t exactly my hero, but there are those of us who are equally tired of someone bringing up Bill Clinton whenever sins of real-time, now Republican office holders and mouthpieces like Rush are mentioned. I addressed this on another thread today, so I’ll just insert it here:



http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...=0&#entry152450



Isn’t that a matter for federal and state prosecutors and grand juries to decide—not aevans176?



Oh, come-on. We are good at doing the things you mention, but we’re not about to turn the chicken coop over to foxes. As I write this, however, I can just see it. We should establish a new cabinet level position. Let’s call it “The Department of Morality and Ethics." How utterly fitting if Bush named the thrice admonished Tom DeLay its first secretary.



I've tried hard to avoid talking points. I've cited Dallek, currently the most scholarly and respected biography of John F. Kennedy. It amuses me that after all the pejorative statements you made this morning, you can talk about objectivity with a straight face.

1. Is hypocrisy worse than "evil"?

So, here's my answer to the question. Rush is and has been a hypocrite. Is he evil? As an individual, I do not know--probably not. Many people, proud "dittoheads," let him think for him. As a former teacher, I believe people should be encouraged to do their own thinking. That's one of the beauties of this board--most members are highly independent thinkers. I think encouraging non-thinking, as Rush does, is patently evil. I would also suggest that advocating building more and bigger jails and locking up yet more low-level drug offenders is--when we can't afford more important things--if not evil, at least destructive and counterproductive. Which is worse, Rush's hypocrisy on the drug issue or the things Rush advocates which can be interpreted as evil? You Choose!

Despite all this, I do not want Rush to go to jail. He's had treatment and should get more if he needs it. If only the "get tough on drugs" crowd, desired the same for others--especially younger people who's entire lives can be ruined by a single felony conviction.

I do, however, want him off the air--gone. I have asked my local ABC affiliate--WBAP--to dump his show, but they haven’t and won’t.

BTW: I'm not advocting abridging Rush's freedom of speech. He can say whatever he pleases. While he is free to say what he thinks, he has no inherent right to a large radio audience to express those thoughts. I have an equal right to pressure the station and his sponsors to remove him from the air.

Rush might just be in good company.

Here is a list of some other notable college dropouts...

F Scott Fitzgerald dropped out of Princeton, Dec. 1915

William Faulkner dropped out of the University of Mississippi

Bill Gates (Microsoft) dropped out of Harvard, 1976

Steve Jobs (Apple, NeXT, Pixar) left Reed College in Portland, Oregon, after 1 semester

Lawrence Ellison (Oracle Computer)

Michael Dell (Dell Computer) dropped out of the University of Texas

David Geffen (Geffen Records, Dreamworks SKG) flunked out of University of Texas, Austin, AND Brooklyn College, NY

H Wayne Huizenga (Blockbuster Video millionaire, owner of Miami Dolphins, Florida Panthers and Florida Marlins) attended Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for 3 semesters

Ted Turner (media mogul) -kicked out of college

Michael Moore (left wing filmmaker) - Dropped out of the University of Michigan (Flint) after less than 1 year.

Nina Totenberg (national public radio) dropped out of Boston University

More here: College Dropouts

and if you think that's something, here is a list of famous high school drop-outs.

High School Dropouts

It would seem that college degrees are not always a good predictor of a person's success.

Lordhelmet, it appears you are trying to use a little logic to present your case of Limbaugh.

For example:

Limbaugh didn't finish college

Fitzgerald,Bill Gates,Steve Jobs,Michael Dell, etc. didn't finish college

Limbaugh is equal to or the same as Fitzgerald,Gates,etc.

Very good reasoning or logic? Not even a kindergarten child would agree with your logic, so why are you passing it off to AD posters.

Now a better word to use in your posting would be FALLACIES