GOP Hypocrisy Runs Rampant

newt open marriageHypocrites: Ron Paul’s ‘alliance’ with Mitt Romney, and the right’s double standard on Gingrich and adultery

Let me first retract my comment about Rick Perry suggesting he had some deal with Mitt Romney to stay in the race. Now I would ask supporters of Ron Paul to explain his refusal to criticize Mitt Romney while he attacks more conservative candidates whose views are far closer his. And isn’t it amazing that Newt Gingrich’s adultery seems to be a big plus with many conservatives, so long as he attacks CNN? Hypocrites! If a liberal Democrat behaved like Gingrich, they would call for his eternal damnation.

Regarding Paul: His reluctance to criticize Romney is the behavior of a conventional politician pursuing a conventional agenda, not the conviction of a principled leader (unless Paul actually admires Romney’s vulture capitalism, legal tax avoidance, big money super-PAC, Massachusetts mandate, and timeless flip-flopping on a variety of issues too long to list here).

Paul increasingly disappointments. He criticizes greed but advocates policies that reward greed. He practices a brand of libertarianism that falls short on personal responsibility. His words ring true, but his policies often contradict his words. He fails to challenge special interests by advocating policies that let special interests buy our democracy.

Could it be that the version of capitalism practiced by Romney is the embodiment of the version of libertarianism practiced by Paul? How sad. In the great battle for true reform on behalf of the 99 percent, Paul has become a voice for the policies that benefit the 1 percent. Even regarding his many newsletters that included repulsive content, the Texas Republican had to be dragged kicking and screaming into taking any personal responsibility.

Next, Newt. I have no use for CNN making the adultery and open marriage issues No. 1 in the Republican debate. I disagree with this, strongly. CNN was wrong doing this.

I also think the shabby treatment of Paul by CNN in the Thursday night debate was also completely wrong. I support Ron about this. He tries to deal with serious issues and is (again) stuck in the back of the media bus. Shame on the media for the treatment of Paul last night, and for much too long.

Yet aren’t many conservatives hypocrites for hating CNN more than they are willing to criticize adultery by Newt? Imagine if Barack Obama was found to be committing adultery and proposing an open marriage. Some — not all — on the right are phonies. They are political haters and moral hypocrites who would attack and condemn behavior by liberals or Democrats that they excuse or ignore by conservatives or Republicans.

Brent BudowskyRegarding Perry, I stand by most of the criticisms I have leveled in his direction, but I retract my suggestion that Perry was in any way influenced by Romney to stay in the race. For this suggestion, I apologize to the governor. It was clearly wrong. I believe it would be healthy for the media for those who take public positions, as I do, to set the record straight and when appropriate directly apologize.

In the end, Perry did what was right for conservatives, no matter how much I may disagree with him, or them. I give Perry much more credit for dropping out and supporting a conservative, no matter what I think of Gingrich, than I give Paul for his old-style political maneuvers with his strange refusal to criticize Romney.

This race stays alive until Super Tuesday at the earliest, a point I have emphasized for months, and repeat today.

Brent Budowsky
The Hill 


  1. Ray Bishop says

    It is amazing how some see history in a self serving and distorted manner. President Clinton was attacked by Gingrich during the time Gingrich was preaching on the Republican Right about “Family Values”. It is absurd that the personal and intimate affairs of any person should become a matter for anyone to judge. This is part of the personal life of an individual and as long as it does not hurt anyone it is a private matter. Who knows what understandings President Clinton and Hillary have had. No one has the right to get involved in this matter except the persons partner.
    President Clinton and Hillary remain together in marriage. Gingrich and his wife were divorced and she has bitterly spoken out in regard to what we know know was deceitful and dishonest behavior towards her to an extreme. President Clinton should have simply stated that this was a private matter between himself and his wife; however his mistake was to state that nothing went on when something did to what appears to be a limited extent. This is the issue that the Republicans jumped on to accuse him of lying to the public.
    No question about Gingrich he lied to the public and continues to lie. President Clinton has proven to have been a great President. Gingrich has proven to be a National Embarrassment and Disaster to our Country. He has proven to be a hypocrite, dishonest, and a person willing to do anything for personal gains.

  2. Bob G says

    In resply to the comment by Ryder, I think that there were quite a few on the left who took issue with Bill Clinton, including Marc Cooper (see who loathed Bill and wrote about him almost to the point of obsession. I would also point at the Nader voters who found anything (even a leftover VP) from the Clinton administration as horribly suspect, thereby turning the country over to GW Bush.

    But that is not the point of the Budowsky article, which talks about hypocrisy on the right. It was the so-called conservative wing in this country which also hated Bill Clinton, presumably because he was an elected president from the Democratic side, and which therefore found fault with him on everything. That everything certainly included a few things that are faultable.

    This sort of retort (Clinton was just as bad) is a standard rhetorical gambit which says essentially that you can’t criticize my side because your side does it too. It has a fancy Latin term for it, which translates roughly as “You too!). That’s one reason why Republicans have been desperate to find something — anything — to lay on Obama that is ethically suspect in the least, so they can pull the same warped logic on him. About the best they could come up with is that solar energy company that got a big loan and went bankrupt — perhaps a bad investment and perhaps even a bit political, but nothing like the long string of Republican office holders and their friends who went to prison for serious felonies.

    The curious thing about comparing Clinton to Gingrich is that their sexual proclivities are simply stand-ins for their other character strengths and flaws. With Clinton, we had affairs going on while he was already president, and we had a record of his as a pretty good president. Perhaps we should have made a better choice during the original 1992 primary process, but we didn’t. For Gingrich, it is still the primary process, and there is still a choice. I think the lesson with regard to Gingrich is that he is profoundly two-faced, and that he defines himself as a candidate largely in terms of what he is against. Since being against sin, sex, and the breakdown of the American family is what he is running on, critics are entitled to evaluate him according to his own terms. And of course when they do that, he fails spectacularly.

  3. Ryder says

    It’s interesting to me that the left is, by in large, critical of Gingrich and his marriages, and more recently, supposed discussions with his (ex)wife about their marriage… Yet when Bill Clinton, WHILE IN OFFICE, LITERALLY IN THE OFFICE, not only wanted to go outside his marriage, he literally acted on it. He didn’t ask Hillary to accept an “open marriage”, he simply *took it*. And if you believe the throngs of women that all make similar claims about his failures as a married man… he hit on anything that moved. The response from the left is a deafening silence.

    But now we are supposed to be interested in someone just TALKING to one’s spouse about open marriage?

    Now, the problem with Clinton, from a justice standpoint, was sexual harassment in the workplace, and Jones’ right to seek justice. Clinton lied under oath in order to prevent her from gaining relief under sexual harassment law, written to address women’s rights advocates about the common problems of sexual misconduct at work. His lies were a legal matter, and caused him to be impeached and disbarred from law. These facts make the problems with Clinton vastly larger than any president in living memory in this area. Yet the attacked Jones and supported Clinton, and to this day never speak about his lies under oath.

    Because of this, I’m not interested in hearing anything from the political left on these kinds of issues unless they also had scathing remarks about the vastly larger problems that Clinton created.

    • Brian says

      Thanks for that…The liberal left and progressives are by far the biggest hypocrites In American History and still currently today. Anything said by someone that has a differing opinion of the right they treat as fact and dont look into anything…If its denied..of course they must not be telling the truth. The Left would protect someone that just killed someone and was seen by 10 republicans if one democrats said it didnt happen. All the care about is there agenda to make Goverment the end all be all nanny.

  4. -Nate says

    Well said ! thank you .

    newt is the typical lying , cheating , unapologetic republican who ran America’s economy off a cliff and now wants to destroy us more .


    • Brian says

      Nate: Wow, your truly clueless arent you? Care to go over the distgusting Democrat cheaters that deny it?? Hmm? Even with proof the are still denying it….

      The only cliffs are the extreme coasts where people run around with their hands open, me me me me me me me….the Liberal slogan.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *