America Is Tired of Hypocrisy – Conway Comment in Perspective

Is there no end to the political hypocrisy elected officials will throw at us? No sense of decency or patriotism in the media? No sense that re-publication of baseless attacks is actually complicity, and damages their own credibility? Is there no understanding that one-sided stories undermine civic dialogue?

Two dozen stories over the past three weeks hit the Trump White House and cabinet. So many of these have so little truth, perspective or proportion that observers are left speechless. A “removed bust” of Martin Luther King was not removed. “Bad faith” averred on executive orders was not bad faith. Smears of good cabinet members’ lives of service go unanswered, as if character assassination is laudable.

Merciless attacks are made on good White House communications and security personnel, as if transitions are flawless. A crazy 1799 Logan Act, not enforced in 200 years, makes headlines. Now a slap-down of Trump’s communications advisor, for a semi-comic comment on a line of clothes done by the President’s daughter, is the lead story. Every Democrat in Congress has their hair is on fire.

Here is some perspective. White House advisor Kellyanne Conway is no favorite of the media, for sure. They resent her involvement in a campaign that beat what for many was the preferred candidate. We know this. As a communications person, she defends the president. In jest, perhaps a touch of indignation, she defended the president’s daughter. When questioned about a retailer’s cancellation of the First Daughter’s clothes line, she leaned into the unfairness and concluded “Go buy Ivanka’s stuff.”

For this, we get national hysteria? Histrionic political reaction, outrage and days’ of reverberating media? The gravamen of the attack: How dare anyone near the President promote a commercial interest! The principle is real but much narrower: Public offices should not be exploited for private gain. But honestly, Washington’s perspective is all off.

Be real for a moment. Conway was not profiting. Not trying to profit. She was not promoting her own line of clothes. She was responding to a pointed question, perhaps too sarcastically, even a bit sardonically. She was tossing back a sharp retort at a questioner – actually at the retailer through the questioner – for cutting a commercial line for political reasons. Is that not obvious? It is to most of America.

She was not being particularly circumspect, not thought through, but not criminal either. In fact, reality is – her comment’s reflexive nature more or less absolves her of any deep and premediated attempt to violate the law or bring herself profit.

Now, go one level deeper. Look at the hypocrisy. How many times did President Obama promote a specific company that had, oh yes, contributed money to his political campaign? How many times do members of Congress do the same thing, especially in their home districts? Cutting red ribbons, thanking the world on television and in press releases for wonderful work done by a company that, oh yes, has given them money in the last election, and they hope will in the next?

Okay, a level deeper. How many times did Michelle Obama, and First Ladies before her, accept and model – clearly promoting – specific fashion companies and designers which lent them expensive dresses to wear to State dinners and other publicized outings? Let’s get even more specific.

Didn’t President Obama turn a solar panel maker into the “poster child” for America’s “green” future? Didn’t he rave about that company’s products and contributions, even encourage support for it? Doubling the offence, didn’t the company end up with that support – and then go bankrupt? A news story on it ended: “The [Obama] White House did not immediately respond to ABC News’ requests for comment.” Wonder why?

Didn’t President Obama promote Leonardo DiCaprio’s movie on climate change, on the South Lawn of the White House? Didn’t President Obama promote specific American businesses in Cuba, another double error, including “Stripe,” “Airbnb,” and “Kiva?” There are dozens of examples, specific companies mentioned, many tied to the White House in other ways. President Obama did not say “this is a commercial,” but it was.

Refocus on former First Lady Michelle Obama. Dozens of stories were run about companies and fashion designers she chose and promoted – by wearing their gowns, some upwards of $12,000 in price. Photos became commercials in fashion magazines. She was, in effect, a walking commercial. And they proudly said so.

Wrote one fashion maven: 'What a dress for her last state dinner at the White House… Talk about going out with a bang, a gold Versace bang,” adding “”throughout her tenure as First Lady, she's really championed her favorite designers, including Jason Wu and Tadashi Shoji …” To be clear, this is not to accuse – but to present detractors with perspective.

There are countless distinctions, few differences. The Conway remark was an off-hand quip, ill-advised, but unworthy of the hubbub it created. How much more did companies championed by President Obama and promoted by the First Lady benefit? Far more than any clothesline from a staffer’s passing comment. Right?

With respect for all, and a simple call for fairness, this is an embarrassing moment. Political leaders should slow down, take stock of how they look. This is an intended “gotcha” moment – that utterly backfired. Average Americans look and ask: “What is wrong with those people in Washington?”

What America sees is venal and vindictive behavior, and they do not like it. What they see is something that embarrasses them on behalf of their leaders, makes them wonder if they see themselves at all. In effect, Americans want to lower their heads, tap those leaders on the shoulder and say “your hemline is showing,” or “check that zipper.” Hypocrisy is just embarrassing, and it is counter-productive. Could it be time to govern, that other thing people are sent to Washington for?

On target, but what it omits is the role of the Office of Government Ethics publicaly amplifying this issue well beyond reason and balance. Where were they in the “scandal free’ Obama administration? We have a government full of 5th columnists..not public servants paid to do the people’s work. And I have no idea how the people rid themselves of them.

I agree. I was just saying this evening that I cannot stand the feigned ethics concern on Facebook from people who voted for a pro-abortion candidate who not only ran a private email server from her bathroom but also sold the Office of Secretary of State for her personal gain. There is zero moral equivalency between Hillary Clinton action’s and Kellyanne’s comments.

Nope. It's all pure politics, pure Alinsky theater.

The fake-news MSM doesn't care how they look. They don't care about that percentage of the population who sees them as a disgrace, as a joke. That's not their audience. They are grounded in George Orwell's observation from 1984: "if there is hope, it lies in the proles." Except they've turned it on its head. Orwell meant that the proles were society's only hope for throwing off the oppressive state. Todays elites see them as the only hope for imposing it. That's why they want to import an unlimited supply of them from Earth's every corner.

I believe President Trump must emulate President Reagan. He must keep his nose to the grindstone and not allow himself to be distracted by all the craziness that the Left is unleashing. Results will tell over time, and events will vindicate him. If he tries to go mano-a-mano with the Left, he will only diminish himself and his office.

“Is there no end to the political hypocrisy elected officials will throw at us? No sense of decency or patriotism in the media? No sense that re-publication of baseless attacks is actually complicity, and damages their own credibility? Is there no understanding that one-sided stories undermine civic dialogue?”

Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to. (Baron Bodissey, Political Correctness—The Revenge of Marxism, Gates of Vienna)

The unfairness of this is just astounding. I’d be embarrassed if I were them.

For those of us that voted for Trump this whole incident just reinforces the perception that the MSM and the democrats are a bunch of dikheads peddling nothing but horse$hit.

Sorry for my French but I can’t think of any more precise way to put it than that.

“Moscow did not believe in tears - they made others have them.”

Still in their DNA, I believe—and I’m a certified cold warrior.

Unfortunately, the certificate was signed by the Hillbilly Whorehopper, so I crumpled it up and shitcanned it.

Hillary’s calculated and premeditated and covered up Pay for Play which compromised the security and safety of all Americans in order to line her pocket

vs.

an off-hand comment by an advisor to Trump which was completely out in the open and which, if it hadn’t been turned from a molehill to a mountain by the media (which BTW provoked the response with their question), would probably have gone unnoticed by anyone. (They can suppress all the other news they don’t like, why not this single remark? Because they love to stir up a faux crisis, then point the finger at someone else.)

>>Where were they in the “scandal free’ Obama administration? We have a government full of 5th columnists..not public servants paid to do the people’s work.

We have a real issue peeking out here that needs to be talked about, and that is the nature of the Civil Service system. That system was created based on the idea of apolitical bureaucrats getting the job done with continuity between Presidential Administrations.

What we have today is a thoroughly politicized bureaucracy that no longer meets the criteria for Civil Service employment protections, but gets them under law.

This must change, or the bureaucracy must revert to being apolitical. Since I see little chance of the latter happening, the former must be discussed.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.