Why Do Conservatives So Quickly Abandon Their Own?

Cathryn Crawford

[Cathryn Crawford]

Isn't it true that a lot of the bashing of Bill Bennett is simply due to the fact that conservatives naturally rejoice in the misfortunes of their own? The ability of the conservative movement to abandon their own people when they are even slightly attacked by the liberal/media establishment is absolutely astounding.

Why are conservatives so quick to judge their own? Are we afraid? Are we so afraid of being tainted by a scandal that we will so easily turn away at the first sight of blood?

This is a serious and long-term issue among conservatives that deserves to be adressed.

[Old Fud]

Hypocrite? I plead guilty to that and myriad of other sins. I am not, however, blind. And it appears that our boy Bennett soiled his soapbox with an 8 million dollar on-going lapse of judgement.

For the record, I thought the purging of Trent Lott (strictly based on his remarks) was class "A" GOP cowardice and stupidity. He did, of course, deserve to get his butt kicked for a host of other reasons.

[Cathryn Crawford]

"He did, of course, deserve to get his butt kicked for a host of other reasons. "

I'm with you on that one. Just not in the way he did.

Question: If you admit to being a hypocrite, and don't seem to mind, why are you on Bennett's case about it?

[TLBSHOW]

TBLSHOW = TLBSHOW

:>)

[Cathryn Crawford]

Sorrrrryyyyyyy!

You know my typing skills suck!

[k2blader]

Thanks for the link.

I'm a Christian who doesn't gamble, primarily because of the biblical bases listed in the article. But I realize for whatever reason(s), some other Christians may choose to gamble.

Is it personally disappointing to me that Bennett has gambled? Definitely.

But it doesn't go much further than that. I've never followed his career nor bought any of his books. He's not running for election.

What interests me is the sudden "moralizing" from the left on this issue. Recalling the Clinton years, surely "What he does privately is his own business"?

Leftists are the true masters of hypocrisy.

[joesbucks]

We just finished a corporate ethics overview in my company. One of the criteria used was an old fashioned one.....If you mind others knowing about it or it could be used against you, it probably is wrong and shouldn't be done.

Bennett certainly didn't try to hide his actions. But ultimately they have been used against him. Are they really a problem? It falls in that place conservatives hate to admit exists.....the "Gray Area". Some have argued that if it wasn't hurting his family, then so what? But in a response from his wife, she says he definately won't be gambling in the future. Her words to the public may be tempered from what has happened behind the scenes in order for the family to save face. Remember, come out too harshly against hubby and you kill the goose that lays the golden speeches.

Bennett has pontificated, and rightly so, that we should all strive to lead honorable lives and strive for virtue when possible. High stakes gambling falls into that gray area. The general public sees it as something that is not an area where someone who is striving for things of virtue will enter.

Finally, Bennett long has pointed out that America has become so desensitized to the point of lacking outrage. Yet when his "gray zone" life is bright to light, many conservatives suddenly couldn't quite see what all the outrage from other conservatives was all about.

I don't count myself among those who are outraged by his actions. I am disappointed. Our elder statesman for virtues and morality has strayed into an area where his own virtues and morality have been properly called into question. Among his choir and to those who view any attack on conservatives as bad...well suffice to say he's safe. But to those who were saddened by this revelation and to his political enemies, he's lowered the bar.

A lowered bar. Seems that was what many of his arguments were based on regarding a family on Pennsylvania Avenue between 1993 and 2001.

[colorado tanker]

I don't count myself among those who are outraged by his actions. I am disappointed.

I agree. It's hard to attack Bennett for gambling in an era when Las Vegas bills itself as a family resort.

By eating another of our own, we're playing right into the hands of the liberals, who don't give a fig for virtue, but just want another conservative scalp.

[Cathryn Crawford]

Gray zone is a good way of referring to it. I suppose it wasn't the best thing for him to be doing, but I take issue with those who say it completely disqualifies him from ever saying anything else about morality, and I disagree with those who say he's a hypocrite.

[Cathryn Crawford]

Leftists are the true masters of hypocrisy.

---

Well said.

[Cathryn Crawford]

You just said it exactly right...we are playing into the hands of the liberals by eating another of our own.

[joesbucks]

My question is aren't we totally "PO'd" when the Dems refuse to call into question the moral/ethical questions of their own?

Then we go crazy when some in our camp want to hold one of our own accountable.

Again, what Bennett has done is not the end of the world. But he has hurt his position, given ammunition to the enemy and lowered the bar.

[Cathryn Crawford]

The only time we reasonably go "crazy" is when the attacks are unjustified. We are so afraid of being like the Democrats that we swing the other way...waaaay too far.

[Old Fud]

Question: If you admit to being a hypocrite, and don't seem to mind, why are you on Bennett's case about it?

I do mind my own hypocrisy, as much I am bugged by the other ways that I step in it. Everyone falls short of their ideal, but they don't scrap their standards. "Hypocrisy" is usually hurled by the left, when confronted with its own bad behavior, i.e., "How can you take billyjeff to task for his doggin' around, when ol' Henry Hyde was gettin' some 30 years ago?" It's a bait and switch, making hypocrisy the issue, rather than the behavior at hand.

In this case, my observation of Bennett's gambling is not necessarily a demonstration of my hypocrisy. And I will own up to the fact that big, powerful people and their stupid foibles are a burr under my saddle.

[joesbucks]

I disagree. It's called protecting ones own.

I've always been amazed for example to hear people claim one of the biggest problems in schools is that they did away with corporal punishment. Yet the very next words from their mouth is "but don't let them touch my kid". Funny, but everyone elses kid should have corporal punishment for misdeeds, but my kid should be exempt.

Look what people do with families. My son in law was talking about his wifes sister who is having some personal problems. My daughter in law agreed with his assesment, yet was terribly upset that he "attacked" her sister.

We do the same with those who we agree with. Can you imagine the re-action from 90% of FR had Bill Clinton after 9/11 implemented the same homeland security measures that President Bush has? It been only a few from the fringe who have been making something of it, and many have been banned from FR because of their passion on the homeland security issue. Homeland Security is now seen as necessary (and the excuse is 9/11).

Remember the cry when "assult weapons" were outlawed, yet there has been only a whimper when the Bush White House says the will let the law stand. It's the same law, yet we went nuts on this forum when Clinton did it and been fairly quiet under Bush.

I see this as the same response as the parent who advocates corporal punishment, yet don't let them touch my kid.

[Cathryn Crawford]

But only because they are big and powerful, right? Are you one of those people who think powerful people should be perfect?

[Cathryn Crawford]

I agree with you on ALL of the above, completely and fully. But, in my PERSONAL case (I'm not arguing for all of FR), if it was a Democrat in the same shoes as Bennett, (no crime, no theiving, using own money and time, not being elected official) , I would ask what the fuss was about even then.
That's just me, though. I try to be fair to everybody, even liberals.

[Old Fud]

Are you one of those people who think powerful people should be perfect?

No.

[Cathryn Crawford]

Okay. You sound like it. If anything, people in power are less likely to be perfect because they have more chances to screw up.

[Search4Truth]

No one is above the truth, not even Conservatives.

[Cathryn Crawford]

I know it, but what do you mean?