Wednesday, October 17, 2007

could Rudy really beat Hillary?

In this amazing discussion over at Patterico, anti-war types are defending a bunch of anti-war military men against a blogger on the grounds that the blogger doesn't have their experience. Completely missing from their comments is any hint of self-consciousness over the blatant double standards that they have endorsed. When General Patreus was attacked by, they supported, and this idea that someone without military experience is in no position to criticize someone with military experience was no where to be found.

This is typical of the Left. They could not care less about military men who want us to win in Iraq, but they insist on the absolute practical experience of military men who want us to retreat. They could not care less about family of men killed in Iraq when those family members want us to win, but they insist on the absolute moral authority of family members who want us to retreat. They get hysterical at any faintest trace of a comment that might call into question their unqualified love and support of America, but they call us unpatriotic constantly, and based on the most contrived of reasoning.

Consistency and honesty is not a virtue on the Left. Twisting words and facts and situations to suit their propaganda is a virtue. That's why they are so in love with widows, children, handicapped veterans, and other sympathetic characters as their spokesmen. They know that they have no facts on their side, so instead they look for spokesmen that they can support with the "how dare you!" argument.

So what does this have to do with Rudy and Hillary? Basically, if people think that being a serial adulterer is now politically acceptable because of Bill Clinton, they are failing to take into account the blatant hypocrisy of the Left. Soon after Rudy is elected you will start seeing editorials from Leftists who supported Bill Clinton saying, "Can we really trust a man when his own wife couldn't trust him?" and "What does it say about a man that he can't keep a marriage vow?" and "I've grown older and wiser since the days when I foolishly defended Bill Clinton. I now realize what a terrible thing is is to cheat on the woman who bore your children."

Hillary already has this campaign scoped out. Bill Clinton will give a tearful interview where he bites his lower lip a lot and says how bad he feels that he cheated on Hillary --but at least he didn't divorce his beloved wife while she lay sick in the hospital from cancer like Rudy did. Bill Clinton will manage to leave the viewer with the understanding that at least he had the character to work and overcome his lechery. Rudy didn't.

There will be articles in women's magazines about the agony that women go through when their husbands cheat on them. There will be scientific studies showing that men who cheat on their wives have other untrustworthy traits. There will be specials on the history channel about the evil dictators of the past who cheated on their wives. There will be episodes on popular TV series about selfish cheaters who divorced their sick wives to go indulge their worst nature with younger hussies. America will once again learn that keeping your promises is a good thing and adultery is a bad thing.

Against the money of the Democrat machine and the Democrat-controlled mass media, there is no way --no way-- that a philanderer can win a presidential election against a woman who was hurt by a philanderer. No way.