Todd Akin And The Politics Of Hypocrisy

Everybody's talking about it.  The "legitimate rape" statement made by Missouri Republican candidate for the Senate, Todd Akin.  Democrats are salivating over his remark, believing it's given them ammunition to defeat Akin and smear all Republicans as anti-women.  Top Republicans, also scared of the impact of Akin's gaffe, are practically demanding that he withdraw from the Missouri race.

Yes, Todd Akin said something stupid, really stupid, but Democrats' sanctimonious furor over his statement is pure hypocrisy.  Liberals are on the record belittling not just rape, but child rape.  A little trip down memory lane will prove this.

Back in 2009 Hollywood movie director Roman Polanski was arrested in Switzerland and faced extradition back to America to face punishment for his 1977 rape of a 13-year-old girl.  Polanski had fled the US to avoid imprisonment for the crime.  When news broke of his arrest liberal Hollywood rallied behind Polanski.  Martin Scorsese, Woody Allen, and other notable directors signed a petition demanding his release.  Other Hollywood celebrities, including Adrien Brody, Debra Winger, and Sigourney Weaver, voiced their support for the director.  The most offensive statements made in Polanski's defense came from his friend, Swiss director Otto Weisser, and Whoopi Goldberg, one of the co-hosts of The View.  Weisser referred to the attack as "a little mistake" and Goldberg claimed the crime "wasn't rape rape".  Mind you, Weisser and Goldberg made their dismissive quips about an act of drugging and sodomizing a child. 

Hollywood embraced a child rapist yet Democrats, whom Hollywood staunchly supports, felt no need to distance themselves nor their party from that community.  They weren't disturbed in the least by Tinsel Town's casual attitude toward child rape.  But now, three years later, Democrats are outraged by a crude but essentially harmless rape comment from a little-known Republican.  Gee, could the fact that this is an election year have anything to do with their indignation?

Todd Akin said something dumb, even weird, about rape, but he didn't rally around a child rapist or opine that such behavior wasn't all that bad.  Hollywood liberals did do that yet Democrats happily continued their close relationship with them.  And no one in the mainstream media called them on it.  It proves the truth of a comment I read on the blog GayPatriot:  "If it wasn't for double standards, [liberals and Democrats] would have no standards at all."  Indeed.

Using Liberal Logic...

...gunman Floyd Corkins isn't responsible for attacking the Family Research Council yesterday.

Corkins wounded security guard Leo Johnson in a shooting spree he committed at the conservative Christian organization's headquarters Wednesday.  He was armed with a 9mm handgun and had two magazines, 50 rounds of ammo, and 15 Chick-Fill-A sandwiches.  And therein lies the rub.

Corkins act of violence was apparently motivated by liberal politics.  He sympathized greatly with the gay community (it's unknown at this time whether Corkins himself is gay).  He recently volunteered at The DC Center for the LGBT Community and, according to a statement made by his parents, had "strong opinions" about people who opposed gay rights.  As we all know, Dan Cathy, president of Chick-Fill-A, recently went public with his support for traditional marriage.  The Family Research Council received a small donation from Chick-Fill-A a few years ago and has been certified a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center.  That, apparently, was all Corkins needed to target the group.

Using liberal logic, the Southern Poverty Law Center and everyone else who indulges in "hate group" rhetoric are really to blame for Corkins' crime.  Labeling an organization a hate group clearly sends the message that that group, and the people who comprise it, don't belong in society, doesn't it?  The steady mantra of "Hater! Hater! Hater!" flung at supporters of traditional marriage creates a climate of intolerance towards those people, doesn't it?  It sends, doesn't it, the message that traditionalists, especially the Christian ones, can and even should be treated with the utmost disdain.  And it's a only a small step from disdain to gun violence, is it not?  Using liberal logic, the answer is a resounding, yes!

So Corkins' political crime isn't really his fault.  He was virtually forced to do it by the climate of anti-Christian hostility created by liberal "hate group" and "bigot" rhetoric.  Who's to blame for the shooting at the Family Research Council?  The Southern Poverty Law Center is to blame.  The Human Rights Campaign is to blame.  NOW is to blame.  Dan Savage is to blame.  Barney Frank is to blame.  Hollywood is to blame.  Everyone and every group who share Floyd Corkins views are to blame.  Using liberal logic, you can't conclude anything else.

Conspiracy?

So, I got to listen to Rush Limbaugh's show yesterday.  It was open line Friday and wasn't very interesting, actually.  But then Rush related something he'd heard from another source (sorry, didn't catch the source).  This source speculated that rising unemployment could help Obama in November.   I know.  That sounds totally counterintuitive.  How could a worsening economy help Obama?  But Rush explained it.  He pointed out that more and more unemployed and underemployed people means more and more people looking to government for help.  And who is promising more and more government entitlements?  Obama!  People who are on the edge, scared, and feeling like there's no hope can be very susceptible to Obama's class warfare, government-is-here-to-help-you message.  Such people would be very tempted to vote for benefits over values.  That's how a weakening economy could help the president on election day.  And I'm sure the preceding scenario hasn't escaped Obama and his team.  So, is Obama deliberately letting, or even making, the economy run down to help his re-election chances?  I don't want to be conspiratorial but I can't put anything past the current occupant of the White House.