Over at Random Jottings, John Weidner responds to Walter Shapiro saying:

Without overstating these bonds, I naively believed that I knew Edwards as well as I understood anyone in the political center ring. Yet I never saw this sex scandal coming — partly because I accepted the mythology that surrounded the Edwardses’ marriage and partly because I assumed that any hint of a wandering eye would have come out during the 2004 campaign. But then Rielle Hunter and the National Enquirer brought us all into the real world…

by saying this:

What malarky. You were besotted with Edwards because he was (or was pretending to be) a liberal Democrat. And Edwards almost certainly paid flattering attention to the guy who was writing a book about his campaign. You dolt, Edwards and his wife almost certainly coldly planned how to woo you, and knew what your weaknesses are. That’s what trial lawyers do with a jury. They study every scrap of information available on each juryman, and, like chameleons, tailor the message, and paint their very selves, to fit them. (I know about this stuff; my dear wife’s on the other side, the good side, fighting scoundrels like Edwards every day.)

Everybody who retained any objectivity could see that he was a phony, and were not surprised by this. When a guy talks populism and green-ism while building the biggest mansion in the county, there’s a 99% chance that he’s a sham. When a guy spends minutes in front of a mirror fluffing his hairdo, there’s a 99% chance that he will not resist the sexual temptations available to a celebrity.

John Weidner is right by the way. Only a freaking moron could possibly delude themselves into thinking this rich man actually cares about the poor. The extent of your concern for the poor is measured by those sacrifices you personally commit to remedying the problem. John’s commitment to the poor was so strong that he was unwilling to sacrifice no one dollar of his personal millions to help the poor. Such a lack of commitment tells me all I need to know about Edward’s commitment to the poor.

Its ironic that liberals are always hyper sensitive to the sexual hypocrisy of the right but completely oblivious to the material hypocrisy of the left. Liberals rain arrows of hatred down upon you if you take a strong moral stance against infidelity and fool around but give you a free pass if you strongly denounce wealth all the while enjoying a decadent lifestyle. On some level this would make liberals that charge republicans as hypocrites are themselves hypocrites.

One more thing, I argue, that by definition, a rich liberal concerned about wealth inequality, is by virtue of their wealth, a hypocrite.

This entry was posted on Thursday, August 14th, 2008 at 1:30 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.