Lawrence O'Donnell and MSNBC: Democrats are Pro-Adultery

You say that Lawrence (sp.?) ODonnell coujld not have said that Democrats are pro-adultery? Yes, he did. I heard him, even though I don't watch MSNBC. I was surfing looking for reactions to the Wisconsin developments (the MSNBC reactions not being worth discussing). Okay. O'Donnell did not EXPLICITLYL say what the title says, but that is the onlly interpretation you can put on what he said.

O'Donnell said that Newt Gingrich was out there trying to defuse his previous adulteries, because "anti-adultery Republican primary voters" are likely to hold it against him in comparison with other Republicans not "YET" (can't make this stuff up) been caught in adultery. What other conclusinon can you draw from this than that O'Donnell thnks that Democrats are NOT "anti-adultery". And I am sorry. If you are not "anti-adultery", you are "pro-adultery" in every real sense. It is not a question on which you can be neutral, since "neutral" means that you don't think there is anything wrong with adultery.

I have commented before that Democrats, including the mainstream media, obviously think that Repubicans have HIGHER MORAL STANDARDS than Democrats. Now O'Donnell obviusly is willing to say that ALL Republican politicians have committed adultery. But O'Donnell--as all of MSNBC--is to the left of Fidel Castro. Note, hoever, that O'Donnell believes that Republican primary voters don't accept adultery like sophiscated, NPR Democrats do. They still have moral standards, O'Donnell is saying, and don't accept lapses easily. Democrats obviously do. This is the assumption the whole mainstream media makes: the assujmption that Repubicans have higher moral standards than Democrats.

Thus, Wolf Blitzer--and all of the other hypocrites and liars on The Liar Network--immediately accuse ANY Repubican of "hypocrisy" the moment a Republican is too weak to uphold his moral principles on something like adultery. The assumtion is that Democrats have NO moral principles, and therefore can't violate them hypocritically. This is, of course, false. Democrat politicians (think John Edwards) put their famiy out there just like Repubicans. But it is a conveninet way for the HYPOCRITES of the mainstream media, like O'Donnell and Blitzer, to justify intensive reporting on Republican "sins", and not on Democrat "sins". These--mainstream media and other leftist Democrats--are the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four. They also assume that Republicans have higher moral standards than Democrats.

The above explains why the mainstream media--who probably are pro-adultery, and at least don't believe "family values" are a real qualification for pubic office--use the "hypocrisy" hypocrisy (not a typo, as this USE of "hypocrisy" is itself hypocritical to cover the real motive) to attack Republicans. The mainstream media does not believe that Democrats, or independents, CARE. However, they belive that REPUBICANS care. This is a way for them to suppress the Republican/conversative vote, in their view.

Keep all of this in mind the next time you hear someone on CNN say that it is not the "adultery" that matters, but the "hyocrisy". Know that the hypocrites in the mainstream media are lyijg to you. But I will say that I have never heard Democrats--even implicitly--so clearly labveled as PRO-ADULTERY as O''Donnell has labeled them. Does this mean theat we are going to see Demcrat politicans acdtually come out and SAY that adultery is not really a bad thing? I wuld really love that.

P.S. No, I do not support Newt for President--for many reasons besides his adultery. I actually think Republicans shoud stop letting Democrats, and the mainstream media, falsely use this "morality" cared against Repubicans because they know Republican voters are sensitive toit. Republican voters need to become less sensitive to it--recognizing that human beings "sins". Conservatives need to realize that this cynical mainstream media/Democcrat use of crocodile tears is nothing but a weapon that has little or nothing to do with whether a candidate will be a good President (or Senator, or whatever). And everyone needs to realize the "hypocrisy" thing is simply bogus and hypocritical. That said, the Gingrich personal baggage is so bad that it really makes him an unlikely success as a candidate. But my other reasons are the main thing behind fmy failure to support Newt. Nope. Newt will NOT be the next President of the United States, nor the nominee. But that does not make O'Donnell any less despicalbe or humorous.