I can feel sorry for these Republicans, but only so much.

First one gets caught going to a service (Vitter), now a guy is looking for airport perks (I had no idea stuff like that was happening at the Minneapolis airport!). They are sad lonely guys. They seem to want something that they can't get at home, or won't seek. I feel sorry for them. The guy is either gay or bisexual. He should be able to go out and either experiment or live his life. But, as a conservative Republican, he needs to go out and attack gays. So he can't be who he is apparently is. Same with Rev. Haggard. If these guys had been honest, and not attacked people just like them, they could have had more normalcy. But then they would not have power...and their religious and conservative upbringing guaranteed that the feeling that emerged as they grew up were things they would and do despise and hate, which means they despise and hate themselves.

That is just sad.

But the fact is these guys attacked homosexuals, with a zeal. They mocked and tore down those who had affairs. It is just two-faced, it is duplicity. As long as the affairs, the gayness, the abortions, the cash under the table, the drugs...as long as it stays in the back alleys...all is well. And that is what deserves scorn. That is what deserves coverage. That is what needs to be considered. All this corruption, suppressed homosexuality, and hidden needs...Guys?



For more Hypocritical Republicans:

Paul Krugman A Socialist Plot

Suppose, for a moment, that the Heritage Foundation were to put out a press release attacking the liberal view that even children whose parents could afford to send them to private school should be entitled to free government-run education.

They'd have a point: many American families with middle-class incomes do send their kids to school at public expense, so taxpayers without school-age children subsidize families that do. And the effect is to displace the private sector: if public schools weren't available, many families would pay for private schools instead.

So let's end this un-American system and make education what it should be - a matter of individual responsibility and private enterprise. Oh, and we shouldn't have any government mandates that force children to get educated, either. As a Republican presidential candidate might say, the future of America's education system lies in free-market solutions, not socialist models.

O.K., in case you're wondering, I haven't lost my mind, I'm drawing an analogy. The real Heritage press release, titled "The Middle-Class Welfare Kid Next Door," is an attack on proposals to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Such an expansion, says Heritage, will "displace private insurance with government-sponsored health care coverage."

And Rudy Giuliani's call for "free-market solutions, not socialist models" was about health care, not education.

But thinking about how we'd react if they said the same things about education helps dispel the fog of obfuscation right-wingers use to obscure the true nature of their position on children's health.

The truth is that there's no difference in principle between saying that every American child is entitled to an education and saying that every American child is entitled to adequate health care. It's just a matter of historical accident that we think of access to free K-12 education as a basic right, but consider having the government pay children's medical bills "welfare," with all the negative connotations that go with that term.

And conservative opposition to giving every child in this country access to health care is, in a fundamental sense, un-American. . .