Skip to main content

The Suddenly Flexible Pro-Life Tennessee Congressman

I'm still amazed on how so many Republicans win elections just by telling people that they love God, have family values, are pro-life and are anti-gay marriage. They play the Christian "moral" card.

"Vote for me. I'll be a good role model for your kids and will move this country in the manner God would want. I know, because I magically lived life back when Jesus did and wrote most of The Bible on his behalf."

The reason I think this is so ridiculous is that every person makes mistakes. We can preach all we'd like that we're "one with God," yet that doesn't make it so and doesn't negate any mistakes we've made or will continue to make in our lives. Also, when we go in for job interviews, while it'd be preferable that the potential employees aren't rotten people, most all employers will be more focused on hiring people whom they feel can move the company forward from a business perspective as opposed to hiring people they feel are "good Christian individuals." So, again, voting due to "morals" doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

When candidates play the moral card, they're also setting themselves up for more sever backlash if they act inappropriately while in office. Just ask late-night talk show hosts/comics what kind of politicians make for better punchlines - candidates who don't run on morals and values and act inappropriately or candidates who do run on morals and values and act inappropriately. The latter group typically provides for a stronger punch comically than the former. Especially in this day and age when we can see and hear such hypocrisy spoken on the radio, television, newspapers and Internet, those contradictory moments are far more prevalent than in years past and with that increase in prevalence is an increase in humor.

That brings me to Tennessee Republican Congressman Scott DesJarlais. He is a Tea Partier, who has long claimed to be very pro-life and possess strong family values. Well, not long ago, word broke that this family-values man was quite the philanderer. Not only that, but a released transcript revealed that one of these women he impregnated, and being the good pro-life man he is, demanded she have an abortion.

Part of the transcript reads as follows:

DesJarlais: "You told me you'd have an abortion, and now we're getting too far along without one."

One of his special lady friends: "You told me you would have time to go with me and everything."

DesJarlais: "I said, if I could, I would, didn't I? And I will try. If I can [find] time, you're saying you still will?"

Special lady friend: "Yeah."

Here's another lovely portion of the transcript:

Special lady friend: "This is not fair to me. I don't want you in my life."

DesJarlais: "Well, I didn't want to be in your life either, but you lied to me about something that caused us to be in this situation, and that's not my fault, that's yours."

Special lady friend: "Well, it's [your] fault for sleeping with your patient."

I left that part out, didn't I? Yeah, she was a patient of his. This good, family-oriented, pro-life Christian doctor cheated on his wife a number of times, including with a patient, whom he impregnated and demanded she have an abortion.

Politicians can claim all they'd like that they're "decent," "moral," "Christian" people, yet those words mean absolutely nothing when those words aren't backed with solid evidence. Why they mean so much to other voters is beyond me. Would they truly rather have a person who talks a good moral game, but is hypocritical or one who doesn't talk much of a moral game, but proves with their actions that he/she is a decent person? Perhaps it's time we all, instead of voting on the notion that one candidate is more moral than the other since it's inevitable neither is perfect and will make mistakes while in office, we vote on which candidate will help move this country, like a company, forward.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/scott-desjarlais-abortion-pro-life_n_1953136.html

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"