Uncategorized

Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy of Silence

Liberal hypocrisy has taken a bizarre twist as Sen. Hillary Clinton faces criticism for saying that Martin Luther “King’s dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act”.

“Senator Clinton made an unfortunate remark, an ill-advised remark, about King and Lyndon Johnson. I didn’t make the statement,” Sen. Barack Obama said in a conference call with reporters. “I haven’t remarked on it. And she, I think, offended some folks who felt that somehow diminished King’s role in bringing about the Civil Rights Act. She is free to explain that.”

“I must say I was troubled recently to see a suggestion that real change that came not through the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King but through a Washington politician. I fundamentally disagree with that,” Sen. John Edwards told more than 200 people gathered at a predominantly black Baptist church. “Those who believe that real change starts with Washington politicians have been in Washington too long and are living a fairy tale,” he said.

This is hypocrisy at its weirdest. Liberal ideology assumes that people can’t fend for themselves without government paternalism. But liberal candidates will pounce on one of their own for acknowledging it. Has hypocrisy become the homage that dependency pays to responsibility?

Sign up for our monthly newsletter with travel tips, home ideas, new recipes, and more delivered straight to your inbox!

* indicates required

4 thoughts on “Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy of Silence

  1. I agree where you’re getting at here while I don’t know where you stand on the Civil Rights Act.

    It took a courageous individual to bring these issues to the American people and it took a political leaser to get the right thing done in Washington.

    Obama is trying to have it both ways on this one. Be the visionary that transcends race but then play the race card. But I don’t think it’s just him. Some don’t want Dr. King to share any spotlight on any civil rights issue.

  2. ‘Liberal ideology assumes that people can’t fend for themselves without government paternalism’

    You are providing your own definition of what it means to be Liberal and then shooting it down. Of course it’s not going to make sense.

  3. Actually, Edwards is doing more than just piling on – he’s undermining his own campaign.

    How does he reconcile “those who believe that real change starts with Washington politicians have been in Washington too long and are living a fairy tale,” with the tag line, “Join the campaign to change America,” from his “John Edwards for President” website?

    This is fun to watch.

  4. It’s also pandering at it’s most base.

    Hard as it is for me to admit, I actually agree with Sen. Clinton on this one, and I believe that it betrays the Obama campaign’s previous reluctance to play the race card. It’s like they were just waiting for someone to mention Dr. King’s name before going off on a tirade. Edwards, ever the opportunist, is simply piling on.

    I would like to ask the Obama camp what good they think the CRA would have done had LBJ not signed it.

Comments are closed.