With an abundance of hypocrisy in America, who is

Your Favorite Hypocrite?

Hey there America, what’s your favorite gaffe of recent years? Was it a gaffe, or hypocrisy run amuck? Here are a few of mine, and make no mistake about it, there were no gaffes in these.

Whoopi Goldberg, Al Sharpton and good ol’ Reverend Jesse Jackson, a trio of hypocrisy. A ménage à pocrisy if you will.

Whoopi’s Pecksniffian attitude illuminated brightly on the View during her acrimonious assault on poor little cry baby, Elisabeth Hasselbeck. Once again it was the controversial and hackneyed “N” word debate.

For someone to say the black community can use a particular word, and no other race can, sounds like pure hypocrisy to me. To purport blacks have “taken the N-word back and made it their own” is ludicrous. The biased, the racist, the hate mongers, those are the ones who make words their own. They are the ones who give special meaning, degrading, derisive and hateful meanings, to certain words. For Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Whoopi Goldberg, or any of the black community to have a ritual of “burying the N-word” and then espouse the use of it in pop culture, or condone its use amongst a particular class of people, is pure hypocrisy. Not only was Whoopi being hypocritical, but her ideals and rhetoric perpetuate racial friction far beyond what educated and rational people should allow.

Jesse Jackson’s sardonic excoriation of Barack Obama, an eloquent, aristocratic, charismatic and well educated black man, is beyond hypocrisy. It is a showing of Mr. Jackson’s abysmal ignorance and it displays his own inadequacies when it comes to leadership. Jackson is not a godsend to the black community, he is the eternal wind that carries the racial divide in America.

Al Sharpton first came into the national spotlight during the Tawana Brawley debacle. That’s where he falsely accused Steven Pagones, then-district attorney, of raping her. Remember that? Brawley claimed a white man abducted, raped and scrawled racial epithets on her with feces. A grand jury later determined she made it all up to avoid being punished for staying out too late. Sharpton’s inexorable defamation caused Pagones indelible hardships and threats on his and his child’s life. Filing suit against Sharpton for liable defamation a jury awarded Pagones a handsome judgment. However, it took Pagones over two years to collect since Sharpton transferred all his assets into his wife’s name and Pagone only got paid when Sharpton’s friends eventually ponied up. To this day Sharpton has refused to apologize for his actions.

And what about the racial epithets he hurls around like so many pieces of candy thrown to children. At a funeral he complained about “the diamond merchants in Crown Heights,” a disparaging reference to Brooklyn’s Orthodox Jewish population. Or in 1995 when he referred to a Jewish storeowner in Harlem, with a racially divisive comment, as a “white interloper”. Sharpton covertly incited the black community to demonstrate in the streets where Freddy’s Fashion Mart was stormed and set on fire, killing eight. He denied any moral responsibility and said he never spoke at any protest rallies, therefore, he could not be held responsible. However, tapes showed up later proving Sharpton made a provocative speech at least once intimating and explicitly using racial epithets. When asked about it, Reverend Sharpton replied. “What’s wrong with denouncing white interlopers?”

Hypocrisy abounds with Mr. Sharpton. After all, didn’t he lead the wolves against Don Imus? How can one so inflammatory, someone so anti-Semitic, have the audacity to censure and call to the carpet one such as Don Imus. I’m not condoning what Imus said, but after all, that’s what he was paid to do. Wasn’t it? Why didn’t Sharpton go after the network, or the executives of the show? Aren’t they the ones who promoted Imus’ actions? Could it be Sharpton wouldn’t be able to incite the black community with that approach? Enough said about Reverend Sharpton. I don’t think he can hold any credibility with a sane or logical person and he will go down in history as a bigoted, hate mongering, race-card-playing incendiary whose hypocrisy continually goes unchallenged.

And Al, it’s time to move into the 21^st century, get rid of that James Brown hairdo.

Next is Representative Mark Foley, not only a despicable human being, but a prototypical hypocrite as well. Rep. Foley co-chaired the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children and was a leading proponent on cracking down on pedophiles. But the scandal that broke in September of 2006 exposed him for the degenerate he was and set a new touchstone for hypocrisy.

The scandal centered on solicitous emails and sexually explicit text messages he sent to a sixteen year old male page. Foley asked the teen. “Do I make you horny?” The teen later described the correspondence as, “sick, sick, sick, sick, sick.” Foley, after much derision and excoriation, resigned from Congress on September 29, 2006. Personally, I think they should have made an example of his hypocrisy and sent him to “the big house” where Bubba could make him his little boy.

Then there’s the restroom enthusiast who loves to play footsies. That’s right, the Idaho Senator Larry Craig. Didn’t he say he would be glad to do community service to make amends? Like picking up trash in men’s rooms at airports around the country.

Homosexual allegations had plagued Senator Craig for twenty-five years. He denied any wrong doing in the 1982 page scandal and insisted he was not among the seven House members accused of homosexual conduct. Then on June 11, 2007 he was arrested at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport on suspicion of lewd conduct. The nature of the alleged activity was categorized by some as cottaging. (Cottaging; a gay slang term referring to anonymous male-male sex in a public lavatory, or the practice of cruising for sexual partners in public lavatories with the intention of having sex. The term may have its roots in the English cant language of Polari, or in the fact that many self-contained English toilet blocks have in the past resembled small cottages in their appearance.)

According to the police report an officer was sitting in the bathroom stall next to Craig as part of an undercover operation investigating complaints of sexual activity in the restroom. After about 13 minutes of sitting in the stall the officer observed Craig lingering outside and frequently peering through the crack of the door. It was stated that Craig entered the stall to the left of him and the officer made the following observations, which were recorded in his report.

“At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moved his foot closer to my foot. … The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot, which was within my stall area. Craig then proceeded to swipe his left hand under the stall divider several times, with the palm of his hand facing upward.”

According to the incident report and criminal complaint filed in court, the officer showed Craig his police identification beneath the partition separating their stalls and then pointed his finger towards the restroom exit. Craig initially said no, but ultimately complied with the officer’s request to leave the restroom. After they left Craig was reluctant to go with the officer and demanded he show his police identification a second time. Once the officer complied with the request, Craig, the arresting officer, and a police detective, who was stationed outside the restroom, went to the airport police station. The arresting officer read Craig his Marinda rights and then interviewed him about the restroom incident. At one point Craig handed his business card to the officer, which identified him as a U.S. Senator, and said, “what do you think about that?” The officer said nothing and proceeded with the interview. Craig later plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct and paid $575 in fines and fees.

In December of 2007 eight gay men came forward to the Idaho Statesman newspaper alleging both, homosexual encounters with Senator Craig, or attempts by him to engage them in sexual acts. Four of the men gave graphic, recorded details of their alleged sexual encounters to the newspaper, which in turn published them on their web site. One of the four was Mike Jones, a male escort who in November 2006 was involved in a sex and methamphetamine scandal with Ted Haggard. Jones claimed that Craig paid him $200 for a massage and oral sex, which a Craig spokesman categorically denied.

Where the hypocrisy comes in is this. He criticized Bill Clinton on “Meet the Press” for the Monica Lewinsky scandal and called Bill a “nasty, bad, naughty boy.” In 2002 he voted against a bill to extend the federal definition of hate crimes to cover sexual orientation and in 2004 and 2006 he cosponsored constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriages. He supported the Federal Marriage Amendment which barred the extension of rights to same-sex couples and voted “yes” on an Idaho constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages when pressured by the anti-gay rights group, “Families for a Better Idaho”. He also voted against a bill that would have extended the federal definition of hate crimes to cover sexual orientation, which was passed in 2007 by both the House and the Senate as the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007.

The LGBT advocacy group, the Human Rights Campaign, issued guides to candidates’ voting records in 2004 and gave Craig a 0 rating. Mr. Craig’s private life definitely belies his public record and for this he gets my vote for the runner up for hypocrite of the decade.

And after that conglomerate of hypocrites we come to my personal favorite, that’s right, ex-Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. The epitome of hypocrisy, not to mention sanctimony.

A new sheriff came to Wall Street on December 20, 2002, his name was Eliot Spitzer. He took the podium at the New York Stock Exchange and announced his intention to protect the small investor. “The Joe Smith in Utica and Jane Smith in Topeka, the one thing they deserve is honest advice and fair dealing,” he roared across the floor. Spitzer was the protagonist in an ongoing saga, protecting the little guy from minor, sometimes insignificant, transgressions of nefarious villains. His best asset was his ability to draw in the public and play on their desires and prejudices. Isn’t this the selfish acts of a demagogue? Hmmm, I believe it is.

Spitzer was indeed the “Wall Street reformer” as depicted by securities lawyer Greg Bruch in this statement. “Is Wall Street cleaner and more highly regulated because of Eliot Spitzer? Absolutely.” But Spitzer always seemed to aggrandize every issue, every grievance. Always calling it to the forefront and promulgating it to make sure everyone was aware of his righteous actions. However, he was always in such a hurry to be at center stage to attain stardom, perhaps in consideration of advancing his own political career, it appeared he had forgotten about Joe and Jane. In doing this he was viewed as somewhat unorthodox and lacked the skills or desires of a more methodical regulator. He never prosecuted some of the “villains” he identified and sometimes used press leaks, innuendos and intimation as a measure of guilt that he never went to the trouble of proving. Along with Bruch’s first statement he also said this. “The downside is that he introduced disrespect for the rule of law.”

Governor Spitzer eventually viewed Wall Street more accommodatingly, after all he courted many for donations during his candidacy. Following on the heels of his “Wall Street cleanup” he endorsed a consultant’s report that called for less regulation of the financial industry, an early hypocritical move in his career. All in all, it appears the ol’ sheriff has been run out of town and it doesn’t look like he’ll be coming back any time soon.

The Attorney General rattled many cages with investigations into stock research, mutual funds, insurance sales and record labels. He also attacked escort services, prostitution and drug trafficking. Here are a few statements he made in regards to the latter.

A June, 2006 statement he made regarding pending legislation.

“Another important issue that needs to be addressed is the problem of sexual predators. For over six years I have been pushing for legislation allowing the civil commitment of such individuals, and we should not let another year pass without action. In addition, we need legislation to punish those who engage in human trafficking. This is a particularly heinous crime that primarily targets women and immigrants, including those forced into prostitution. This is a growing crime and we need strong provisions allowing us to address it.”

In a press release from Spitzer’s office regarding an escort service operating in New York City, Long Island, Westchester and New Jersey, a service the authorities believed was a front for a massive prostitution ring, Spitzer said this.

“This was a sophisticated and lucrative operation with a multi-tiered management structure. It was however, nothing more than a prostitution ring and now its owners and operators will be held accountable.”

In August 2003, Spitzer announced a lawsuit against the operators of a travel agency operating in Dutchess and Queens counties that arranged tours of South East Asian bars that serve as a venue for illegal prostitution. Here is another quote from Mr. Spitzer.

“The company … promotes prostitution and the abuse of young women. This suit seeks a halt to this egregious conduct.”

This litany could go on eternally, but suffice it to say, we all know the end result. It’s not that Mr. Spitzer had numerous trysts with one or more prostitutes, it was his actions that belied his true nature, a scurrilous and deceitful nature that is most abysmal. While spending tens of thousands of taxpayer’s dollars on his own sexual gratification, he stood before all and decried the very same thing in which he partook. He condemned and prosecuted some escort services and travel agencies as illegal prostitution rings, while participating with one, the Emperors Club VIP. Mr. Spitzer will go down in history as the infamous “client #9”.

My question is this. Did then-governor Spitzer have more involvement than we know? If he used his political and prosecutorial powers to put some out of business while endorsing another, was there something more profound going on? I’ll let you, the reader, be the judge.

But moreover, with Mr. Spitzer getting my vote for hypocrite of the decade, who gets yours? What particular type of hypocrisy sticks in your craw? And who is the biggest perpetrator in your eyes?