Do only those criticizing Republican presidents have absolute moral authority?
Back when Cindy Sheehan was baiting the then-President of the United States, Maureen Dowd defined as “absolute” ”the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq“.
Guess that absolute moral authority applies only to the parents of children killed in Iraq, but not those killed on the Mexican border as our reader Greg reports on his Rhymes with Right blog:
Barack Obama and Eric Holder are stonewalling on the release of documents related to the Operation Fast & Furious gunrunning scheme. The media is doing its best to avoid covering the story of what is going on — and when they do cover it, the present it as a political witch hunt. Who is not being heard? The parents of slain Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, who was killed using the guns that the Obama Department of Justice allowed into the hands of criminals.
. . .
Unlike Sheehan, who actually had a meeting with President Bush within weeks of her son’s death in Iraq, Ken and Josephine Terry have never been granted a meeting with President Obama or Attorney General Holder. Holder sent the couple a flaccid condolence letter, and Obama placed a phone call to them shortly before their son’s funeral — but failed to mention Fast & Furious or explain that the gun used to kill their son came from a botched operation of the Justice Department.
The parents of this slain law enforcement officer have supported the investigation into the program that resulted in their son’s death. They have publicly urged Obama and Holder to release the documents that will shed light on their son’s death and those responsible for it. Now they are outraged at the stonewalling and cover up that is going on as Obama has tried to shield Holder by invoking executive privilege.
Read the whole thing. Do wonder if Miss Dowd — and those who so approvingly cited her notion of absolute moral authority — will insist that the administration heed the requests of these parents.
16 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Silly Dan Blatt. Don’t you know the drill: Conservatives and Republicans are bad and evil. Liberals and Democrats are perfect and all light and goodness.
Comment by davinci — June 23, 2012 @ 7:29 pm - June 23, 2012
“Democrats are for the people, republicans are for the rich.” (My Mom)
Comment by Richard Bell — June 23, 2012 @ 9:01 pm - June 23, 2012
Oh, Richard, that sounds like members of my own clan, unfortunately.
This is the comeback I try to keep in mind now: “This is not your mother’s Democratic Party.” ~ Andrew Breitbart
Comment by aine — June 23, 2012 @ 11:01 pm - June 23, 2012
#2 – My response would be: “So why are there more rich Dhimmicrats in Congress than rich Republicans? And why are Tea Party advocates not driven to their rallies in limousines, but Dhimmicrats demand a chauffeur to their Hollyweird fund-raisers?”
Hypocrisy, thy name is liberalism.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — June 24, 2012 @ 11:36 am - June 24, 2012
Holder is afraid that the real motive behind Fast and Furious will be exposed. This was a plot to abridge or revoke American´s Second Amendment Rights. Only mexicans were supposed to die (collateral damage) and when Mexico would complain, it would have fodder for the gun grabbers to insist on more gun control, even confiscation. Obama, knowing he´d never get it trough Congress would resort to an executive order, as he moves one step closer to an imperial presidency. The wolrdwide socialists are opposed to possesion of arms the citizenry. Obama and Holder are willing to bring the United States in line with the aims of European socialists and the United Nations. Secretary Clinton is supposed sign for the U.S. Brian Terry wasn´t supposed to have happened but his death has thrown a monkey wrench into the plans of the administration. That´s why Obama has invoked executive privilege over the DOJ´s documents. This is more insidious tha Watergate.
Comment by Roberto — June 24, 2012 @ 4:53 pm - June 24, 2012
Spot on, Roberto. There was NO BODY COUNT in Watergate. But don’t tell that funny-looking boy with the big glasses on MSNBC that. Not unless you’re wearing a haz-mat suit, anyway.
Comment by Bastiat Fan — June 24, 2012 @ 6:04 pm - June 24, 2012
Corrections: line 4, insert the word ´been´ between have and fodder
line 6, s/b through
last line, s/b than
haste makes waste.
Comment by Roberto — June 24, 2012 @ 7:13 pm - June 24, 2012
Fast and Furious? Fast and Furious? Hey guys – Another “God Bless Jon Stewart” moment: http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/22/bad-news-jon-stewart-not-exactly-buying-the-executive-privilege-claim/
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 24, 2012 @ 7:29 pm - June 24, 2012
Rachel Maddow wears glasses?
Comment by Rattlesnake — June 24, 2012 @ 7:35 pm - June 24, 2012
Oh, she does sometimes. I don’t watch Rachel Maddow’s show. That is who you were talking about, right, Bastiat Fan?
Comment by Rattlesnake — June 24, 2012 @ 10:28 pm - June 24, 2012
Correct, Rattlesnake. I like to make fun of laughable little lesbian leftists like her. (I also have a fondness for alliteration.)
Comment by Bastiat Fan — June 24, 2012 @ 11:00 pm - June 24, 2012
Rachel Maddow is a lesbian? I thought Chris Hayes was MSNBC’s token lesbian.
Comment by Rattlesnake — June 25, 2012 @ 12:00 am - June 25, 2012
Had to make the improvement, sorry
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 25, 2012 @ 12:14 am - June 25, 2012
This line is stupefying.
Who, in your life do you turn to for “moral authority”? Ponder that a moment. The President? The Pope? The New York Times? Bill Maher? Rabbi Gazinta? Ayatollah Bigmeani? The Bagworm Munchalot? Maureen Dowd?
After you reach a comfortable answer for who serves up “moral authority” in your personal universe, please move on to considering how “absolute” moral authority differs from plain vanilla moral authority.”
The bankruptcy of morality in general and the language in particular is on full parade in Maureen Dowd’s baroque declaration of moral superiority and condescension.
This is what is so very, very wrong with the whole gaggle of balloon heads who natter away like so many crowned heads of Kvetchnia. The cast their presumed pearls before their designated swine who need a little hope and change from the simple life.
Anytime Maureen Dowd or anyone else in the blabber business write of “moral authority” the editor should either thrash them soundly about the head and shoulders with a big stick or at least throw their trash at them and laugh them out of the building.
But “absolute” moral authority it the ultimate level of narcissism or a clear pathway to the depths of dementia when referenced by any garden variety liberal.
Moral relativists cede any right to “moral authority” by definition. One man’s moral relativism is as strong as the next man’s claim. Moral relativism is a declaration of war against moral authority and “absolute” moral authority in particular.
It is to laugh.
Comment by heliotrope — June 25, 2012 @ 10:42 am - June 25, 2012
“Argument from authority” is one of the worst logical fallacies. And Dowd tried it, when she tried to push Mother Sheehan’s supposed moral authority. While ignoring the moral authority of other mothers who thought differently from Dowd and Sheehan.
Like all who worship the power of the State, Dowd is ultimately a (highly selective, hypocritical) moral authoritarian. I’m not sure if that includes, or excludes, her being a moral relativist. Moral relativism, in sufficient quantity, is indistinguishable from amoral authoritarianism.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 25, 2012 @ 11:53 am - June 25, 2012
The Terrys don’t have absolute moral authority because they didn’t go stand in a ditch outside of the Obama Ranch…
Comment by runningrn channeling her inner libtard — June 25, 2012 @ 1:02 pm - June 25, 2012