Hypocrisy supernova as Palin sex smear imitates art -- in reverse
The plot -- pay attention now -- focuses on a Democratic female vice-presidential nominee, who must undergo Congressional hearings to vet her appointment after the previous VP passed away. A phalanx of eeeeeevillllll Republicans, spearheaded by ultra-villian Gary Oldman, tries to crush her nomination and destroy her career by dredging up a decades-old sexual escapade in which the Joan Allen character may or may not have appeared in photos of an orgy in her early 20s.
Allen's character heroically refuses to even address the accusations, even when by doing so she seems to confirm them. In a twist ending, the audience eventually learns that she in fact hadn't even been at the orgy, and it was someone else in the photos, but she still nobly sacrificed her career so as to not dignify the accusation with a response.
The film was supposed to be a parable about the underhanded diabolical tactics of the Republican Party, which uses moral smears and the politics of personal destruction to cling to power at all costs.
And then we get the news today that basically this exact same thing is happening in reality right now -- a female former VP candidate and potential presidential candidate is having her reputation dragged through the mud by opposition political operatives determined to destroy her career by slandering her with unprovable and baseless sexual accusations that serve no purpose but to sully her name.
EXCEPT...the political parties are reversed. In reality, it is the Democratic smear machine that is viciously and enthusiastically slandering a Republican female VP candidate with a rumor about a sexual escapade when she was in her early 20s:
In an story sure to doom Palin's future political aspirations, the National Enquirer reports that a new book by Joe McGinniss alleges that, in her twenties, Sarah Palin had hush-hush sex with then-University of Michigan star basketball player Glen Rice. Sort of redefines her stance on "Drill, Baby Drill", doesn't it?(No, that's not a sleazy blog I'm quoting -- it's a mainstream newspaper [the San Francisco Chronicle]).
At the time, Palin was working as a sports reporter for the Anchorage, Alaska TV station KTUU. Rice, who went on to a stellar NBA career, was playing in a tournament in Alaska at the time of the alleged encounter.
According to the Enquirer, "In the book, McGinniss quotes Rice as confirming the one-night stand."
The National Enquirer goes one step further, asserting that a publishing source said the book contains allegations that, at the time, Palin had a "fetish" for African-American men. She was also allegedly still involved with future husband Todd, who she married a mere nine months after the alleged incident.
Funny how reality is almost always in complete contradiction to the liberal fantasy world they've constructed around themselves.
Furthermore, neutral observers may wonder what the scandal is supposed to be: Even if the story were true, at the time of the one-night stand, Palin was an adult, Rice was an adult, both were single, so what's the problem?
Liberals themselves think that being sexually active in your 20s is normal, and that interracial relationships are admirable. So why are they harping on this? Not because they themselves think it's scandalous, but because they presume that uptight racist Republican voters will think it's scandalous. Or at least the liberal fantasy version of "uptight racist Republican voters." So the liberals must falsely act shocked themselves, in order to promulgate the scandal to the intended audience.
Furthermore, are we to assume that a handsome suave college student named Barry Obama remained a chaste virgin until his wedding night, at the age of 31? Of course not. But no one -- no one -- has ever spent two minutes trying to dig up the sexual history of Barack Obama, because it is totally irrelevant, and absolutely zero voters would care how many girlfriends or one-night stands he had while single. Ah, but Sarah Palin is fair game, you see, because she, uh, well, uh, she thinks sex education for 12-year-olds should focus more on abstinence and less on condom instructions!
Liberals think this makes her a hypocrite, but as I previously pointed out, the "hypocrisy defense" is a logical fallacy and inevitably backfires spectacularly.
Instead, it is the liberals who end up looking like hypocrites.
Hypocrisy layered upon hypocrisy layered upon hypocrisy.
If a new star appeared in the sky each time the liberals do the exact thing they accuse their opponents of doing, I could read Joe McGinniss' new book outdoors on a moonless night.