Noticing that "Rush Limbaugh likes to go to one of the underage sex capitals of the world with a bottle of Viagra in one hand and God knows what in the other," Digby sighs:
Nonetheless, one thing I have learned is that it is useless to call Republicans hypocrites. The word has no meaning anymore and we should just retire the concept.
I think that's right. But calling folks hypocrites never really works in politics. Campaigns practice asymmetrical warfare -- they use their strengths to attack their opponents' weaknesses. Republicans latched onto adultery because they operate with some sort of +5 Cloak of Morality in the political arena; though they're a party packed with licentious adulterers, they never absorb an ounce of criticism for it. And even if an individual tumbles for his own misdeeds, the moral stain doesn't spread to the rest of the party's whites. Wrong or right, they've got ethical armor.
Democrats enjoy the same advantages, but on different and less emotionally visceral issues. No Democrat has to make a big show of caring for the poor or believing in health care, but Republicans, as evidenced by "compassionate conservatism," do. So if some Democrat -- say, the loathsome Phil Bredesen in Tennessee -- votes to slash Medicaid, he's probably nevertheless safe from Republican charges of cruelty. Calling him a hypocrite while sporting an "R" after your name won't really fly.
This tends to be a problem for Democrats, who look at their policy successes and wonder why they can't simply pin immoral or ineffective Republicans to the wall based on outcomes. But you have to first make yourself strong before you can benefit from your opponent's weakness. Rush may be scum, but so far as voters believe the choice is between scummy Republicans and louse-ish, gay-marrying Democrats, there are few points to be scored.
