Every Tuesday, TBR likes to spotlight an individual or group whose blatant hypocrisy in the face of facts warrants recognition. The winner receives the TBR “Hyppie” award for hypocrisy.

Here at This Week in Hypocrisy we do our best to bring you stories of infamy and oftentimes ribaldry that you might have otherwise missed. Usually we go after the bigger fish, since they’re the folks who have the most impact on our lives from a policy standpoint. However, sometimes I feel that it’s every bit as much of a public service to help in the downfall of someone who might not be a household name, but is still far too limited to be trusted with even the role of truancy officer.

This offer was put to the stress test last week when Zirkle accepted and spoke in Chicago (which, according to my geography, isn’t even in Zirkle’s state, much less his Congressional district) to the American National Socialist Worker’s Party.

Now I’m a pretty liberal guy, but even I would have to take a second glance at this group before I addressed them. Are they really socialists? If so, would they tend to lean Republican? Would anyone at this gathering be registered in my Congressional District? What is their platform and what do they stand for?

Apparently, instead of spreading the tenets of socialism, this group really just exists to glorify Nazi-ism. This aspect of their organization was revealed when Zirkle addressed the group at their celebration of the 119th birthday of Adolph Hitler. The second clue I picked up came from the picture I used to accompany this article, which shows the hero of this story speaking in front of a large portrait of the Fűhrer in the background, flanked on either side by an angry virgin dressed in Nazi gear.

In a way, I’m impressed with the guy’s moxie, addressing a group of people who hate, well, everyone I suppose. As far as a sound electoral strategy, I’m going to go out on a limb here and be the first to say that I think it’s actually just crazy enough to not work. In my estimation, Zirkle is stupid like a fox – a very unsuccessful fox.

Not that Zirkle went there to embrace their message of hate, of course. His original stated purpose was to convert them all to Christianity. “"If you want to witness to people, if you want to share your message with people, you have to talk to them," he stated with a straight face. "By not taking a risk and going out there and addressing issues that your enemies can paint you as a racist or a bigot, then we're never going to address them."

Hey, did any of you catch the Democratic debate the other night? It had seemingly been so long since I had seen one I almost forgot how maddening they are to watch. 

Maybe it’s just how I romanticize my youth, but it seems as though the questions asked during debates seemed like they were a little smarter back then, almost as though the people asking the questions thought that the viewing audience might want to hear a thing or two of substance before the obligatory closing remarks.

Oh how things have changed. Who would have thought that there was more real news on television before the advent of the 24-hour cable news cycle? It used to be that you could turn on the news every evening and see the important things that were going on in the world. Logic would dictate that introducing 24 hours of news on multiple networks (and FOX) that you could really get some in-depth coverage on places like Darfur, and Tibet. Instead you get almost nothing but tabloid news. 

Even the way that the elections are covered on news networks are ridiculous. For example, when was the last time any of you saw a fair assessment of any of the candidates major policies? Which of the candidates has the most effective plans to reduce our debts? To get our economy back on track? To restore our manufacturing base in new green technologies? Who will provide the greatest peace dividend? In other words, which of the remaining three candidates will ease the pursuit of happiness promised to us in the Declaration of Independence?

These are the kinds of things I would like to see from my news coverage when addressing politics. However, after watching this most recent debate, I was perhaps more dismayed than I have been in recent memory regarding our entire electoral process. I heard more questions posed to the candidates regarding personal acquaintances who might have said controversial things in the past, whether the wearing of a flag pin constitutes real patriotism, and whether Hillary really saw sniper fire in Bosnia.

I admit that these kinds of questions are entertaining – largely because they put someone on the spot on live television in the hopes that perhaps one of them will say or do something embarrassing. These are the kinds of questions that get ratings – the kind that keep a few more people sitting through the commercial breaks to see what will happen next.

However, they carry no substance whatsoever. Sure, they might provide a “gotcha” moment or two, but they don’t inform the electorate.

I hear people all the time pontificate as to why so many people in the lower and middle socioeconomic rungs of the ladder are duped into voting against their own self interests over and over again. In Barack Obama’s much ballyhooed “bitter” speech from last week, he cited the use of wedge issues by Republicans to scare people who tend to be more socially conservative that the election of Democrats will take away your God and your guns, and that the nation will somehow magically be populated by an influx of gay married people who publicly do it on a giant American flag.

With the news that the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) will appeal a ruling handed down last week by the courts, it gives one pause to consider why they would have a problem with the new law regarding lobbying. The law in question is the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (HLOGA). In fact, the NAM folks are so verklempt about this ruling they are actually going to seek an emergency stay of the decision. Lets see how one of the NAM faithful spins this shall we? From the piehole of their fearless leader comes this:

"We remain convinced that many of the law's burdensome and intrusive disclosure requirements will have a serious chilling effect on the constitutional rights of our members," said former Michigan Gov. John Engler (R), the NAM's president, in a statement. "We are committed to protecting the rights of everyone in this country, including those who work for manufacturers, to freely associate and to exercise their First Amendment rights without the government interfering with or chilling them."

Oh thats right, their First Amendment rights are being tromped on. Sweet Jesus, how can we allow that?

Well, I'll tell you how, because the rights of the whole trump the rights of a few special interest groups which represent corporations not people, thats how. I am sick to death of these sycophants painting these issues as a 'rights' issue. It's about disclosure, its about shining a sharp beacon of light into the beady rat eyes of the few who wish to push their will and interests on our elected officials. I like how J. Gerald Hebert, Campaign Legal Center Executive Director phrased it in his statement about Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly's ruling last week in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia. Part of his spot-on remarks below:

“The National Association of Manufacturers' (NAM) attempt to gut disclosure provisions of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (HLOGA) was a blatant attempt to keep the public in the dark regarding those who spend huge amounts of money to influence policy anonymously. The court recognized clear precedent that the disclosure provision serves the compelling governmental interest in providing full disclosure of lobbying activity and in protecting the integrity of the legislative process.”

By now many of you have heard that radio talk show Randi Rhodes has quit working for Air America Radio.  Apparently there was a major dispute between Rhodes - the #1-rated liberal talker in the country - and the network because of some things that she said off the air during a promotional tour for her show in San Francisco.  According to reports, it was her use of the word “whore” to describe the behavior being used by people like Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro during the previous few weeks of the Democratic primary process.

I’ll be the first to say that perhaps a better use of words could be chosen in a venue such as this, but the context in which the term was used was not traditional; Rhodes was not implying that either the former first lady or Ms. Ferraro were actual women of the evening (whew), but that the tactics they were using in what will eventually be a failed bid for the Democratic presidential nomination were not in the best interests of either the party itself or the country as a whole.

Still – whore?  I’m thinking sell-out would have been just as appropriate.  However, I’m not the most famous voice on left-leaning radio.  She is, and I’m thinking that she has a better idea of what words work in these types of situations than myself.

However, the ownership of Air America radio is very close with the Clintons, and I am sure that the network received many angry phone calls from die-hard Hillary supporters demanding that she at the very least apologize.

Anyone who has listened to her show over the past couple of months knows that as a matter of practicality, Rhodes has been laying out the electoral math for her listeners contending that Hillary Clinton has almost no shot at securing the nomination.  Based on this premise, I can see how easy it is to determine that tactics used by the Clinton camp to undermine the credibility of Barack Obama as damaging to this country’s chances of electing a Democrat to the White House this fall.

Hey, I’ve been making the same point for perhaps longer, albeit to a much smaller audience.  While I wouldn’t necessarily use the word “whore” to describe the manner in which people are running their respective campaigns, I can certainly see how the term might be applied.  And let’s be honest – I’ve used far worse words than “whore” here to make much less important points.

Still, Air America decided to suspend Rhodes from being on the air for an indefinite period of time.  It looks as though she had been off the air for about a week when it was announced yesterday on the air by Sam Seder, her replacement, that she has indeed left Air America, the largest liberal radio network in the country.

So what happens when the top-rated liberal talker in our country makes a split with the largest liberal radio network in the country?  Simple – she has joined the Nova M radio network, who has decided to let her broadcast her daily show with far fewer restrictions on her speech on its affiliates.  Additionally, I’m sure that many affiliates of Air America will now just contract with her show to continue it in their respective markets.

I can’t really blame Air America per se for suspending Rhodes, but anyone who has heard her show knows that regardless of how your opinion may differ from hers (or even the aggressive manner in which she expresses her opinions) you always know where she stands on an issue, and that she speaks hew mind without the same filters that you or I might use.