The twisted view of the left: Pitts - Obama's "necessary hypocrisy."

Face it, Leonard Pitts is a race-based apologist for the left.

There.  I wrote it.

Pitts, who has been on the descent in the realm of credibility since the day after his undeniably brilliant column written shortly after 9/11, wrote the rather nonsensical cannard that the President's hypocrisy is, well, just a-OK.  Is that bizarre position politicaly-based... or race-based?

When it comes to race-based victimization, Mr. Pitts is hard to beat:

Monday, January 09, 2012
Syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts: every effort to instill accountability in to our voting system is racist.

More properly titled: "The ongoing effort to make sure the democrats get the illegal and illegal alien vote," the very idea of holding ALL people to the SAME standard is beyond the comprehension of the inculcated, "I'm a victim" class of minorities in this country.

Hold them accountable like non-minorities (meaning white men, because every other class IS a "minority") and these clowns whip out the racist card EVERY FRICKING TIME.

The result? You get people like Pitts, who's one moment of glory was his column the day after 9/11, lying through their collective teeth, claiming that those who have no license, no bank accounts, no welfare checks are being "disenfranchised" by laws like South Carolina's ID law. You get monumental whining, bitching, sniveling and the like.

What you don't get are solutions to the problem because people like Pitts don't believe there IS a problem

More:

We've all been regaled with Obama's lack of integrity on these (and a variety of other) issues concerning money, even though it's also been said that the president will spend in excess of one billion dollars to get re-elected.

We've also been shown the video of Mr. Obama violating every known protocol by wrongly chastising the Supreme Court because they didn't rule the way he wanted in Citizens United, the case that has ultimately led to the so-called "Super Pacs" (What the rest of the political world refers to as "union politics")  and his alleged disdain for that sort of thing; now, whole-heartedly embraces the effort.

What I find problematic with that approach is that we now have established, with the support of the media, that situational ethics are justifiablewhen the practitioner is of the correct political persuasion; that the establishment of a principle can be over-ridden by other events... which, of course, means the "principle" established was, in fact, never really established at all; except, of course, to set this excuse for hypocrisy up in the first place.

Genuine integrity is not situational.  One either is, or is not a person of integrity.  There's no gray area.  One runs on a political platform designed to set forth a true perspective or a vision (say, for example, running on a platform of opposition to tolling... or running on a platform of promising to use public campaign funds... or condemning Super Pacs.) when it's convenient... only to throw it all out the window, when the TOSSING becomes convenient.

Obama's media army will do his bidding anyway.  Many blacks, who voted for him in overwhelming numbers because he shares 1/2 of that genetic trait, will do all they can to defend his actions, no matter how indefensible they are... and many of them, in fact, ARE indefensible.

Not the least of which is hypocrisy. 

And in this case, if all the money the president is concerned about corrupting the system was such a big issue then.... then it certainly remains a big issue now... the president's hypocrisy notwithstanding.

To that end, there really is no such thing as "necessary hypocrisy," except to those comfortable with the concept of hypocrisy in situational ethics... such as Mr. Pitts.