Clinton's "tantrum" at Chris Wallace is making more and more sense. As a display of method acting, the man's ability to manipulate his emotions equals anything I've seen from Hollywood. But I do think it was acting. The goal was a display of righteous moral indignation.

And now we know why.

The Republican "moral facade" was soon to collapse.

Spare me. I don't think there was any "moral facade," so much as a claim of a moral facade by people on the left who want to conflate all Republican (and "right of left") opposition into religious conservatism. While it's true that the Republican Party style has traditionally been a "Big Tent," that tent has consisted of many people who disagreed with each other. Some have been vociferous than others. I'm not all that into shouting about what I believe in, and what would be the point anyway? "END THE DRUG LAWS"? "STOP SOCIALISM NOW"? Not very likely, is it? Best to just shut up, hold your nose, and vote.

But in logic, how can the loudest members of a tent be said to constitute a "facade"? Under what theory are the loudest people in charge of everyone else's moral compass? I've always thought that morality is a personal thing and no one is perfect, and that sanctimonious moral posturing isn't a good idea, but I don't see how not being loud coupled with a willingness to compromise constitutes agreement. Nevertheless I am "called a "conservative", and people (such as the complete stranger who knew only that I was voting in the Republican primary) have asked me questions like this:

"You have allowed religious extremists to take over the Republican Party!"

How did I "allow" anything of the sort? Who, might I ask, "allowed" socialists to take over the Democratic Party (to the point where I felt I was wasting my time there)? I was a Democrat for 30 years; did I "allow" that? In all honesty, when I look at the socialist, communitarian, globalist, gun-grabbing, SWAT-team using, super nanny state I can only shake my head, and hope that the Republican Party just might be more likely to slow down its malignant growth.

To vote at all is to compromise, and I've been compromised for decades.

The real moral facade is in both parties. I try to ignore it in the vain hope that it will go away.

What burns me out the most is having to listen to moral lectures which emanate from competing moral facades.

I feel sorry for activist-driven voters who take moral facades seriously. They seem like bulls who think the matador's red cape is the real issue. While the process is discouraging, I like to think that ordinary voters are wisening up. I mean, how long can people fall for a moral facade condemning a moral facade over imaginary sex?

If I said the culture war between reality-based-values and values-based-reality is becoming unendurable, I'd be understating the case.

(But if I placed quotation marks around facade-based words, I'd be making fun of "reality.")