Original post can be found here and is response to my post.

To profess that you stand for all free speech and then demand that someone steps down after making outrageous statements is not a contradiction.  I believe that people should be free to make stupid remarks, and that they should be free to suffer the consequences of those remarks, but I, for one, will always defend that persons right to express their opinion.

On supporting only the issues that support my political gain.  I, for one, have not heard much controversy about the D.C. Voucher program in particular, however I can say that, if it is successful, it should not be removed.  My political opposition to vouchers in Utah derived from the manor and policy associated with it.  My political viewpoint is based on core ideals and concepts of what I think government should be and do – Vouchers were bad in Utah because they unduly harmed public education and the poor, not because I am opposed to competition in education per se.

I am not opposed to the concept of “big government” when it means that government is able to accomplish something that smaller governments are not able or willing to accomplish – however those who are opposed to the concept of “big government” tend to state that their opposition stems from a political philosophy wherein local areas always know what is best.

In short (and in all fairness to use the most extreme case) my philosophy allows for the abolishment of slavery whereas the other allows it to pass. Carry this forward to the Chaffetz situation and his political philosophy prohibits him from interfering with local decisions whereas mine does not.  The moment Chaffetz interferes, he becomes a hypocrite – the moment I do, it is because I allow for exceptions to be made on issues.

True, in this case, I would not choose to interject national politics into local because it supports my political ideologies, but if someone somewhere were to come up with a law I fundamentally disagreed with, I would not be a hypocrite for perusing a national standard against that law.

In short, Chaffetz is a hypocrite because he does not stick to his ideals.  By standing by Regan and his ideals “fully” he implies that he wishes to contract the federal government and the role it plays in our daily lives.  It is fair to call him out on his inconsistency.