Sadly, No!

In 1959 when I wrote [The Best Man], the Democratic candidates for the nomination [included…] Adlai Stevenson… who was being smeared as a homosexual — and an indecisive one to boot….

When I based the character of the wicked candidate in the play on Richard Nixon, I thought it would be amusing if liberal politicians were to smear unjustly that uxorious man as a homosexual. I was promptly condemned by a conservative columnist who said that my plot was absurdly melodramatic since no man could rise to any height in American politics if he were thought to be a fag. Yet this same columnist used to delight in making coy allusions in print to Stevenson’s lack of robustness.

— Gore Vidal, “Political Melodramas”, New Statesman, 1973

What Adlai Stevenson had to endure then, John Edwards has endured for a good while lately. Here’s an example from 2004:

OK just caught debate rerun on CNN. What can one say about John Edwards’s performance? He certainly did not make Al Gore’s error in 1996: With his repeated and worshipful descriptions of John Kerry—not to mention Edwards’s moist good looks—you have to say that he would fill the role of First Lady much better than Teresa Heinz is likely to do.

And until lately, that sort of smear-job — indecent but ‘civil,’ as is to be expected from one of Dear Leader’s speechwriters — has sufficed for even Ann Coulter. Then she upped the ante at CPAC; she said the first worst-word that had always been in flashing in the wingnut hivemind when the subject at hand was John Edwards, but never stated: ‘faggot’.

For wingnuts, John Edwards is weak, puny, submissive, girly. So they characterize him as effeminate and faggoty, homophobia and misogyny being the vehicles through which Reichwing Super Macho Manliness (singlehandedly defending Western Civ against the Muslim Horde) instinctively expresses itself. Coulter’s epithet for Edwards is new, but her sentiment — which is what really matters — has been passed around the WingNet so many times it’s nearly careworn. But for plainly and crudely stating what the WingNet has always thought — and continues to think — about John Edwards specifically, and by extention, liberals in general, Coulter has inspired precious little substantive criticism, some ‘criticism,’ and several outright defences — as she herself predicted. Mostly, she has politically (but emphatically not morally) embarassed them. Mostly, wingnuts agree with her sentiments, but disdain the style and regret the venue in and at which she saw fit to communicate them. The following is a list of ‘shorter’ versions of wingnut responses, more or less at random.

Read the rest of this entry »

Hearken, reader, for you are about to witness an ironic ‘Gasp! Could it be?’ construction followed by the simulated dashing of the writer’s hopes — a combination justly known for producing that timeless frisson which is ever the font of laughter:

Matthews: Press Coverage of the Libby Trial “Isn’t Quite Accurate”

Just heard on MSNBC:

MATTHEWS: One of the ways the press has covered this isn’t quite accurate.

Gasp! Could it be? Is Matthews finally to admit, now that a jury has found Scooter Libby guilty of perjury, that his and his colleagues’ coverage of the case has been unfair, inaccurate and colored by their obsessive loathing for Dick Cheney?

MATTHEWS: Scooter Libby wasn’t just chief of staff to the vice president. He was assistant to the president. And yet the president seems to have been completely exonerated for his behavior.

Wait for it; it’s money. Here it comes, yo:

Of course not.

Video here.

It gets us every time!

Bonus points to Spruiell for linking to his own posts as evidence, as they essentially consist of Spruiell seeing something trivial on TV and making comments like, ‘The liberal media strikes again. What a bunch of liberals.’

Okay, I realize there’s no point tracking the depths to which Ann Coulter will sink, but I thought I’d at least point out that scamp crawling around on the floor, trying to glimpse himself some Ann Coulter upskirt:

Lucky kid. We don’t know how you feel about those things, but we can’t hardly think of a worse fate than to grow up having to call that effeminate ambulance chaser “dad.”

This “lucky kid,” you should be aware, is John Edwards’ son Wade, who was killed in a car crash at age 16. I’ll pause while you wince, and then I’ll throw the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler a bone. After all, in the name of civility he made it all the way through his post without cursing. I know I can’t fucking do that. Figuring himself on some sort of roll, Emperor Misha unfurls a few thousand words on what worked with Coulter’s joke and what didn’t, apparently in the persona of a cartoon villain rubbing his hands together as he explains his brilliant scheme:

Oh, it was a most brilliant jab at the pissy pants on the PC left and their hyperventilating hysterics and demands that everybody who doesn’t follow their playbook regarding what you can and cannot think and say should go to re-education camp, but the problem with it was that it required too much thinking to figure out what she was jabbing AT.

That’s never good when you’re trying to be snarky and deliver a piercing, funny, sarcastic blow. You need it to hit right where it hurts without having to print a road map with annotations to accompany it.

While Misha’s word choices come from the batch I reserve for ransom notes and such, I won’t judge. Humor is a high highly subjective thing, and I could practically hear the writer’s hoots and cackles as I read.

Meanwhile, over at the Jawa Report, someone else with a ridiculous name agrees with “Cap’n” Ed Morrissey that civility starts with the man in the mirror, but quickly shifts gears to place Coulter in a long line of “incivil” disobedience:

If civility is the touchstone, one could rightfully criticize Jesus Christ for his uncivil treatment of the moneychangers in the temple. Whatever your definition of “civility,” I doubt it includes lashing a man with a bullwhip (without his consent, anyway).

If “civility” is what we’re really after, then we might want to rethink those troublesome protesters carrying off the Boston Tea Party. Mocking Native Americans and destroying private property? Quite uncivil.

Dang, dude. Jealous much?

Mark Levin, legal expert and bestselling author, dissects the Libby verdict for the keen and demanding readership of the National Review:

Above: ‘Shorter’ is a mere decriptor

I think the Cooper counts were flimsy. I think the whole case was flimsy. I think the witnesses were flimsy. I think the judge’s rulings, in certain respects, were flimsy. I think Fitzgerald’s closing argument was flimsy. I’ve written and talked about these points at length. This case doesn’t stand for the truth when jurors are confused about instructions and basic concepts like “reasonable doubt” days and hours before handing down their verdict, after 9-10 days of deliberation. I’m sure I’ll have more to say later.

We can count on that! And Mark “Klinton Konspiracy” Levin knows from flimsy — this bit of emboldened stupidity is, believe it or not, from July of 2006:

To the extent possible, through depositions and document production, Cheney and Lewis’s lawyers should get to the bottom of the real scandal, e.g., who exactly is Valerie Plame, what was her role in sending her husband to Niger, who were all of her contacts, what media sources did she speak to, what politicians did she speak to, and on and on. And the same with her husband.

Coming up from Levin, circa April 2007:

We need to get to the bottom of the real Walter Reed scandal, e.g., who is Walter Reed? What is his obsession with wounded soldiers? Who are all his contacts and what media sources has he spoken to, and on and on. And the same with his wife.

Already the Fitzmas-related tantrum activities are beginning. Mark R. Levin whines. And whines more. K-Lo blubbers sarcastically. But David Frum’s, so far, are the loudest sobs to be heard through my whiskey tumbler held on the other side here of the WingNet wailing wall: ‘Perjury?! What about the Clenis???’

Heehee. Wait. Lemme adjust… Get my ear against the glass. Ahh:

‘Blargh! BLARGH!!! DC is full of idiot liberals! This jury never would have convicted were it convened in Indianapolis! Pardon them all, Dear Leader, Pardon them all, now!!! Waaaaaaaahhhhhh!!!’

Mmmm, the heavenly flavor of wingnut tears. Lemme taste ’em, wingnuts! Oh yes, they’re so delicious!

Update: This amendment to the English language just in, via comments:

Borneo writes:
It’s so cute how you try to pretend that this trial and conviction have anything to do with CIA leaks or in any way represent a victory for your kind. You all are just precious.

The term, ‘CIA leaks,’ shall henceforth refer to government leaks in retaliation against CIA agents, such as the head of the bureau’s Iraq counterproliferation desk, rather than leaks which originate with the CIA.

Accordingly, the publishing of officially-suppressed government documents and testimony in newspapers such as the New York Times shall be referred to as ‘George W. Bush Administration’ leaks, and no longer as ‘treasonous traitor terrorist-treason kill-agh! hate hate head-explode destroy-liberals bwahahaha! die-die kill exterminate’ leaks.

Liberals shall, however, remain precious, each like a unique and dazzling snowflake.

Seb adds: There’s always time for the Chewbacca Defense, via Victoria Toensing:

I am totally surprised, because the verdict is inconsistent. That doesn’t bother the law at all; the courts don’t care if verdicts are inconsistent, because they say whichever way the jury reached the decision, that’s up to the jury. But practically, the verdict is inconsistent because if you’re looking at this, you would either think Scooter Libby had decided to lie to the FBI and the grand jury, or he did not. And it seems to me rather strange that it’s split. Oh, in the one situation talking to the FBI, he did not, and in the others, he did. It doesn’t make sense. [Emphasis added]

Gathering of Eagles countdown
By Michelle Malkin
March 05, 2007

12 more days until The Gathering of Eagles in Washington, D.C.

Are you ready?

Indeed.

Bradrocket adds: I’m sure they’ll come prepared for battle.

Gavin adds: The heroes are fully equipped.

I opened a can of cat food and the cats all came running. It was a signal that there was something silly going on over at Blogs For Bush.

The Great Global Warming Swindle
By Mark Noonan at 03:38 PM […]

What I’d like, once again, our global warming enthusiasts to answer for me:

1. What makes a person a climate scientist?

2. How many such people are there in the world?

3. How was it determined that 90% of them subscribe to anthropogenic global warming?

If these questions cannot be answer with precision, then the alleged consensus on global warming is bogus – and as this consensus is held up as the supposedly unanswerable argument in favor of global warming…

This is ironic, because we were digging through Mark Noonan’s trash last week, and we found some of his old college math and science tests.

Above: A typical test question

We’ll go with ‘degree in climatology’ for #1, Mark. Here to explain is Melanie Morgan at World Net Daily:
Read the rest of this entry »

Steve Gilliard is in the hospital, and we’ve been sneakily hoarding posts for his site to help keep it warm and fully-charged for when he gets home. There are a couple-three in the queue waiting to go.

Check in and see who turns up: Driftglass, Majikthise, and Athenae of First Draft are already there hanging out.

When Malkin’s people raised a hysterical victim shriek yesterday about Mike Stark’s visit to the Conservative Political Action Conference, they apparently didn’t realize he had a pocket recorder with him. Because today we find this attempt to displace the raw-spoken Ann Coulter as Queen Bee:

The CPAC I saw
By Michelle Malkin
March 04, 2007 11:15 AM

[…]

There are countless conservatives who bring their children to CPAC. It’s a family-friendly event. I brought mine last year and the year before. I met several parents with their kids there this year. We expect CPAC to be a place where conservative role models speak with clarity, passion, and integrity. There are enough spewers of mindless filth, vulgarity, and hatred on TV, at the movies, and in the public schools. We don’t expect our children to be exposed to that garbage at the nation’s preeminent conservative gathering.

Whereas, here’s Malkin chatting with Mike Stark at CPAC:

Stark: “What happened, Michelle?

Malkin: “Some punks from the Nation came, and they ambushed me at my book signing.”

Stark: “Heh, that’s real professional.”

Malkin: “Yeah. Such chickenshits.”

Stark: “What did they do?”

Malkin: “Uh, they had a video camera, and they, uh, started, uh, lambasting my book. Assholes. I’m sorry, I’m just like, cursing. It’s made me [unintelligible]. ”

Above: Audio enhanced via SadlySoft

Also see Michelle’s spastic video freakout, courtesy Max Blumenthal at The Nation!

Update: Transcript corrected by Mike Stark. (Mike’s site has gone down hard. These mysterious denial-of-service attacks are very mysterious.)