August 26, 2004 by s.z.

Carnival of the Wingnuts

Because sometimes you feel like a nut. 

Let's start our travels into the wide, wide world of wingnuttery at Alan Keyes' Renew America, where we found our first three pundits.

1.  Carey "Gramps" Roberts "is an analyst and commentator on political correctness."  He also specializes in telling feminists a thing or two.  His column for this week is entitled "Lady...or the Tramp?"  It's about how Germaine Greer is responsible for Carey seeing nipples.

As an international best-seller, The Female Eunuch influenced the sexual mores of an entire generation of women. Thanks to the likes of Madonna, Britney, and Janet Jackson, Greer's free love philosophy is beginning to permeate our culture.

The "free love philosophy" is "beginning to permeate our culture"?  Apparently Carey is still living in those heady days of 1970. 

Just look at the way women are parading around these days.

Yes, if women are "parading around these days" in sports bras and "J.C. Penny's thong, hipster, or bikini underwear," then it means they're into free love.  These women are easy lays, so use your best come-on line with one of them and you're sure to get some action!  

The examples I'm about to describe are not what I read about, saw on TV, or heard third-hand from the neighborhood gossip. These are incidents I have personally observed during the past several months.

At the office, well-educated women don the sheerest brassieres and tight-fitting sweaters. Do they really need to prove to their co-workers that they don't suffer from inverted nipples?

Carey, stop going to offices and staring at women's breasts.  You're getting a reputation as a dirty, old man.

2. Selwyn Duke, "tennis professional, internet entrepreneur, and writer" tells us how being a trial lawyer is like gassing Jews.

So that's John Edwards: the shyster's shyster; a poster boy for tort reform. He won 152 million dollars in 63 cases alone, and made more than 26 million for himself in just the four years before he became a senator. Some have said he was just doing his job. Funny, though, that was the defense of some who operated the gas chambers in the Nazi concentration camps. Doing his job? I call it legalized theft.

Let's hope that Serlyn is never on trial for murder -- I doubt that Perry Mason will take his phone calls now.

3.  Next, we have Matthew Diefenbacher, whose column reads like a parody, but who claims to be a real person.

Matthew Diefenbacher was born in Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1971. He is an artist and writer working in various media: painting, photography, and printing. Besides conservative political writings, Mr. Diefenbacher has written two novels, "Crimegates" and "Love and Zero." As editor of The Cherry Point Review, his primary responsibility is to oversee submissions and work with all writers. Mr. Diefenbacher lives in Texas.

And yes, The Cherry Point Review actually exists.  Its homepage features an image of Ann Coulter along with her famous quote about invading, killing, and converting.  It's apparently meant to exemplify the "worthy outlet" of Conservatism in these post-9/11 days.  So, maybe Matthew is just putting us on after all. 

But read some portions of his latest Renew America column and decide for yourself.

John Kerry is not alone in his lukewarm decadence or lack of an internal compass; he is merely a hastily-chosen last resort from the stagnant pool of Liberal scapegoats grown long in their viperous tooth. [...]

But, who can really blame Mr. Kerry? He is reaching for the apex of his political career while fulfilling his lovely wife's burning desire to possess the much-coveted White House china, her upcoming contribution to the annually-updated collection, a charming "Heinz Love 'em to Death" pattern, series 1991.

Yes, Matthew is referencing John Heinz's 1991 death in an airplane crash, and implying that the "lovely" Teresa Heinz-Kerry is responsible for it.  Now you see why I wondered if Matthew was for real.

Mr. Kerry is not alone in his attacks, he is really only a weak pawn for a far more deviant lobby, a party which speaks through twisted scribes and expendable foot soldiers, all facets of a legion who empower their bitter trade with insincere tears shed over enemies and the exceptionally worthless while bracing for an imagined onslaught of Civil Rights "violations" and hallucinated conspiracies aimed allegedly at their pathetic, unwashed ranks.

The Democratic Party and more notably, the underground, Liberal-allied elements are a pestilence rooting to destroy every ounce of reasonable thought and Godly dedication, eating more than their fill, and regurgitating acidic waste in lieu of proper direction of thought or ambition.  

Since Matthew does tend to get carried away in his prose, let me try to simplify the above for you:

John Kerry is just a pawn of the Democratic Party, whose members pretend to care about worthless people and civil rights, and who rarely bathe.  But even worse the liberal underground pestilence, which is trying to destroy all thought, and which eats too much.

Matthew goes on to ask a probing question:

What in your opinion is more moving: President Bush on 9.11 being told the news of the attacks while he sat in a classroom reading to school-children, or images of John Kerry pedaling a ten-speed bicycle (Coincidence: very same month as USA-dominated Tour de France — would he rather he was in Paris instead?) smiling with a rainbow-colored helmet atop his poofy head? If you answered "Why, John Kerry, of course." do I have a candidate for you.

While the videotape of Bush's stunned ineptitude upon being notified that America was under attack can be described as "pathetic" (which can be a synonym for "moving"), should I really vote for a candidate based on how pitiful I find him in times of disaster?

Matthew then abruptly segues into a discussion of slavery reparations. 

What about those 40-acres and a mule though, and the already cashed and spent slavery reparations? Today it is more like at least 4,000 sq. ft. and a new Lexus; "Do not fear, your hard-earned reparations are on the way — just trust us." Welcome to America, Kerry-style where Socialism will be constituted to protect most (some) of us, and where they'll give you whatever you desire (or, at least, they'll tell you they will) and ignore exactly what you will truly need.

Um, Matthew,  Alan Keyes, who owns the website where your column appears, has come out in favor of slavery reparations.  And he's running for the Senate as a Republican, I do believe.  And since you're sounding loonier with each successive paragraph, I think it's time to move to our next wingnut.

4. Speaking of reparations, let's head over to ChronWatch, where Bob Parks will tell us how disappointed he is in Alan Keyes for flip-flopping on this issue.  He also explains how pundits are called to a higher calling than mere politicians, and so, despite everything, Bob has remained true to his opinion that reparations are stupid.

When a person decides to enter the arena of ideas, I would ask him or her to make a simple decision: either be a pundit or a politician.  When one is a pundit and tries to influence the sentiments of others, all he or she has is their word.  Politicians have no such impediment. 

[...]

I watched in awe as [Keyes] delivered incredibly moving speeches during the Clinton impeachment rallies in Washington, D.C.  I saw him make women cry as he put words together in ways that could only be described as genius, and he was ad-libbing…!  It was that Alan Keyes that gave me the fire in the belly to become active in politics and later a columnist.  I knew, as such, I’d have to carefully choose my positions and be ready to stand by them no matter what.  To do otherwise risks credibility, which is all a columnist has. 

Yes, because when you think of credibility, a columnist for ChronWatch is the first thing that comes to mind.  And when you think of making women cry, you think of Keyes.

Anyway, I especially liked Bob's closing note:

Author’s Note:  On Sunday night (8/22) for an early birthday present, my woman took me to see Huey Lewis and the News at the Hampton Casino Ballroom in New Hampshire.  Huey made no political statement and just played the hits.  It can be done.  Kudos. 

Kudos to Mr. Lewis for not politicizing "I Want a New Drug."  And extra props to Bob's woman for getting him such a cool birthday present!

5.  Jack Engelhard's piece "Chris Matthews Re-enacts Shower Scene From 'Psycho'" also reads like a parody, but since Jack is also seemingly a real person (he claims to have written the novel Indecent Proposal), I guess it just goes to show that wingnut truth is just as funny as The Onion.

Chris Matthews, over at MSNBC, must have been off his medication when he took on conservative author Michelle Malkin a few days back on Hardball.  If there's a point where this campaign made a turn, favoring George W. Bush, we saw it happen when Matthews verbally slashed Malkin.  Made you think of that shower scene in ''Psycho,'' except that Matthews uses his tongue for a blade.

I think we all recall that scene where Janet Leigh (who was on the lam after having written a book justifying the internment of American citizens based on ethnicity) is cornered in the shower by Tony Perkins, and then mercilessly stabbed by questions regarding her implied claim that some vets said that Kerry shot himself to get an award and/or get out of the 'Nam.

If you were among the ''undecided'' before, this episode of Bad TV should help you decide.  What you witnessed was this political season's worst moment.  Better yet, a defining moment.  

Earth to Jack: NOBODY was persuaded to vote for Bush after seeing Malkin's pitiful showing on "Hardball."

Matthews was desperate to OUT her.  Malkin tried to explain that she's taking no position.  She's a reporter, so she reports, and that's what these Swift Boat Vets are saying.  That is all.

Michelle Malkin is a reporter???  Jack, are you sure you're thinking of the right person? 

Not good enough, as Matthews clearly went bonkers trying to get her to fess up. Malkin, mostly speechless throughout, remained classy.

I wonder what color the sky is in Jack's world.

Rarely, even in this over-heated political climate, has a host been so rude to a guest. 

In Jack's world, apparently Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity were never born. 

Matthews's ploy backfired.  Never again can we view Matthews as an objective go-between. He must now be seen as a crude partisan. Ditto another alleged ''journalist,'' Keith Olbermann, who later came on and, according to Malkin, trashed her all over again. (Said she made a fool of herself.) 

So, Jack didn't actually see Olbermann, he's just relying on Michelle's account of what occurred.  I guess he's not a reporter like she is!  

Anyway, with this column Jack has joined Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, et. al. in defending Michelle's purported honor. 

Hey, that gives me an idea for a movie -- I call it Idiotic Proposal.  Here's the plot: An allegedly hot young female pundit is humiliated on TV political program when she makes a stupid statement and then is hammered about it by the host.  A horny, middle-aged guy offers to write a column claiming that  her performance was "classy"and the interviewer was the jerk -- if she will sleep with him just once.  She agrees, only later realizing that not only is she now no better than a prostitute, but that she's still a laughing stock.  So, when another guy makes her the same offer, she accepts.  And eventually she's sleeping with men who write for ChronWatch.  But in the end, she goes back to that stupid guy from "Cheers," and they live happily ever after.

P.S. The latest spin is that Kerry never testified that he actually saw all those atrocities in Vietnam.  He was merely repeating, before Congress and the nation, what he heard. 

Yeah, that spin just came out in 1971, Jack.  Thanks for cluing us in to this late-breaking story.

6.  And speaking of people who are living in a land where it takes a really long time for the news to get through, let's go to BushCountry.org, and meet Brian Dotzler ("He currently teaches high school social studies in San Antonio, Texas.")  His column is about how Democrats always tell really stupid lies.

No one can forget the pathetic attempts of Al Gore to convince Americans he was a great deal more accomplished than reality would have us believe. For starters, how did he think he could get away with claiming to have invented the Internet? Or why would he claim to have been the inspiration for the movie Love Story. Of course the granddaddy off them all was Al (Pinocchio) Gore’s claim to have been rocked to sleep while listening to his mother sing the ditty “Look for the Union Label.” This lie wouldn’t have been such a big deal had it not been for the fact that Gore was 27 years old when the song was written. Mrs. Gore must have been one strong, protective mother if she was rocking young Al to sleep at such a … distinguished age.

Brian, you might want to check here, here, and here (among numerous other online resources) before embarassing yourself further.

I’m not sure what’s worse: The fact that these politicians are lying or the fact that they think we Americans are so stupid as to NOT be able to uncover the truth.

Sometimes irony can be so ironical.

Anway. having demonstrated that he is not one of those Americans who can be readily hoodwinked, Brian goes on to swallow the SwiftVets claims.  He addresses the "Christmas in Cambodia" story.

And when you add in the fact that Kerry claims to have been sent by President Nixon into Cambodia during Christmas of 1968, the picture becomes VERY clear. President Nixon, though elected in 1968, wasn’t inaugurated until January of 1969, and eyewitnesses place John Kerry nowhere near Cambodia in 1968.

Would those be eye-witnesses like John "I was never in Camodia either" O'Neill?  Oh, and you might want to check out this Fred Kaplan piece before commenting on the clarity of the picture.

But even more embarrassing is the fact that the Kerry campaign has tried to spin the story even further, explaining to the public that Kerry’s mission into Cambodia actually occurred in 1969 as opposed to 1968. The only problem with that story is that John Kerry left Vietnam in March of 1969, nine before he claims to have been engaged in mortal combat with Khmer Rouge forces.

Um, Brian, the claim is that Kerry's missions occurred in January and February 1969.  January and February come before March.  (I don't know what Brian's "nine before" refers to, though.)

(By the way, the Khmer Rouge didn’t begin its assault on the Cambodian government until the 1970’s. Can you imagine how gullible the American people must look in John Kerry’s eyes?)

Some history for you, Brian:

1965 --  US escalation of Vietnam War; Vietnamese communist forces increasingly seek sanctuary in Cambodia. Sihanouk breaks relations with USA, while continuing to crack down on domestic communists and other dissenters. 

1967 -- Pol Pot group of Cambodian communists ('Khmer Rouge') launch an insurgency against Sihanouk in northwest Cambodia. Brutal government repression.

And then:

In February 1969, General Creighton Abrams, the commander of U.S. forces in Vietnam, requested permission to attack Vietnamese troops inside Cambodia. President Richard Nixon quickly agreed, and on March 18, 1969, American B-52s launched the first of many secret bombing raids over Cambodia.

But back to Brian:

If John Kerry and those like him had any decency they would at least construe stories with some complexity. [...] We may not expect our politicians to be perfect, but we should IN THE LEAST demand that when they tell lies, they tell us good ones. Not all of us are brains surgeons, but we’re not nearly as stupid as they think we are.  

Yeah, Brian isn't NEARLY as stupid as you think he is!  As he has proven in his column today. 

Anyway, that's our Carnival for today.  I hope you find it as Onion-like as I did.

5:30:58 AM