Wednesday, October 15, 2008

More Weirdness from RedState

RedState is still full of weird, weird people. Up first is a post by one of my favorite wingnuts, Moe Lane, entitled :sing-song: "A-CORN'S scared of Mc-Cain, A-CORN'S scared of Mc-Cain..." Apparently, ACORN is scared of McCain because they put out a statement that pointed out that McCain once supported ACORN and went to a few of their events in 2006; which was enough to inspire Moe into verse.

Now, a normal person might think this is a sign that McCain should be scared of ACORN, for ever having associated with such a radical anti-American organization like ACORN. And in fact, the Michelle Malkin post that Moe linked to did indeed suggest that this was a bad thing for McCain. But in his attempt to make Malkin look like a rational thinker, Moe flips everything around and somehow imagines that this is a sign of weakness from ACORN. No, I don't understand that either.

But of course, as is typical with wingnuts, he then decides to say the opposite and suggests that ACORN did this in an attempt to make conservatives "despondent" and scared. Gee, I thought that was what McCain's flailing campaign was doing to them. So in Moe's reality, ACORN did this because they're scared, and because they want to scare conservatives, who they think are "stupid that way." Of course.

Moe Wins!! Moe Wins!!

But the reality is that RedState's Moe Lane is simply one of those weirdos who can't imagine that he's not holding all the cards and isn't always winning at everything. So his brain feverishly invents odd rationalizations to explain how everything works to his advantage, even if these rationalizations are entirely contradictory.

Sure, people who are accustomed to having success in life don't usually find it necessary to invent success at every corner to compensate for the failures that seem to be plaguing them, but I guess after all the harsh realities conservatives have faced in the past eight years, they've got to take what they can get. And if that means converting fantasy into reality in order to rationalize one's success, so be it.

For example, an ACORN press release that hurts McCain is perceived as an obvious sign of weakness, which can also be used to rally conservatives. There is no attempt to even suggest how this shows ACORN's weakness or why conservatives would need to rally against this sign of weakness or why conservatives need to be rallied when faced with truths. There is simply Moe's assertion that this is the case.

Similarly, we saw this in my last post about Moe, in which Moe fantasized that a Spanish-language ad linking McCain to Rush Limbaugh was a bust for Obama because Limbaugh might not choose to get angry about it; even though Limbaugh had, in fact, already discussed the ad before. And again, the idea is that the whole purpose of the Spanish-language ad was to enrage conservatives, and that it was better for Limbaugh to ignore the ad that attacked him and McCain, rather than to let Obama win by pushing back against it. And this was enough to bring great joy to Moe's heart. Somehow, the idea that the ad might cause Hispanics to vote for Obama seemed to have eluded Moe.

And as an added bonus, there was an anonymous message on that post, which was purportedly from Moe, in which he suggests that he won again because I pointed out his mistakes in my post. As Anonymous Moe said "Posts like this tell me that I'm doing my job properly." Apparently, Moe's "job" is to write bizarro posts that have no basis in reality or rational thought. If so, you're doing a heckeva job, Moe.

Weird Weird Weird

And for our truly bizarro RedState post, I give you Mark Kilmer's Joe McCain: "Free John McCain!" It's a post about how McCain's brother Joe thinks his campaign made a big mistake by cutting off the media, which is something I agree with entirely.

If there was a Republican who the media loved, it was John McCain. And this was McCain's strongest asset and what allowed him to capture the nomination. Essentially, Steve Schmidt traded in both of McCain's knights for pawns and imagines he was the cleverest person in the world for doing so. And all because Schmidt's playbook insisted that knights were a curse; what, with all that complicated moving they do and everything. It was much easier to plan things by putting a few extra blocking pieces in the way.

And Kilmer seems to agree with that completely, so much so as to imply that the media never really liked John McCain. They were just using him because they hated Republicans so much. And this is all in accordance with the conservative idea that anyone who doesn't strictly adhere to party guidelines is clearly working for the enemy. If you're not carrying water for Dear Leader, you're carrying water against him; or something like that. And in Kilmer's post, he's got some really odd statements.

First off, we've got a really weird suggestion that, had McCain won the GOP nomination in 2000, the media would have dropped McCain "like hot bricks" and supported Kerry or Dean. I would have assumed he would have faced Gore, especially in that neither Kerry or Dean were even running for the nomination in 2000; but I would be mistaken. So even though the media liked McCain more than Bush, and liked Bush far more than Gore, Kerry, or Dean; the media would have hated McCain as the GOP nominee. Apparently, the rules of Rock, Paper, Scissors apply in politics too.

The Gibber Talk Express

And here's a bit of indecipherable nonsense from Kilmer:

"The press, for the most part, like good stories and lean to the left, so Obama is their man. An straight-talking war Navy pilot with a back story lauded by people who love America is cannot touch that."

Granted, I get the impression that this was a re-written sentence from something else, but what, I can't tell. And so the media loves good stories, but doesn't like McCain's back story lauded by people who love America. "Is cannot touch that."?? WTF???

Or this:

"Should Steve Schmidt and friend have allowed McCain to open up to the media. Intuitively, it would seem so, but we are not running this campaign. I know that John McCain reached the national position he had in large part because of his straight talk. That willingness was what separated him from so many other politicos, include Barack Obama. You don't strip that for a campaign."

What?? I can't even begin to figure out how to rewrite that paragraph. It's almost as if he imagines the "straight talk" didn't involve the media or something. As if he thinks McCain would have needed to sacrifice his straight talk if he wanted to talk to the media; completely unaware that this IS what the straight talk consisted of.

And really, the most bizarro thing about RedState is that they've completely reinvented John McCain. While Michelle Malkin still holds firm to some anti-McCain feelings due to his pro-immigration stance and other conservative heresies, RedState seems to have deleted those sections of their memory banks. It's as if the selection of Sarah Palin was enough to convince them that he was one of them the whole time, and the former John McCain never existed.

Weird, weird, weird. I'd assume the latest polls were really starting to get to them, but as we all know, poll results are only accurate if they conform to what we already know to be true. Otherwise, they're just more lies.

1 comment:

Nellcote said...

re:ACORN What next costumes? Oh wait-

http://wonkette.com/403532/acorn-squirrel-furries-attack-new-york-city

They're putting some hard core memory erase in the koolaid these days. How else to explain the complete denial of the last 8 years of gop rule?