Friday, October 01, 2004

Out-Cornering The Corner Itself

David "I'm not rightwing" Neosporin's hilariously BizzaroWorld, "stream of consciousness" take on the debate:

The entire focus of the debate as framed by Jim Lehrer was to focus on what Bush had done right and wrong. Lehrer wanted Bush to defend his record and Kerry to attack it, and both people obliged. Very few questions were asked about what Kerry would do.

Kerry's crack about the New York City subways made no sense.

How long did it take Bush to learn to pronounce "Kwasniewski"? He got that right, but couldn't pronounce "mullah"?

Leaving aside the fact that Kerry is delusional if he thinks he can get more international help, Bush was right to point out that Kerry is doubly insane if he thinks he can say that this was the wrong war, that it has made everything worse, and then try to enlist others to join in.

Federalism is deader than Francisco Franco. Why would the U.S. government be concerned with firehouses in the United States?

Kerry flip flops during the debate. During one paragraph of the debate. He thinks unilateral action against Iran is bad, but he thinks unilateral action against North Korea is good.

Kerry thinks that Iraq didn't pose a threat to us, but he thinks Darfur does? It may be a tragedy, but how exactly is it an imminent threat?

Kerry thinks Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror, but he thinks global warming does.

There were no Bush gaffes

This is quintessential Neosporin: the thorough lack of humor, the idiocy, the dishonesty, the unfairness, the delusion (federalism is dead). Did he actually watch the same debate everyone else did? Yeah, probably. But then the BizzaroWorld exists not on the TV in his living room, but in the melon pulp in his cranium.

All of these are obvious in their spin, wrongheadedness, dishonesty and/or insanity save one, which I'll reply to. I don't recall that Bush actually pronounced "Kwasniewski" correctly, as Neosporin claims. Rather, Bush pronounced it correctly in an Anglo way, enunciating the "w"s in the English but not in the Slavic manner, which sounds like a "v". This is roughly analogous to pronouncing a Spanish name like "Castillo" using the Anglo "l" sound rather than the Spanish "y" sound. This is no big deal except that Neosporin made it one, by implying that Bush is smart enough to get tough names right, so it was an oversight that he pronounced "mullah" in a bovine fashion.

Neosporin has been busy elsewhere (Yes, this blog shall be renamed NeosporinWatch), namely on Rodger A. Payne's blog. Mr Payne plainly doesn't know who he's dealing with, but I'm touched by such innocent good faith on his part: he doesn't know Neosporin like I do. Still, it's nice to see Payne, in his methodical way, demolish Neosporin's witless drivel.

Might I be a gent and offer Mr Payne a few pointers?

1. Neosporin is notorious for asserting that an opinion different from his is a "lie". He does this in his comments on the Debate above but it's a perennial weapon for him.

2. Neosporin, no matter what insanely conservative or reactionary policy he may advocate -- and they are legion -- gets rather irrate when someone calls him a rightwinger. Just why this bothers him is a mystery to some, but perfectly clear to others. I shall be helpful: it's because a) He dislikes religious fundies with the exception of the Rabbi Kahane/Koch-Moledat Party thugs in Israel b) He thinks he's much too complex a political thinker to be encumbered by such a plain label and c) Probably corollary to b, he enjoys the convenience of using Libertarianism as a shield, much like other "conservatarians" like The Perfessor, Postrel and Volokh.

3. He has a long history of throwing around the basest of libels which, as is typical, he was unable to come up with on his own, but instead culled from sources like those listed above, Sully, and The Pod. Specifically, "America Hater", "Saddam Lover", "Useful Idiot", "Buchannonite" (aimed at leftists), "Communist" (anyone to the left of Clinton) and "antisemite" (anyone critical of Israel's Government or AIPAC or anyone taking up for Palestinians). There are more, but these are just what I remember of so many lobbed with a sissy arm at me. At any rate, after tossing these things out, he then affects disbelief, even shock, when decorum is "breached" that one counters this crap by calling him what he is: a proto- or crypto- fascist jackass, a fraud, and a hypocrite.

4. He loves to dig up long-discredited nuggets from the past to wield in an ungainly fashion by which he hopes to draw blood if he flails long enough. For instance, in digging up the Kissingerist/Thatcherite lie of Plan Z, via which he hopes to make plausible his frequently circulated opinion that Allende had it coming, and that the US was right to aid (actually, create) a coup.

5. His habit is to contanstly and overtly defend Cold War actions in the Third World -- Chile, Honduras, Guatemala, Iran, Vietnam, etc ALL OF THEM -- but refuses to be associated with the perpetrators he defends (i.e. he gets angry if you then call him a Kissingerite). It's a facile lawyer's trick used in the attempt at avoiding taking a clear position, which is precisely what he accuses Kerry of.

He knows I could go on as well as he knows that I can easily produce evidence for all of it. He also knows that I take delight in his frustrations; he's hilarious. So remember to laugh at him (it might help to picture him as the socially-inept Randian nerd that he is). Also bear in mind that often what he pretends to have old, broad knowledge of was in fact just googled minutes before. Hope this helps. At any rate, it was great fun to write.