Laying the Smack Down

Great comment in David Mamet's piece (although I think he misconstrued Mamet's intent in rehashing all the liberal bds talking points), Why I am No Longer a 'Brain Dead' Liberal, in Village Voice last week:

Gregg Calkins on Wed Mar 12, 2008, 13:21, says:

David Mamet's actually come a long way, but I wonder how much further along he might be without the obligatory Bush-bashing which includes a suspension of rational thought?

For instance, HOW did Bush steal Florida, especially in comparison with the way that Kennedy stole Chicago? If your reflexive answer is via the Supreme Court, isn't this a trifle different than Chicago back-room dead-voters politics? For one thing, Bush didn't even need to go to the Supreme Court in the first place, because he WON the original Florida vote count.

It might seem foolish to some to argue that Bush later stole something he already owned, so what did he do, rig the original count? No, the polls were controlled by Democrats at that time and the infamous 'butterfly ballot' was designed and approved by Democrats. Some claim that he prevented blacks from voting, but the complainers never showed this to actually be the case and finally had to back down on that one.

Let alone asking how, WHY should Bush steal something he already owned, the Florida original count? Why would Bush go to the Supreme Court and ask them to uphold a victory he already had? The answer, of course, is that he didn't. Gore protested the original count, appropriately and sensibly, and also within the rules. The wrangling took place over what votes would be recounted, with the Gore team wishing only a very selective recount, and eventually Gore filed a lawsuit which worked its way all the way up to the Supreme Court before it was finished, the way contentious lawsuits do when lower courts decide this way and that during the proceedings.

And did the Supreme Court rule that Bush won, as Liberals believe? Well, no, it did not. Essentially the USSC said that if Gore wanted a recount, that was fine, but that the Constitution, silly old document, said that if you were going to do that, then ALL of the votes had to be recounted, not just a selected few of those you considered to be your friends. Oh.

In practice, however, the total recount could not be done because time had run out. But this meant the original winner, Bush, remained the winner. Bush was the winner at all times throughout the entire process, from beginning to end.

Since the only way you can get 'stole' out of this is by the application of Liberal Logic, this writer is still a brain-dead liberal despite his protestations.

Nor did Bush "out" a CIA agent, as testimony at the end of the struggle clearly showed that Valerie Plame's identity had first been revealed to the press by a State Department apparatchik who was definitely no friend of either Bush or his administration; in fact quite the opposite. Like losing your virginity, a CIA agent can be outed only once. In fact, one of the reasons that Valerie no longer worked in the field was because she had already been outed years earlier by convicted rogue agent Gary Powers. Oh.

Did Bush 'lie' about his military service? What did he say? He said that he served honorably in the National Guard, completed his obligation, and was honorably discharged afterward. Some argued that he did not put in all of the time required by his obligation, but in the end their argument was never substantiated...by them or anyone else. And the complaint did not argue that Bush did not serve at all, or was not really a qualified fighter pilot, but that he MISSED SOME MEETINGS! Dan Rather's fall came about because in a desperate attempt to substantiate their argument, his people came up with forged documents to support their case.

Now if Bush had come up with forged documents then you'd have a real complaint worthy of being called a 'lie', but as it happened, Bush signed a release allowing all of his military records to be released to the press and the public. All of them. And what did they show? They showed that he fulfilled his obligation, just like he claimed.

Again, it's hard to find a 'lie' in this without the application of Liberal Logic.

(There was a corollary complaint that Bush pulled strings to get to the head of the waiting-line of applicants for the limited number of National Guard openings available. As it turned out, there was no waiting list for pilot applicants, probably because so few were qualified and also because the job was, well, dangerous. National Guard pilots, like all military pilots, get killed all too frequently. Nevertheless, that canard is probably also still part of the Liberal catechism.)

And equating the Saudis, a foreign country and a major source of America's imported oil, with the Mafia, a domestic criminal institution and a major source of America's imported illegal drugs...well...

Well, I'm afraid that our brain-dead liberal is still with us.

Hat tip: The Anchoress

Also from The Anchoress: