A textbook example of what passes for valid rebuttal by the right

In response to John Beydler's rational and reasonable column making the observation that Bush is an idiot, a right-winger who obviously thinks he's clever (don't they all?) responded thusly in a letter to the editors. My response is within the letter.

Letter: `Idiot' column confirms `partisan hack' status
John Beydler's column of Sept. 3 confirms his status as another partisan hack. How so? By simply pointing out that a bumbling, disconnected, unconcerned goof is an idiot? That's hardly a partisan position these days. Have you been looking around lately? Over half the country thinks Bush is a clueless bumbler in his response to the Katrina disaster.

Always anxious to point the finger of blame, always quick to resort to name calling and insult lobbing, always prepared to manipulate the facts to make their myopic interpretation of reality somewhat believable to others, the liberal left should try to focus that effort to offering legitimate ideas and alternatives.

Ahhhh. Here we have a bit of core boilerplate which the right always trots out. This rightie has learned well. First, as if you're just Sooooo sensitive and refined, attack anyone who dares to express the depths of their feelings by using a derogatory term to refer to Bush. Evidently, those on the right are so painfully refined that to do so renders the person who expresses it automatically a "partisan hack." Nice tactic, but they've truly worn it out from overuse.

Sure, when you write a piece or reply that is almost nothing but mindless invective, it's stupid and doesn't have a valid point. The right have gotten this sort of verbal diarrhea down to an art. Ann Coulter and other conservative fem-bots and bottom feeders have made millions from it. But pointing out that the Pres is an idiot and laying out the reasons why doesn't disqualify one from having a valid and reasonable view.

For a while, the big buzz-word on the right was charging anyone critical of Bush as suffering from "irrational Bush hatred." The simple fact is that there most definitely is such a thing as RATIONAL Bush hatred. Or if not hatred, surely extreme distaste and disgust. To suggest that anyone who thinks Bush is a buffoon and says so is automatically not to be taken seriously is irrational itself.

Next from the right-wing textbook is to make an accusation that the party who dares reveal that the emperor has no clothes is "manipulating the facts". That's a fair charge, especially when you back it up with specific examples which show how this is indeed the case. But in the literally thousands of instances of this charge being leveled by those on the right, they never quite get around to the part where they explain just WHERE the offending writer distorted or manipulated the facts. Isn't that curious? You'd think it would be easy, since they toss off the charge so casually and often.

Here we must also highlight another tactic repeated ad nauseum by the robotic right. This rule, which they've parroted from every AM talk radio host and right wing shill in the past 25 years, dictates that ANYONE who offers even the mildest criticism of Bush or who simply dares to question the wisdom of his policies or leadership, is automatically, instantly, to be labeled "extreme left", "radical left", "far left", etc. No matter how true the observation or criticism may be, no matter how legitimate the question, if it knocks Bush even slightly, you must label that person as somehow being waaaaaay out on the fringe... and by implication, really nuts.

This includes anyone even slightly to the left of the extreme right, which of course, includes centrists like Beydler and others, even moderate conservatives. It ensures that even moderate voices are demeaned and dismissed. It is beyond question that Barry Goldwater would be today tarred as being on the "extreme left" by Bill O'Reilly and the rest of his ilk and their lemming-like followers.

And then to the part that I find particularly infuriating. This too seems to be the automatic Pavlovian response from the ninny-right. "Why do you always point out what a miserable failure Bush is?", they whine, "All you do is bash Bush." As the letter writer Mike insists, they want us to offer "legitimate ideas and alternatives".
They somehow believe that those opposed to Bush never offer any alternative ideas.
This is simply pure ignorance on their part. To borrow one of Mike's words, it's "myopic" in the extreme. People on the left and center have been crying to be heard with their proposals and ideas. They're largely ignored. The Mikes of the world simply haven't heard any of the many opposing views and proposals because they're ill-informed and only listen to media which reinforces their views and offers them next to no actual information.

OK, how about this for a "legitimate idea and alternative"? Bush should stop acting like an idiot, stop doing idiotic things and stop tolerating idiotic things from those who serve under him. That's the legitimate idea part. The alternative that Mike wants so badly is that Bush should be booted out of office, disgraced, or at the very least, slink out of office in disgrace, and the government should be given back to the people so some semblance of democracy and sound policies can restore this country to economic and foreign policy sanity.

But if you want a really sound and reasonable alternative to this administration, if you want a solid plan, to start with, how about STOP leading the country down the the disastrous path the administration has been on, despite the warnings of millions of citizens, experts, officials, and leaders around the world? Just refraining from aggressively screwing things up would be a start.

But what really frustrates me about this tactic is that they seem to be helpless. OK, they seem to be saying, Bush is a disaster, so tell us what to do!!

Hey Mike and the rest, YOU voted for the chimp, YOU support him, YOU take the time and effort to try to delegitimize, smear, dismiss, and ignore those who are trying their asses off to point out the obvious and make you wake up, YOU have the people you think so highly of in control of every single branch of government, YOU have supported handing the running of the government over to corporate interests, YOU have labored long and hard to ignore, excuse, and defend every one of the myriad of instances where this administrations policies and blunders have harmed our country and it's people.

So I humbly submit that maybe, rather than turning around and expecting the party that you've abused, demeaned, lied about, smeared, dismissed, harassed, mocked, and sneered at to save your sorry ass, that you instead STOP being part of the problem and join those who DO have alternative ideas and who DO have alternatives to the reckless and ill-conceived policies of this mis-administration.

In other words, just shut up and quit demanding that we solve your messes. It's the government YOU thought you wanted. Deal with it. Vote Democratic. It would be a start.

While I fully understand that "Bush is an idiot" plays well with his sphere of influence, (Damn right! We find it hilarious in a grim way. All humor is based in truth.) and is indeed red meat for those same people, I also understand the preparation and research that goes into a column like that. You don't have a freaking clue. This letter is exhibit A.

Perhaps he can follow up with a story about how Bush's weather machine created global warming so Haliburton could steal poor people's Social Security checks.

Boy, I was beginning to worry that Mike would leave out the required straw man argument, one of the bedrock staples of what passes for right wing argument. I've seen this literally hundreds upon hundreds of times, including in comments on this site.

First, you take perfectly legitimate and justified criticism, then, without making any sort of case to show it's wrong in any way, make a leap into the ridiculous, and somehow try to imply that your opponent's argument is just as loony as the crap you just made up. (and obviously, they think what they make up is oh-so-witty as well.)

This also takes the form of putting words into your opponent's mouth. You just make crap up to recharacterize and distort what a person said by making it up in your head. Be sure to exaggerate it and take it to ridiculous lengths. You then argue against THAT, the characterization you've just put into your opponent's mouth, instead of what they actually said.

The righties just LOVE this tactic. It makes sense after all. If you can't argue or debate what someone has said or wrote, make shit up that sounds insane and outrageous (and to them, humorous) and then point out that anyone who'd believe THAT must be insane.

A careful reader will realize that yes, anyone who believed that would be insane. But that's definitely NOT remotely what the subject said to begin with.

After all, Mike's heroes on Fox News network offer little else than similar bad attitude masquerading as legitimate debate. Take the "asshole" attitude and snarky insults of anyone to the left of Attila the Hun out of Fox and you'd have about a half hour of programming a day to air.

You've learned your lessons well, Grasshopper. It's just not going to be pleasant when the country wakes up and realizes that your type of argument is full of it and, well, not really an argument at all.


Mike Kruger, Patriot

Moline