JABbering Stooge

This can’t be good:

SINGAPORE - Vice President Dick Cheney’s plane left Singapore on Sunday after a scheduled refueling stop and repairs to a minor mechanical problem experienced on an earlier flight from Sydney, officials said.

JABbering Stooge Official PolitickBook Line on this story:

• Over-under - Time until conservatives blame “libruls” for Cheney’s plane troubles: 1 day

• Odds that above will single out Clinton’s Almighty Penis for blame: 50:1

• Odds that above will blame BDS-afflicted “librul” saboteurs: 5:1

• Over-under - Time until some liberal gets hurt or sent fake anthrax over this story: 1 week

• Over-under - Time until Michelle Malkin disavows responsiblity for above attack: 10 days

Sidebar: Since the ability to get airborne in a hurry is a necessecity in a national emergency, Air Force 1 & 2 are in all likelihood some of the best-maintained aircraft in existence. Would that the airlines gave that consideration to their customers.

Calling anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you “terrorist-lovers” will no longer work with the American people. That dog just won’t hunt anymore. I would’ve thought that the voters’ rejection of the GOP in the midterms would’ve made that point clearly, but apparently you’re to ideologically blinkered to even care anymore.

I only claim to suffer from Bell’s Palsy to mask my eternal contempt for anyone who dares hold a differing opinion about Iraq.

Sidebar: When has MalKKKin ever NOT “stepped in it?”

I’m going to be doing some damning with faint praise of Our Lady of the Internment Camps today. Last Friday (Feb. 16, 2007), Malkin was filling in for The Lord of the Loofahs, when something most unfortunate happened. The guest was Kate Hanni, a consumer advocate pushing a “Passenger Bill of Rights” in the wake of JetBlue’s weather-related woes.

Quoth the MalKKKin “Nevermore”:

I have to tell you, in general, I’m skeptical of anything that has Bill of Rights tacked on to it.

Say what you will about Malkin, to suggest from this quote that she “hates democracy” or anything like that is truly taking it out of context, as the conversation was strictly limited to the topic of legislative remedies for consumers harmed when a company drops the ball.

Or as the “solitary non-stupid librul” put it, “What does this demonstrate? That couching something as a “Bill of Rights” is a common rhetorical device. And what do we know about rhetorical devices, boys and girls? That’s right! They’re commonly used to short-circuit the process of critical evaluation.”

Sidebar: Oh, Michelle? Way to prove your bosom buddy Ann Coulter’s claim that the sum total of liberal argumentative techique - and totally absent from the conservative repertoire - is to call the other party “stupid.”

Now does the limited scope of Malkin’s conversation with her guest get Malkin off the hook for her apparent Freudian slip? Survey says…*BZZZZZZZZT!*

There are two possible reasons why Malkin said what she said the way that she said it. Option One is that it was a genuine mistake and Malkin intended to state in a less muddled, but still soundbite worthy manner that the honor system is a sufficient and necessary guarantor of good corporate citizenship. Option Two is that she knew that the ambiguity of saying “I’m skeptical of anything that has Bill of Rights tacked onto it” allowed the leap to “Why does Michelle Malkin hate America?” and deliberately said it that way to set up, in the words of the fine folks at Sadly, No!, a BWA HA HA! moment. If Option Two is true, then Michelle is being deliberately manipulative and mendacious, which does not speak highly of her character. Option One suggests that her punditry skills are less than stellar, as any professional pundit worth his/her salt would be well aware that people who disagree with a given pundit are watching and looking for any rhetorical opening to bash him/her over the head with, and thus be very careful about word choice.

And it doesn’t help that Michelle gives her opponents plenty of ammunition. After all, if you’ve written a book that quite literally oozes the Untermensch Syndrome aimed at anyone who “[gives] the wrong answer to the God question,” or if you’ve repeatedly gone on…ahem… jihads against anyone committing the thoughtcrime of expressing an opinion to the left of Torquemada, and then feign surprise when those…ahem… fatwas inevitably have real world repercussions, then it’s kinda hard to avoid coming to the conclusion that you have no use for democracy or any fundamental human rights when it comes to those who disagree with you. Even if it’s out of context.

Sincerity test for Michelle: Are you equally as skeptical of David Horowitz’s “gimmicky legislation with the words ‘Bill of Rights’ tacked onto the end of it” that would make it a crime for professors to teach anything other than pro-conservative “goodfacts?”

But then what do I know? I’m just a “stupid” untermenschen “librul” who needs to be shot on sight.

Sidebar: There is an element of hypocrisy to Malkin’s bitching and moaning about being taken out of context, as Malkin herself is not above taking people out of context when it suits the agenda that she is pushing.