Let's take a second to clarify something here. When I identify the eye-rolling idiocy of the Right, and hold their writings up for scorn and derision, it's not because I think it's ever going to make a difference in terms of making them any smarter. No, it really is just for the scorn and derision because, quite simply, these people are unteachable. Always were, always will be.
Case in point: Blogging Tory Jonathan "The Strong Conservative" Strong who (as he's done for as long as I can remember) simply and mindlessly regurgitated a stupid, dishonest neo-con talking point courtesy of Ann Coulter. This is nothing new for Jonathan -- anyone with the patience to go back through his blog will see that he produces little original work, and that his shtick is to gullibly and obediently link to whatever shiny, new, conservative talking point catches his attention that day.
To Jonathan's credit this time, he did admit (after I rubbed his face in it) that Coulter lied. Well, OK, he didn't actually admit that. In fact, he soft-pedaled Coulter's dishonesty by writing:
I like Ann Coulter and most of her views, but I'll have to agree with my critics that she went too far on Cleland's injuries.
Ah. She "went too far." Apparently, that's wanker-speak for "She lied but I really hate to use that word." At which point, having been (sort of) forced to admit that Coulter just makes shit up, Jonathan (if you can believe what comes next) promptly continued on by defending his original criticism by then faithfully reproducing another Coulter anti-Cleland talking point.
Seriously, how do you talk to someone who is that unspeakably clueless? How do you respond to someone who, in effect, writes, "Well, OK, Ann made that up, but let me defend myself by reproducing something else Ann wrote"? That sort of comeback doesn't even qualify as sentient, for God's sake. But here's the kicker.
In the comments section here, after "saskboy" tries unsuccessfully to explain Coulter's complete lack of credibility, Jonathan actually tries to draw an equivalence between ... oh, hell, let's let Jonathan explain it:
I appreciate your comment, but if we use you follow your reasoning, then Bill Clinton has nothing to ever offer ever again.
Take a minute to savour that. Jonathan is seriously suggesting that, since Bill Clinton once lied about a sexual relationship, this is somehow morally equivalent to Ann Coulter lying about everything, all the time.
You think I exaggerate? Let Google do the heavy lifting. Here. Here. Here. I mean, Jesus Christ, the woman can't even vote without committing a felony.
And when she's not being dishonest, she's just being stupid:
And there are the times when it's not clear whether Ann is lying or really is that stupid but, seriously, does it make any difference at this point?
But none of this will have the slightest effect on faithful, right-wing stenographers like Jonathan, who will learn nothing from this little incident and will, in short order, once again be loyally linking to the same dishonest crap from Coulter, or Drudge, or Malkin, or whoever they happen to be slavishly worshipping that week.
Jonathan is simply beyond help. He will have his occasional moment of lucidity when someone like me pounds it into his skull with a baseball bat. But by the next morning, that will have been forgotten, and it's back to being Steno Boy. Because that's just what he does. And to expect anything different is simply being naive.
BONUS TRACK: Apparently, there are others who have finally had enough of Ann Coulter:
ABC News’ Rick Klein Reports: Former Sen. John Edwards on Friday fired the latest round in his ongoing verbal feud with Ann Coulter, calling her a “she-devil” at a public event before quickly adding that he shouldn’t engage in name-calling.
Personally, I don't think there's much value in describing Coulter as a "she-devil," since it's really name calling and nothing more. What would be useful is for Edwards to accuse Coulter of being a "pathological liar," and have the documentation to back that up ready to go on a moment's notice.
Hey, John. Call me. Let's do lunch.
GILDING THE LILY: Anyone who really needs to know what kind of dishonest douchebag Coulter is with respect to Max Cleland should simply go read Joe Conason. And with that, I think we're done here.