Confessions of a (Conservative) Wingnut: If the T-Word Fits, Wear It
In the column, he points out that some left-wingers call people on "the extreme right" by the derogatory term "wingnuts" and those on the right retaliate by calling extreme leftists "moonbats." Supporters of Ann Coulter, of whom I'm one, supposedly are "wingnuts."
Personally, I like most wingnuts. They pay their taxes, take care of their own kids, go to work, stop for red lights, and generally vote Republican. Most of them also agree a lot with Jack Kelly, mostly because they know he loves his country, including its liberties (which he took arms to defend) and its soldiers.
Kelly talks about "mean-spirited" folks on the right who sent him nasty e-mails about his criticism of Coulter. What I sent him was my blog piece indicating why I thought Ann Coulter was raising the rhetorical temperature of the national debate in a basically positive way. Yes, she was seeking attention, but she was doing so in the cause of issues that cry out for attention.
To be heard in the current climate, one must sometimes shout.
Normally, Jack Kelly's columns (such as his famous one in praise of global warming) get nasty letters-to-the-editor. The Coulter piece, however, got a veritable outpouring of praise -- three letters praising his Coulter column directly and one indirectly. Frankly, if I were Jack Kelly, those letters would make me suspicious about what I said regarding Ann-of-a-Thousand Quips.
I think he very much would like to have a debate with moderate liberals although not with the extreme left. I have news for him: most American liberals don't want to engage in a debate about key issues, including Iraq. The Democrats, moonbats and others, didn't get elected last November by engaging in debates. That achievement came about by reading polls and, for the most part, keeping their mouths shut and letting the electorate vote against George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Don Rumsfeld. No national debate occurred.
Here's the problem: In a recent column, Kelly noted that "The last thing the Democrats [he didn't say "moonbat Democrats"] seem to want is a victory in Iraq." He adds, "Democrats have invested so much political capital in an American defeat that their electoral prospects in 2008 could be devastated if we win."
I'm sure that column generated some angry e-mails and maybe a hostile letter or two. Unfortunately, the world at large will little note nor long remember what Jack Kelly said about the Democrats basically rooting for the enemy. His language had an edge to it, but not enough firepower to create any sort of productive controversy.
If Jack Kelly is right about the Democrats and Iraq -- and I deeply believe he is -- then that Party is doing more than the stock phrase about "emboldening the enemy." In fact, they're sending a message to Al Qaida and other mass murderers in Iraq that if they kill enough Americans, the American leftists will cause us to flee in disgrace. I would submit that the enemy in Iraq reads the public opinion polls as assiduously as, say, Jack Murtha.
In Kelly's column on Iraq, he talks about the Democrats' "'slow bleed' strategy to hamstring the war effort . . . ." I realize the T-word -- treason, as Ms. Coulter called it in a recent book -- is one of those proscribed by the verbally squeamish, but hamstringing a war effort seems to this wingnut something akin to, well, the T-word. It's certainly an effort that could generate many more deaths and injuries for American soldiers.
Unfortunately, the Democrats' admonition to "bring our boys and girls home" seems to translate in reality into bring them home in body bags.
If I misread the implications of what Kelly is saying, then I apologize in advance. If I don't, then he is outlining behavior by elected officials that should be intolerable to everyone who cares about this country.
I have opposed Jack Murtha (and supported Diana Lynn Irey) with my money, time, moral support, and writings. I haven't gone to all that effort because Murtha and I have a philosophical or political disagreement, one best solved by the exchange of non-controversial words. I've done so because I believe Murtha is sleeping with the enemy, that for cynical personal and political reasons he's bailed out on America.
If there is evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it. As Johnnie Cochran didn't say, "If the T-word fits, use it." Somehow I don't think that proposing "come let us reason together" is going to impress the Jack Murthas of this world. When they start rooting for America and American soldiers, then we'll have something to discuss.
On the F-word question, one the media forgot about almost immediately, of Ann Coulter's joke about John Edwards: Today, on 'Youtube," there's a video of him preparing for a TV appearance.
He's having a love affair with a mirror. He's applying makeup to make him look like, well, John Edwards. He's working hard to make sure not one hair is out of place. He's ensuring that not a single eye-lash or eyebrow hair deviates from its appointed place. The video lasts a long time, and it doesn't get any better.
Earlier, I called him a sissified pretty boy. Post "You-Tube," I now fear that I was being much too kind.
Stephen R. Maloney, author of this column, is one of the world's leading experts on John Murtha. As a card-carrying wingnut, Maloney has volunteered to pay for Murtha to get a large letter "T" tattooed on his forehead.