Mick Wright.net

The Memphis Liar’s Chris “Peskyfly” Davis says I’m one of “the dumbest people on the planet” and a member of “halfwit central.” But of course not everything Chris Davis says is true. Take, for example, this comment (from the same post linked above):

Rush [Limbaugh], as we all know, said he hopes Obama “FAILS.” That, obviously, is not dissent. And although liberals openly disagreed with Bush and predicted at every turn that his policies would fail none ever actually wished for failure. There’s no hair to be split, these are VERY different concepts.

The transcript of Rush Limbaugh’s “I hope he fails” discussion is available online for all who care to read it in context, though Davis and other Leftist bloggers are loath to provide you with a direct link so you can examine the statement for yourself and make up your own mind.

Now that the rest of the historical record is trickling out, it looks even worse for Mr. Davis.

First, it seems that political strategist James Carville was recorded saying he wanted Bush to fail — on the morning of September 11, 2001, of all days.

Second, a FOX News/Opinion Dynamics poll found that “51 percent of Democrats wanted Bush to fail” in 2006, at the height of the Iraq war when the President was formulating the “surge” strategy.

How is it that “the dumbest people on the planet” can disprove radical Leftists like Chris Davis without even the slightest bit of effort?

UPDATE ONE: As you may recall, it was James Carville who helped launch the coordinated attack on Rush Limbaugh.

UPDATE TWO: As you may recall, it was Leftist bloggers who launched the “miserable failure” google-bomb on President Bush.

Back in August, Memphis Flyer Editor Bruce VanWyngarden wrote a column about uninformed voters, labeling them “dumbasses.”

Now that a commissioned survey of Obama voters has found that a majority were seriously misinformed, it might be fair to question whether the “dumbasses” conclusively chose Barack Obama.

Either way, let’s take a second look at VanWyngarden’s editorial:

I’ve been reading recently about “low-information voters.” These are people who, for the most part, don’t read newspapers, political websites, or opinion magazines to learn candidates’ voting records or political positions. They don’t pay much attention to politics at all, which in theory makes them susceptible to whatever information is put under their nose — whether it’s from a talk-radio host, a preacher, a co-worker, a random e-mail rumor, a bumper sticker, or a catchy slogan on a T-shirt.

Notice which sources of information VanWyngarden includes, and which he omits. Apparently, low-information voters can only be led astray by radio commentators, religious leaders, co-workers and random slogans. They cannot be misinformed by TV shows and movies, teachers and professors, fake news comedians, celebrities and entertainers, or liberal activists.

These are not discerning voters. Another name for them would be “dumbasses.” I say this without fear of retribution, knowing that low-information voters, i.e., dumbasses, don’t read this column. (I can’t wait for someone to write me and say, “That’s CRAP, buddy. I’m a dumbass, and I read your column.”)

As it turns out, the Leftists news sources such as the Memphis Flyer were directly responsible for creating these low-information voters in the first place, which means that the very definition of “dumbasses” is people who depend upon VanWyngarden’s column as a primary source of information.

But I digress. For years, low-information voters have been seen as easy targets, a group that can be manipulated at will by a clever politician. Nuance and policy positions are for pointy-headed liberal losers. All you need is a simplistic slogan: “Mission accomplished!” “We can’t cut and run.” “He’s a flip-flopper.” “Jews hate Jesus.” You get the idea.

It’s a good thing that Barack Obama’s campaign was driven by nuance and policy positions rather than simplistic slogans such as “Change,” “Hope,” and “Yes, We Can.” Obama may be a clever politician, but he would never try to manipulate low-information voters; only a Jew-hating Jesus freak (?!!) would try something like that.

Nationally, we’re seeing a major push for low-information voters by the McCain campaign, which seeks to paint Barack Obama as a vapid celeb. “Hot chicks love Obama” is a tag-line at the end of one of McCain’s latest ads. (Frankly, I think conceding the hot-chick vote is a bad idea for McCain. I mean, what’s the corollary? “Ugly schlubs love McCain”?)

Yes, all the most memorable sloganeering of 2008 was launched by that crafty devil, Senator John McCain. Who could forget his devastating “Hot chicks love Obama” tag-line? I certainly haven’t. I’m still peeling those bumper stickers off my car, and I’ve got more “Hot chicks love Obama” T-shirts than I know what to do with. If I had a quarter for every time I heard that slogan repeated on talk radio, at work, and at church… I’d have enough money to hire someone to delete all the e-mails with that tag-line cluttering up my inbox.

The point is, the campaign seems to think there are lots of fools in America who will decide their presidential vote based on their resentment of uppity celebrities. (”Uppity” being the operative word here.)

But certainly not because these “uppity celebrities” use their fame to spout vapid political slogans or influence low-information voters with a constant barrage of Leftist propaganda, infecting every awards show, performance and public appearance with ignorant, partisan jokes and insults. Fools they may be, but they’re not that stupid.

Locally, 9th District candidate Nikki Tinker did her best to get out low-information voters — people she perceived would be receptive to messages that painted her opponent as the wrong race and wrong religion. Unfortunately for her — and fortunately for Memphis — there were way fewer dumbasses hereabouts than she was hoping for.

Thankfully, the national election had absolutely nothing to do with race. The President-Elect wouldn’t dream of even associating himself with someone like Nikki Tinker. And he certainly wouldn’t designate that person his spiritual adviser or sit at that person’s feet for 20 years of racist invective.

There appears to be some disagreement among Flyer staff concerning the National Enquirer’s story on John Edwards earlier this summer.

Senior Editor Jackson Baker:

This is pure Comstockery, writ large. What the hell is the National Enquirer doing, snooping around a hotel room where two consenting adults are doing whatever they’re doing? What business is it of anybody else’s? Why is the MSM admiringly preparing to creep into the same set of nocturnal shadows? This ain’t good, people.

Staff Writer Chris Davis:

Bottom line: John may have f*cked up but he isn’t the real bad guy in this piece, the National Enquirer is.

Editor Bruce VanWyngarden:

[T]hank God for the National Enquirer. They deserve a Pulitzer for saving us from the likes of Edwards…

What do you think? Pure comstockery, or Pulitzer Prize?