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?

Thanks to Mediaverse for passing on this masterpiece of local tele-journalism (be sure to check out the transcript he posted): (more…)

I wish I hadn’t been triple-booked tonight, because I would have loved to confront Jackson Kibitzer/Baker at the SPJ forum on media Presidential coverage. Fortunately, Mediaverse live-blogged the event; I’m particularly interested in this excerpt:

7:30: Asked if he feels if the media invaded Joe The Plumber’s privacy by exposing his private details and whether he consented it, Baker said he invited the scrutiny because he asked a question of Obama that could have been politically advantage and the media was right to inspect his public image. Baker said that was a classic case of the media doing its job since McCain used him as a test case for his own agenda.

I’d like to have clarification on what “could have been politically advantage” means.

Still, Baker thinks Joe the Plumber — a private citizen — “invited the scrutiny” of his “private details” because he asked a question that provoked a controversial answer from a politician passing through his neighborhood?

Baker thinks the media was right to inspect Joe’s “private details” because a second politician seized upon that candidate’s gaffe to advance his own campaign?

And yet Baker thinks it “ain’t good” for the media to investigate an actual, prominent public figure who may have fathered a child with a paid campaign staffer (who apparently had no prior experience doing the job) while still married to his seriously-ill wife, may have been spotted visiting the child under the cover of night, and may have continued to lie about the whole scenario, while simultaneously being (seriously) considered for U.S. Attorney General?

Astounding.

It appears to be Kibitzer/Baker’s contention that private citizens who embarrass Democrats should be subjected to exponentially greater media scrutiny than public servants who engage in seriously unethical behavior but happen to be Democrats.

Kibitzer/Baker says “everything [I] do is boiringly ideological,” but he’s the predictably Leftist shill.

RELATED POSTS:

• MEMPHIS LIAR CREEPING INTO NOCTURNAL SHADOWS
• FAMILY MATTERS
• THE EDWARDS HAS NO CLOTHES

INSTEAD OF HOUNDING JOE THE PLUMBER: “If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story….”

The Memphis Liar sent an e-mail this morning promoting its “first ever green issue,” exactly two years after this post. So are they being printed on recycled tapioca pudding wrappers, mesh aborted fetuses, or what? Or perhaps this issue is being off-set with carbon credits to Al Gore’s bank account? Surely it’s not just a regular issue with a heavier dose of global warming alarmism…

UPDATE: It’s the latter, because printing on recycled materials “isn’t financially feasible.” It leads one to question two things: 1. The Flyer’s true commitment to its environmentalist creed, and 2. The Flyer’s credibility in advocating policies that force everyone else to make similarly unreasonable changes.

In an editorial billed as “The Cold Hard Truth about Sarah Palin,” Memphis Liar circus barker Marty Aussenberg assails what he considers protective, fawning treatment of John McCain’s “mean” running mate by Republicans, and tepid criticism or indulgence from Democrats and the media. What he fails to offer, however, is even one “cold hard truth” about the Alaskan Governor. Once again, the “Gadfly” offers little more than innuendo, supposition, personal insults and conjecture.

Aussenberg preemptively attacks what he assumes will be a “kid gloves” conversation with “journalist” Charlie Gibson (scare quotes included in the original), followed only by other sycophantic interviews and superficial investigations:

If the press and the public (and especially the Democrats) don’t do the job of seriously examining who this flash in the pan the Republicans are trying to foist over on us really is, then we’ll deserve having her be a “heartbeat from the presidency.”

Of course, we should note that such an examination of the “cold hard truth” appears to be above Aussenberg’s pay grade, not to mention his apparent lack of interest in the “flash in the pan” the Democrats “are trying to foist over on us” as President.

Aussenberg also submits the size of Palin’s family as evidence of her lack of judgment:

[W]hy it isn’t fair game to ask Palin herself why, in a world of diminishing resources, four children weren’t enough, and why, at the age of 44, she subjected her child to the known risks of a pregnancy with a substantially increased incidence of genetic defects? Isn’t judgment always an issue for a candidate?

Finally (and, yes, that’s basically all the editorial says), Aussenberg predicts that Palin will be dropped from the Republican ticket and mocks religious prayer:

While I don’t think “Flailin’ Palin” will even survive on the ticket to election day, I am implementing a contingency plan of praying (something I am really not used to doing). I do earnestly entreat any and all deities that, should the GOP succeed in fooling the American public (or worse, stealing this election), like it has so many times before, her sponsor should turn out to be neither as senile nor as sickly as he… seems… right… now.

Failing to include any “cold hard truths” in the editorial, Aussenberg makes a follow-up attempt in the comments:

Now that they’ve removed the muzzle from the pit bull (i.e., the first part of the Charlie Gibson interview) what did she do? Bite herself on the butt, of course. She lied about Alaska being responsible for 20% of the country’s energy production, she didn’t have a clue about the policy that her mentors (Bush and McCain) have implemented (the “Bush doctrine”), she actually repeated the pathetic rationale for her foreign policy experience (i.e., she lives next to Russia—I was fully expecting her to say next that she stayed at a Holiday Inn Express one night), and, worst of all, she’s apparently ready and willing to start a war with Russia. Can you imagine this woman with her finger on the nuclear button? It’s a scene straight out of “Dr. Strangelove.” Someone, please save us from being “imPalined.”

Taking this “cold hard truth” line by line:

1. “She lied about Alaska being responsible for 20% of the country’s energy production…”

To be exact, Gov. Palin said her state, “produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy…”

The Huffington Post, in criticizing John McCain for flubbing the same line, supports the truth of Palin’s statement, which means Marty Aussenberg is the liar.

2. “She didn’t have a clue about the policy that her mentors (Bush and McCain) have implemented (the “Bush doctrine”)”

Actually, what Palin did was attempt to clarify the question, saying “In what respect, Charlie?” This clarification was necessary because the “Bush doctrine” can and does refer to multiple concepts: the policy of pre-emption, the policy of treating harboring states as enemies, the policy of spreading freedom in the Middle East as a means to defeat terrorism, the policy of facing terrorism on the battlefield rather than the courtroom, and the policy of staying on offense against Islamic terrorism until it is defeated.

Once again, the person who doesn’t “have a clue” is Marty Aussenberg.

3. “She actually repeated the pathetic rationale for her foreign policy experience (i.e., she lives next to Russia—I was fully expecting her to say next that she stayed at a Holiday Inn Express one night)”

I’m confident Sarah Palin wasn’t selected for her foreign policy experience, as was the rationale for picking Joe Biden, given the vast disparity of foreign policy experience between the two respective Presidential candidates. But there’s no reason to deny her what little experience she does have. One would expect Alaskan leaders to be far more attuned to Russian activities than politicians from Illinois.

4. “She’s apparently ready and willing to start a war with Russia. Can you imagine this woman with her finger on the nuclear button? It’s a scene straight out of ‘Dr. Strangelove.’”

All Palin did was answer a hypothetical question about an attack on a NATO ally. In response, she simply referenced Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which states:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

5. “Someone, please save us from being “imPalined.”

That’s the radical Left for you, still treating BRCK BM as a savior.

SEE ALSO: Fore Left!, Tennesseefree, Bill Hobbs, Byron York, Glenn Reynolds

Is Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Memphis) comparing BRCK BM to our Lord and Savior?

There’s an interesting comment over at the Commercial Appeal article on Cohen’s ridiculous statement:

Wow, quickest headline change I’ve seen here. “Cohen compares Obama to Jesus” almost immediately disappeared and became “Cohen: Jesus was a Community Organizer.” Guess Otis must’ve figured the headline would hurt his boy.

There’s no Google cache of the old headline, but the url still reads:
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/sep/10/cohen-compares-obama-jesus/

UPDATE: I understood the last line of the comment excerpted above as a benign, colloquial reference to the CA’s endorsement of Steve Cohen, who the editorial staff would not want to “hurt.” Others apparently interpret it as an unambiguous, racially-charged reference to BRCK BM. I had briefly considered leaving that line out simply because it’s speculative and unnecessary to the issue I wanted to call out — the CA’s revisionist headline. But now I’m sorry that I didn’t, because the peanut gallery will claim it as evidence of veiled racism on my part. That’s sad and pathetic, but true. But I won’t remove it now, because I don’t subscribe to revisionism myself. I will only point out that the peanut gallery apparently ignored Steve Cohen’s comparison of BRCK BM to Christ, his comparison of Gov Palin to Pontius Pilate (the man who condemned Christ to death on a cross), and the CA’s revisionism, in order to focus on an ambiguous comment somebody else made, in order to smear me. Such is the current state of the radical Left.

According to the Memphis Liar, our fair city is about to host a convention of “Racist A–Holes.” I’m confident our visitors will feel comfortable here among the James Edwardses, James Harts, Jake Fords, NiKKi TinKers and all the other race-baiters who call this city home. But I’m especially interested in this part:

There’s more, but it’s too depressing to share. Except for this: “It will be held in a first-class, premier hotel in a beautiful and secure country setting that is still just a short ride from the Memphis region airport. This fine hotel has agreed to a reduction of almost 40 percent off their normal rates.”

Gee, wonder what fine establishment agreed to give these upstanding folks 40 percent off? (We’re looking into it.)

Wasn’t it just a few days ago when some gent totally unaffiliated with (but bearing a strong resemblance to a senior editor at) the Memphis Liar was working himself into a lather about the precedent of newsmen sniffing out hotel accommodations?

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.

I guess it became good to admiringly prepare to snoop around the nocturnal shadows where consenting creeps are doing whatever they’re doing at some point in the last four weeks. That’s change you can believe in.

Jackson Baker is having a difficult time with the latest revelations about John Edwards. Let’s help him out.

So maybe he needs to deny the baby is his, if somebody has seriously maintained that it is. (But HAS anybody?).

The National Enquirer has alleged that Rielle Hunter’s bastard child was sired by John Edwards, but it’s unclear if Jackson Baker considers that publication an “anybody” or if he’s willing to characterize their reporting as a “seriously maintained” claim. Whether or not there are other anybodies seriously maintaining as much, Baker is getting ahead of himself and is asking the wrong question. Without some solid reporting and further evidence, such as the paternity test Edwards says he welcomes, it’s unlikely that any anybodies could seriously maintain anything. But what we have already established and verified is the end (a baby) and the means (an affair). The parties have offered an alternative explanation — that the baby was fathered by an Edwards staffer, rather than Edwards — but we know the child’s birth certificate doesn’t corroborate that story, and we also have reason to doubt the involved parties, as they have already admitted to being lying whores. (more…)