A Portrait of the Looney Left

A number of bloggers have already linked to Saturday's Washington Post profile of a woman who is probably a pretty good stand-in for today's prototypical left-wing, Kos-kid blogger. But Wonker actually describes to Washington's left-wing house organ, and caught the piece first hand whilst trying to down breakfast.

The Posties began their story on page A-1 which one can attribute either to the paper's own political proclivities or the fact that it was a slow news day. (Although they could've expended a bit more ink flogging the anti-Rummy diatribes of a few disgruntled and probably Democratic ex-generals.)

Here's the Post's introduction to our left-wing blogger, who's obviously the cream of the left's intellectual crop:

In the angry life of Maryscott O'Connor, the rage begins as soon as she opens her eyes and realizes that her president is still George W. Bush. The sun has yet to rise and her family is asleep, but no matter; as soon as the realization kicks in, O'Connor, 37, is out of bed and heading toward her computer.

Out there, awaiting her building fury: the Angry Left, where O'Connor's reputation is as one of the angriest of all. "One long, sustained scream" is how she describes the writing she does for various Web logs, as she wonders what she should scream about this day.

She smokes a cigarette. Should it be about Bush, whom she considers "malevolent," a "sociopath" and "the Antichrist"? She smokes another cigarette. Should it be about Vice President Cheney, whom she thinks of as "Satan," or about Karl Rove, "the devil"? Should it be about the "evil" Republican Party, or the "weaselly, capitulating, self-aggrandizing, self-serving" Democrats, or the Catholic Church, for which she says "I have a special place in my heart . . . a burning, sizzling, putrescent place where the guilty suffer the tortures of the damned"?

Sometimes, to the unitiated, it seems as if us right-wing guys get a little imbalanced when talking about the loony left. But these folks are really unhinged. (And we'll let pass for this time the symbolism in the Post's running the last graf cited just above on Holy Saturday.) Further, the moonbats have a habit of limiting their arsenal of descriptive adjectives to one or two words which the Post, of course, chose not to print. Resulting, for example, in observations like this from fellow intellectual giants of the Marxist persuasion:

"I just want to see these [expletive] swinging from their heels in the public square," reads a recent comment from someone named Dave in a discussion about the Bush administration on a Web site called Eschaton.

"Laura Bush Talks; No One Gives a [expletive]," someone who calls himself the Rude Pundit writes on his Web site, and he continues: "The Rude Pundit doesn't give a retarded dog drool what Laura Bush has to say about the Olympics."

How original. You can tell these people have attended a good liberal arts college. Back to Maryscott (notice how many people who are desperate for attention have really nonstandard names?):

"If I can't rant, I don't want to be part of your revolution" is how she signs her comments, in the place other people might write "Sincerely."

Great. Finally, Maryscott is outed. "Revolution." An aging hippie. Except, for some reason, she's a burnt-out 37-year old, according to the paper. How did this happen to her? It's really quite simple. And no doubt not her fault. But let the Post and Maryscott tell you:

She signed petitions. She boycotted veal. She canvassed for Greenpeace. She donated to Planned Parenthood. She read the Nation, the New Yorker, the Utne Reader and Mother Jones. She agonized over low wages for overseas workers every time she bought a $40 leather purse.

Then George W. Bush was elected. Then came 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, the Patriot Act, secret prisons, domestic eavesdropping, the revamping of the Supreme Court, and the thought "It has come to the point where the worst people on Earth are running the Earth." And now, "I have become one of those people with all the bumper stickers on their car," she says. "I am this close to being one of those muttering people pushing a cart.

"I'm insane with rage and grief.

"But I also feel more connected than I ever have."

Yep. It's another case of what some pundits call "Bush derangement syndrome." The folks afflicted by it are all far lefties who simply can't stand it when they're out of power and out of the limelight. Somehow, they are, by nature of their brilliance and enlightenment, the only ones qualified to lead us down the primrose path. And Bush, or any Repub for that matter, took their sense of entitlement away.

Problem is, the reason this happened is that the only program these people have ever had is twofold: to take as much money out of our wallets as possible to distribute to their supporters, and to wreck the United States so that it can be supplanted by a U.N./Third World entity whose record of 100% failure no doubt ensures that this will usher in far better times. Hard to attract thinking voters with a platform like this. Which, of course, is why the 'Rats don't attract thinking voters, just ones who like to preen about their alleged virtue in public.

Again, this is what passes for intellect on the left these days.

The Post reporter penning this feature is a fellow we've seen before, David Finkel, the guy we jumped on a way's back for trashing (by innuendo) the fine people of Randolph, Utah. Could this be an attempt at being "fair and balanced" by trashing someone on the left by innuendo? Hard to say. In any event, these fanatics are far, far more unpleasant than the Utahns, for sure, and Finkel wraps up his piece with a coda of fusillades from the peanut gallery of Maryscott's friends in the blogosphere as if to prove the point:

On Rude Pundit: "George W. Bush is the anti-Midas. Everything he touches turns to [expletive]."

On the Smirking Chimp: "I. Despise. These. [Expletive]!"

And on Daily Kos and My Left Wing, the responses keep rolling in.

"Thank you, Maryscott."

"Thank you for the kick in the [expletive]."

"I wrote to my [expletive] so-called representatives."

"I also wrote to my [expletive] congressman to get off his [expletive] [expletive] and do the right [expletive] thing."

No doubt, these intellectual giants have every right to be torqued off. The obvious sophistication of their political thought process, as characterized and described in the above quotations, is ample proof that the public goofed by electing Chimpy BushMcHitler to the highest office in the land. Absolutely no doubt about it.

Problem is, I, at least, have a problem taking seriously a substantial bloc of people who feel rather than think, emote rather than plan, denounce rather than attempt to persuade, and rant nonstop like the simple, potty-mouthed children that they are. These are people trapped in at best, an arrested adolescence, at worst some kind of twilight zone inhabited by unfortunates whose brains failed to develop fully. They have not grown up and organically cannot grow up. Marxist programming is simple enough for them, allowing them to confuse their preening behavior with ideas that have actual merit. But such distinctions are lost for them as they rant on, like wolves baying at the moon.

For example: The main thing Maryscott is exercised about in Finkel's piece is the murderous problem in Darfur. Well, guess what? So is everyone else. Yet people who bray on about the issue like Maryscott are blissfully unaware that it's their nonsense that is, in large part, preventing the U.S. from taking a proactive position here. By echoing every naysayer around the globe who hates Bush for taking decisive action in Afghanistran and Iraq, Maryscott and her pals have hampered this administration's maneuverability when considering taking on yet another unilateral action. So the U.S. does nothing. And Europe's tired leftists do nothing. And the Arabic world, whose Islamofascist branch in the Sudan is exclusively responsible for the mass murder of the black Christian animists who largely populate the Darfur region, isn't going to lift a finger, since their thugs are already cleansing Darfur for Allah.

Ask Maryscott's friends: should Bush take unilateral military action to solve the problem in Darfur? Answer: [Expletive] NO! [God forbid that he succeed and get credit!] What's their answer? Refer it to the U.N. for a diplomatic solution. Didn't we do that, oh, several years ago? These people don't have a clue. Rage is the opiate of their masses.

The preferred solution to Darfur for Maryscott and her friends? [Expletive] on the [expletive] Bush. And those [expletive] right-wing bloggers, too. That'll show 'em. Hollow slogans for hollow people.