06-21-01
HONEST FREEPERS, MORAL RIGHT-WINGERS, AND OTHER OXYMORONS
An exercise in deconstructing regressive rhetoric
Part Three

If you haven't read the first two parts of this rant, this won't make much sense to you; you can read them here:

Part One       Part Two


Poor Mike Wallace. It seems that he, and David Dilegge, lack true conviction in their beliefs. They can talk the talk, sure, but when it comes to defending their right-wing rhetoric in the fact of logic and facts, they run like scared little bunnies.

Right-wingers cannot rely on the truth, nor can they rely on facts. If they did, they would have almost no public support for their positions. When faced with logic and facts, the brave right-wingers resort to propaganda and/or outright lies intended to divert attention from the issue at hand, and the cowardly right-wingers ignore the logic and facts in the sad hope that they'll go away.

After posting my 'deconstruction' of Wallace's response to my email, and letting Dilegge know I had done so, I received the following email:

Rose,

Good to hear from you again so soon. Thank you for the link back from FringeFolk to ConservaVets.

I had a great laugh at the Chairman Rose vs Tokyo Rose comment - wish I would have thought of it.

Regards,

Dave Dilegge
Stafford, Virginia


What's interesting about Dilegge's email is that he openly admits that his 'Chairman Rose' comment qualified as name-calling. Why is this interesting? Let me remind you of Dilegge's comment (it was billed as 'ConservaVets Comment', but I think it's pretty clear that Dilegge is the voice of ConservaVets) at the end of Wallace's reply to my email:

"What is so typical about Rose and her lib comrades is that they frequently write a dissertation on how correct their views are, sprinkle in some name calling and labeling..."

Like Wallace, Dilegge accused me of name-calling (though, as I've shown, I did no such thing) and portrayed himself as someone who would never stoop to such a level. And yet, he confessed in his last email to me that he DID stoop to such a level, and what's more, he found the insult I came up with better than his own, and wishes he'd used it! Translation - not only does Dilegge indulge in name-calling, but he wants to use the most insulting terms available....and he THEN wants to go on the record as someone who condemns liberals for name-calling, and is willing to LIE (since I didn't call anyone a name in my original email) in order to condemn liberals for name-calling.

Again, I am NOT bringing this up because I think name-calling is bad. A bit of name-calling can always liven up a debate, and as long as it doesn't get ugly or repetitive, I have no problem with it, which is why I lent my wit to Dilegge (who, apparently, is well aware that he is not at my level). What I do have a problem with is hypocrisy. And the ConservaVets are hypocrites.

They're also liars, as I've shown. And they're also cowards.

The email from Dilegge was the last communication I received from ConservaVets. Wallace never responded to my deconstruction of his reply. Is he, then, open to debate? Obviously not. And this is another example of hypocrisy -- going back once again the Dilegge's comment at the end of Wallace's reply:

"...then end with the "No, this is not an invitation to begin a discussion with me" standard cop-out...."

Well, geez, speaking of cop-outs...

My original email to Wallace, and his reply, and the comment made by Dilegge, have been moved on the ConservaVets website - they're now linked in the 'articles' section, instead of on the front page. No big deal, really...and yet, they've left up a link to Wallace's original, dishonest post on VoterMarch (which started the whole thing) on their main page, and the page containing Wallace's original article contains no reference to my email. Further, they've removed the 'Chairman Rose' comment (obviously, they recognized their hypocrisy and, rather than coming clean and admitting it, decided to hide the evidence like the true cowards they are).

No reference is made to my deconstruction of Wallace's reply - none, zero, zip.

So who's 'copping out'? Not your humble liberal rabble-rouser, oh no. It's the right-wingers who refuse to continue the discussion - who, in fact, want so badly to wiggle out of the mess their hypocrisy and lies put them in, that they're trying to pretend none of it ever happened. Obviously, these right-wingers are not the least bit interested in open, fair debate. Like the Bush misadministration, they want to get their message out and stifle any dissenting opinions by any means necessary. Reminds me a bit of the way the Secret Service won't allow protesters near the Shrub -- "Hey, if we can't see them, they don't exist!"

This is a tactic which is utterly contemptible, unless it's used by a two-year-old. Anyone going to their website would think that I never responded to Wallace's response.

But you know what? I'll be completely honest here, even though I risk sounding arrogant -- the thing of it is, I absolutely LOVE that they refused to respond, and moved the pages showing my email and Wallace's response, and removed the instance of name-calling, and are pretending I never wrote my deconstruction. Why? Because it means that they can't refute what I said. They are either not intelligent enough to come up with a lie-infested defense, or they've realized that whatever spin they try to put on it will be exposed in yet another 'deconstruction'.

In short, they're running scared. Gotta love it. And of course, the real beauty of it is that they can't pretend they know nothing of my deconstruction - because Dilegge himself acknowledged it in his email to me.

Liberals do not have to run and hide from fair debate, because we're in the right, and we know it, and we can prove it.

Wallace and Dilegge have offered a shining example of the great weakness of right-wing propaganda - IT CANNOT BE DEFENDED from people who know the truth.

In closing, I would like to suggest that everyone reading this rant send a little note to Mr. Dilegge, letting him know that his cowardice has been exposed. Here's a sample email you can send:

To: ConservaVets@aol.com

Dear David Dilegge:

I have just read parts 1, 2 and 3 of Rose's article entitled "Honest Freepers, Moral Right-Wingers & Other Oxymorons", posted on the Fringefolk website at http://www.fringefolk.com/frayedknot.html

You posted Rose's original email to Mike Wallace on your website, as well as Wallace's reply, but when Rose replied to Wallace, you not only refused to respond - you refused to acknowledge on your website that she had replied.

Why is that?

Is it because you believe that Rose is smarter than you, and made you look like a fool?

Is it because Rose used facts and logic in her response, and you are unable to combat them, so would rather ignore them?

Is it because you are a coward?

I think I'll choose d) all of the above. And I would suggest you read part 3 of Rose's article, and think about what sort of message you are sending about the ability of right-wingers to engage in open, honest debate.

Someone who truly believed in the positions he advocates would have the guts to respond to Rose. What are you afraid of?

Now, you may be wondering why I am going on and on about this whole ConservaVets nonsense. While it's true that they're nothing but regressive little troglodytes who are totally out of touch with the real world, the fact is that they are repeating the same sort of nonsense that comes from right-wing hacks like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and others. And it's easy for us to become discouraged by the sheer volume of lies and hypocrisy oozing out at us from the right. But there's no reason to be discouraged because, as I've shown, it's not only EASY to deconstruct right-wing rhetoric and prove it for the baseless propaganda it is -- it's also FUN!


~Rose




Opinions expressed in the daily rant are those of the author and may not reflect the opinion of every member of the fringefolk project. The articles posted here are protected by copyright and may not be reproduced in any form without the author's express permission. You do, however, have permission to post a link to this article and include the first few sentences as a lead-in, if you wish.