Strange Tales from a Strange Land

I was thinking that I was going to re-title Pt. Four of "Neal Boortz is a Moron" because I started to feel a bit guilty for being insulting. That I should concentrate on the facts and leave the name-calling behind. That was before I listened to Neal Boortz today and remembered that he is, in fact, a moron.

Today's moronity (new word, if it catches on I want credit for it like Colbert gets credit for truthiness) consisted of Boortz saying that "Media Myrmidons" (an insult[?] that Boortz apparently picked up from David Horowitz) is run by Hillary Clinton's people. According to Boortz, Media Matters was created by Clinton and is loyal to her.

Um, no. It wasn't. It was created by ex-Clinton noise machine hitman David Brock because he had a crisis of conscience and decided to dedicate himself to monitoring the conservative movement propaganda that he had formely been a part of.

But in the Strange Land that is the world of the paranoid pseudo-conservative (or in this case, pseudo-libertarian) all roads lead to the Clintons and George Soros.

Additional Boortz moronity is this passage from today's Neal's Nuze

Ann Coulter has a new book. "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd be Republicans." Suggested subtitle ... "You Can't Fix Stupid."

I guess we now know just what sentence, paragraph or thought expressed in Coulter's book is going to be used by the MoveOn Democrat Party and the loony left in an attempt to demonize her.

Here's an excerpt from an interview with Ann Coulter by George Gurley. Here we find Coulter talking about women:

"If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women."

The left is sure to jump on this like a crow on a June bug. Thing is .... Coulter is exactly right. Don't take her word for it, just read "Freedomnomics" by John Lott. Here we have a renowned economist going all the way back to the late 1980s to see what happens when women get the vote. His findings? In every single case, when women were given the right to vote the cost of government immediately began to rise as women, particularly single women, started voting for the candidates who would create more government spending programs designed to provide women with security. That magic word .. .security.

Lott found that young single women overwhelmingly vote liberal. When they marry and start a family they start voting more conservatively. That would be because their sense of security is provided by their family, and they don't want government to interfere in their accumulation of wealth. Then, if that very same woman starts to feel that her marriage is threatened ... or if she becomes divorced ... she right back there voting for liberals again. Why? Security .. this time from the government instead of her husband.

Coulter is right. Deal with it.

Coulter is right? She's right to want to disenfranchise women because she doesn't like how they vote? Boortz is too dumb to realize the issue is not whether or not women vote for Democrats but whether or not that their franchise should depend on it. Anyone who calls themselves a libertarian (as Boortz does) should be mortified by the ramblings of Coulter.

You know, I think that it's true that the religious right tend to vote for people who are willing to roll-back civil liberty and erode church/state seperation, but I have no desire to take away their right to vote. I would protest such a measure tooth and nail.

Update: The Media Matters page at Sourcewatch quotes this New York Times article which states that

Mr. Brock's project was developed with help from the newly formed Center for American Progress, the policy group headed by John D. Podesta, the former Clinton chief of staff.

Given that Boortz (and the rest of the conservative movement blogosphere, from what I can tell) believes that Hillary Clinton secretly ochestrates the Center for American Progress because it is headed by Podesta, I'm guessing this is why Boortz believes that Media Matters is run by Hillary Clinton.