Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

November 3, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

ALL-TIME WINGNUTTIEST BLOG POST CONTEST....While the rest of the blogosphere concerns itself with the worthy task of choosing the all-time best blog posts, I'm keeping my focus where it belongs: on the all-time worst blog posts. And thanks to help from my commenters, plus commenters over at FDL and John Cole's place, we now have an official list of nominees.

A note on methodology: Several prose stylings that seem like they ought to be on the ballot missed out because intensive research by the PA staff determined that they weren't actually blog posts. "Objectively pro-terrorist" deserves recognition, for example, but it came from a Michael Kelly column, not a blog post. Ditto for "The decadent Left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead — and may well mount a fifth column," which Andrew Sullivan wrote for the Sunday Times, not his blog. Or John Derbyshire's musings on women over the age of 20. And "Lucky Duckies" was a Wall Street Journal editorial. Since this contest is all about blog wingnuttery, these contenders were sadly but firmly disqualified.

But why focus on the all-time worst in the wingnut blogosphere anyway? Isn't that mean? What's driving this besides sheer bloody-mindedness?

History, that's what. A century from now, even the very best blog posts will be long forgotten. Let's face it: they aren't that good. But bad blog posts will still be every bit as bad as they were on the day they were spawned. They'll endure. So really, we're doing this for the children. And the grandchildren.

The fourteen finalists for the worst, most embarrassing, most risible wingnut blog posts of all time are listed below. You can vote for up to five. So take a trip down memory lane and then vote for your favorites. Remember: It's your civic duty.

UPDATE: Voting is now finished. Thanks to one and all. The final five winners are announced here.

All-Time Wingnuttiest Blog Post Contest
(Choose up to 5)
Ann Althouse: "Let's take a closer look at those breasts."
Steven Den Beste (shortly before the Iraq war started): "It's the waiting that wears."
(Cut and paste the link to read the post: http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/03/Itsthewaiting.shtml)
John Derbyshire (after the Virginia Tech shootings): "Where was the spirit of self-defense here?....It's not like this was Rambo, hosing the place down with automatic weapons."
Ben Domenech: "Pachyderms in the Mist"
Kim du Toit: "The Pussification of the Western Male"
Pam "Atlas Shrugs" Geller: "My Sharia!"
Jonah Goldberg (before Katrina): "Attn: Superdome Residents....grow gills...."
Robert Hahn: "I will suggest that President Bush understands money better than any President we have ever had."
Hugh Hewitt: "I'm sitting in the Empire State Building...."
John Hinderaker: "It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius...."
Michelle Malkin: "The Defeatocrats Cheer"
Glenn Reynolds: "Maybe we should rise above the temptation to point out that claims of a 'quagmire' were wrong....Nah."
Lee Siegel: "The Origins of Blogofascism"
Bill Whittle (after Katrina): "Tribes"
  
Free polls from Pollhost.com

Kevin Drum 6:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (222)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

The Steven Den Beste website seems to not even let ANYONE link there from Washingtonmonthly.com. That's a new low.

Posted by: Daniel A. Munz on November 3, 2007 at 6:27 PM | PERMALINK

OK, I AM a woman, but I just can't resist. Kim du Toit. French name, right? Wouldn't the correct prounciation of that be "Kim du Twat"? Sounds like a femal porn star. Explains a lot about him.

(I can't believe I said that. My mother must be spinning in her grave.)

Posted by: Helena Montana on November 3, 2007 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

The Krugman comment that the collapse of Enron would be more important than 9/11 - not a blog post either? Couldn't find any worthy blog posts defending Dan Rather?

Posted by: Homer on November 3, 2007 at 6:30 PM | PERMALINK

Love the constant ripping on Kim's name. Very open-minded and tolerant of you liberals. It's pronounced du Twah.

Posted by: Homer on November 3, 2007 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINK

Homer: Get off your butt. That's a job for conservatives. This is a contest for worst wingnut blog entry.

Posted by: Kevin Drum on November 3, 2007 at 6:36 PM | PERMALINK

Kim du Twah's name explains a lot about his article. He's probably spent his whole life on the defensive about his masculinity.

I voted for Pam Atlas not so much because of thhe specified post as for thhe whole person. Shhe's like a low rent Coulter.

Posted by: wonkie on November 3, 2007 at 6:36 PM | PERMALINK

Can't we just vote for the ledes? Every one's a bonafide hit, worth the award alone. They all bring back memories.

Posted by: ThresherK on November 3, 2007 at 6:55 PM | PERMALINK

what's that drug you use to suppress the urge to puke? I need a sixpack to get through those posts...

Posted by: supersaurus on November 3, 2007 at 7:01 PM | PERMALINK

A meta-note -- it's said the trajectory of a growing political movement goes something like, first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

Well, it would seem the wingnut-o-sphere is at step 2 on the way DOWN.

Posted by: bleh on November 3, 2007 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINK

I'm just a kid in a candy store with one coin to spend. Please, Sir, can I have some more?

Posted by: Jackie on November 3, 2007 at 7:15 PM | PERMALINK

More of you really do need to consider the "Tribes" post by Bill Whittle.

In another forum, where such efforts are called by their proper name, wanking, I had this to say about it:

"...Whittle’s Tribe post cannot be topped[in a competition of the years worst wankery -eds]. It comes in at 6,877 words and eleven pages of single spaced (double between paragraphs) of 9 pt verdana type. It isn’t just a blog post, it is a veritable pamphlet of wank complete with italicized words when a point needs to be driven home. Not only are there divisions between grey and pink, there is the further division of the world into warrior sheepdogs, sheep, and wolves (guess who’s who). And of course the sheepdogs don;t always like what they have to do, and the sheep don’t always understand because they a fearful herd, but dammit the sheep have to understand that the wolves want to kill them.

It really is the most breathtaking example of wankery since Kim Du Toit’s epic tissue waster The Pussification Of The Western Male."

So, so very true. They are two of the most epically bad things people have ever put on the internet.

You really owe it to yourself to read the whole "Tribes" post. It has to be seen to be believed.

Posted by: Bas-O-Matic on November 3, 2007 at 7:18 PM | PERMALINK

My picks:

1. Althouse & the Jessica Valenti breast controversy
2. du Toit - Pussification, &c.
3. Goldberg's helpful advice to Katrina victims
4. Assrocket's lament for the unsung genius of George W. Bush
5. Lee Siegel and blogofascism

Frankly, I think the youtube clips from Malkin and Pam need to be in their own category of Worst Web Videos. We could also include in that Althouse's commentary on the Jessica Valenti breast controversy.

Posted by: Isaac on November 3, 2007 at 7:19 PM | PERMALINK

There has to be something by Andrew Sullivan!

Posted by: chris on November 3, 2007 at 7:24 PM | PERMALINK

That Glen Reynolds "I Told You So" one most definitely deserves to be in the top 5. You can just feel the hate oozing.

Posted by: Dan on November 3, 2007 at 7:37 PM | PERMALINK

Is there a contest for the use of oxymoron: intellectual, erudite conservative?

Posted by: Tired in Tennessee on November 3, 2007 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, the entire premise of this post is childish and annoying. It is certain to bring out the worst in the comment community. I don't care if the question is directed to the left asking about "the worst" blog posts from the right, or to the right asking about "the worst" posts from the left.

It ignores the ideas and insults the reader. If the ideas expressed in one side's posts are faulty, by all means respond with fair argumentation that would convince a reader that the ideas have been refuted.

Just saying that the other side has cooties and are stinky stinkpots is something that should not happen after, say, second grade in elementary school. I'm disappointed that you and your community of commenters seem to revel in it.

Posted by: Otis on November 3, 2007 at 8:18 PM | PERMALINK

Wait, Wait, Kevin! You MUST accept a late entry. This is from the Wayback Machine, but I must insist you consider.

Ladies and gentlemen, Jackie Massey Paisley Passey on dating.

She's a Randroid, so I think that counts as a wingnut post.

Posted by: Ron on November 3, 2007 at 8:24 PM | PERMALINK

"My Tribe" is a tear-jerker.
I give it a five-klenex rating.
But for all its humble bravado....
It's lacking one important puzzle piece:

Does "My Tribe" torture people?

Posted by: ROTFLMLAO on November 3, 2007 at 8:36 PM | PERMALINK

So really, we're doing this for the children. And the grandchildren.

As if we need more examples of the stupidity and ignorance of some with access to a distribution channel--bloggers today with web sites or pamphlateers of yesterday with a cheap printing press and minions to pass out their diatribes--they're all much the same (no offense intended).

The fourteen finalists for the worst, most embarrassing, most risible wingnut blog posts of all time are listed below.

You forgot Mein Kampf, and a host of others.

Posted by: has407 on November 3, 2007 at 8:44 PM | PERMALINK

Submitted for consideration:


http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/16/6303/86531

Posted by: majarosh on November 3, 2007 at 8:52 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, the entire premise of this post is childish and annoying. It is certain to bring out the worst in the comment community.

Damn straight! Wingnuts deserve nothing less. Where have you been the last 40 years?

Posted by: elmo on November 3, 2007 at 8:53 PM | PERMALINK

Just saying that the other side has cooties and are stinky stinkpots is something that should not happen after, say, second grade in elementary school. I'm disappointed that you and your community of commenters seem to revel in it.

neener neener neener!!!!eleven!!!!

Posted by: jcricket on November 3, 2007 at 9:07 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, the entire premise of this post is childish and annoying. It is certain to bring out the worst in the comment community.

On the contrary, it is to call a turd a turd, which is eminently worthy, noble and of lasting value.

"They are not ridiculed because ridicule in itself is, or ought to
be, a pleasure, but because it is just to undeceive and vindicate the honest and unpretending part of mankind from imposition, because particular interest ought to yield to general, and a great number who are not naturally fools ought never to be made so, in complaisance to a few who are." -- Alexander Pope

Posted by: ahem on November 3, 2007 at 9:10 PM | PERMALINK

I suppose we should hold a similar contest for Lefty blogs, then compare the results. I can't think of any now, but there must have been a few bad ones.

Posted by: the fake fake al on November 3, 2007 at 9:16 PM | PERMALINK

Wow. That video blog of Pam "Atlas Shrugs" Geller was pretty far out there. She is a low rent Coulter.

Posted by: JAC on November 3, 2007 at 9:19 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, I'd suggest that you use links that open a new tab, because any markings one makes on the poll while reading through the entries is erased when you return back. I marked John Derbyshire's incredibly inane and inhuman post as a sure "top 5" winner, but proceeding to Domenech's otherworldly rant erased my mark for Derbyshire. It's simple to close a tab after you're done reading. As you have it, you either have to remember all five "worsts" or mark your candidates on a piece of paper (!)

Cheers, Greg

Posted by: Greg in FL on November 3, 2007 at 9:22 PM | PERMALINK

In all fairness, I did enjoy taking a closer look at those breasts.

Posted by: Frank on November 3, 2007 at 9:28 PM | PERMALINK

My vote went to Pam "Atlas Shrugs" for her My Sharia video. Any vlog with the words "When you gonna cut my va? va jay jay!" has got to win the prize for worst post ever.


Posted by: Rosali on November 3, 2007 at 9:28 PM | PERMALINK

Atlas Shrugs is easily my favorite wingnut site. She's the quintessential yenta philosopher; loud, myopic; a jingoist torn between two flags. And then there's the irony of the blog name; Atlas Shrugged was written by an atheist born to secular Jewish parents; a woman who didn't believe that the US should have fought in either World War or Vietnam. Oh, delicious irony.

Posted by: Tuna on November 3, 2007 at 9:35 PM | PERMALINK

I went for Den Beste, Derbyshire, du Toit, Reynolds, and Whittle. The Hinderaker, which is in the lead, pales in comparison to those. Clearly you're just reading Kevin's excerpt--come on, people! The rest of it is excrement like all the rest, but it isn't quite as much of a ball-licking fest as that memorable quote leads one to believe. Give Glenn the attention he deserves, and also let's hear a big shout-out to poor Mr. Whittle, who's inexplicably near dead last.

Posted by: fumphis on November 3, 2007 at 9:36 PM | PERMALINK

"what's that drug you use to suppress the urge to puke? I need a sixpack to get through those posts..."

Marijuana. It's one of the best anti-nausea drugs available. Combined with copious amounts of whiskey (I'd recommend Lagavulin), it's more than enough to get through those blogs. And if you're intoxicated enough, some of those blogs might even start making sense. That's when you need to slow down on the whiskey. In some cases, say Christopher Hitchens, you NEED to get wasted before reading. But there are some cases, like Michelle Malkin, where you need something stronger, like DMT.

Posted by: fostert on November 3, 2007 at 9:37 PM | PERMALINK

Has anyone contacted Child Protective Services vis-a-vis the "My Sharia" video? I know child abuse when I see it, and that's child abuse.

Posted by: Bob on November 3, 2007 at 9:49 PM | PERMALINK

My votes went to Ben Domensch because the post was so unbelievably stupid to begin with and it started the infamous 24 hour flameout from the Post.

Kim du Toit for being an impotent, misogynistic weakling with a French girl's name.

Pam Atlas Jugs for actually making me more uncomfortable than David Brent at his most excruciating, embarrassing worst in The Office.

John Assrocket for being the biggest idiot on the Internet.

Michelle Malkin for being the vapid, blinking blow up doll she is.

Posted by: Old Hat on November 3, 2007 at 10:03 PM | PERMALINK

my these are bad. we can only vote for five?

old hat, you give michelle malkin too much credit.

Posted by: mudwall jackson on November 3, 2007 at 10:13 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, the entire premise of this post is childish and annoying. It is certain to bring out the worst in the comment community. I don't care if the question is directed to the left asking about "the worst" blog posts from the right, or to the right asking about "the worst" posts from the left.

Oh dear God, a concern troll who's deeply concerned about the bitter partisanship on the Internet!

Please cease and desist from all partisan activities and reach across the aisle in the interest of tamping down this horrible partisan rancor! David Broder beseeches you, nasty blogofascist liberals!

Posted by: Old Hat on November 3, 2007 at 10:27 PM | PERMALINK

Shorter Pussification:

Big tits good. Mommy bad.

I've said it before...
Time to say it again:
Someone needs to do a psycho study to see if republicanism is a result of not getting enough nipple in the formative years.

Test that hypotheses...
Please.

Posted by: ROTFLMAO on November 3, 2007 at 10:35 PM | PERMALINK

Sullivan wrote "may well mount a fifth column," not the clumsy "mount what amounts to"--he cleaned it up later (including in his own archives, though those are mostly gone now). Google the former phrase and you'll get a whole lot of contemporaneous reaction. I don't think they all misread him.

Posted by: Thrax on November 3, 2007 at 10:40 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, hey, the helpful folks at Free Republic put the whole thing up in its original form. Thanks, guys!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/524437/posts

Posted by: Thrax on November 3, 2007 at 10:42 PM | PERMALINK

Hinderaker ought to win hands down. I showed that post to some wingnuts I know -- the kind of people who argue that Bill O'Reilly is a moderate, the Supreme Court is liberal, and so on -- and every single one of them thought it was a parody post from some liberal blogger. It's so absurd that even people who suffer from terminal Irony Dysfunctional Syndrome could detect something fishy.

Posted by: Martin Gale on November 3, 2007 at 10:50 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

What's the point of voting on this? Genius has its limitations but stupidity is not thus constrained. There is no lower bound!

Posted by: capitalistimperialistpig on November 3, 2007 at 11:29 PM | PERMALINK

There's an additional tidbit about the Hinderaker post that puts it in a class by itself. Not only is he aghast that people don't recognize George Bush's unending genius, but guess what the proximate cause of his aghastness is?

Yep, the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. This is the presidential initiative that's his "latest master stroke."

Is there a single person here who remembers in even vague terms what this supposed master stroke was? I sure can't. But this is what got Assrocket so hot and bothered. That takes a very special brand of wingnuttery.

Posted by: Kevin Drum on November 4, 2007 at 12:56 AM | PERMALINK

And for what it's worth, I didn't realise you could vote for more than one, so eager was I to cast my vote for the Anal Projectile. It's the distilled wingnuttery that makes it a stand-out, the refusal to accept that the emperor is naked even though your head is thrust between his bare asscheeks.

In passing, I'm surprised it isn't the top PowerLine post under Google's results for Assrocket. The linked post is: it's his 40-minute noshing session with Bush, which he calls "an absolutely riveting experience."

Posted by: ahem on November 4, 2007 at 1:21 AM | PERMALINK

a meta-note -- it's said the trajectory of a growing political movement goes something like, first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

well, it would seem the wingnut-o-sphere is at step 2 on the way down.

i think the hardly-ever-right wing is simply doing gandhi's progression in reverse:

first they won, then we fought them, now we're laughing at them, soon we'll ignore them...

Posted by: skippy on November 4, 2007 at 1:32 AM | PERMALINK

ps, be sure to vote for skippy for best liberal blog...i'm only ahead of orcinus by one vote for last place!!

Posted by: skippy on November 4, 2007 at 1:38 AM | PERMALINK

I am SO disappointed that Malkin's 'The John Doe Manifesto' didn't make the list. None of the listed nominees really typify the batshit fascism of the right as well as that one.

Ah well. C'est la vie.

Posted by: JGabriel on November 4, 2007 at 1:45 AM | PERMALINK

I'm crushed. I was going to make the Kim du Twat joke and I see that I've been beaten to the punch by, oh, 2,511,653 people.

Sigh.

Posted by: jprichva on November 4, 2007 at 1:48 AM | PERMALINK

Wow. Just wow. Some of those posts were absolutely wrong in hindsight...but what is Tribes doing there? More generally, this seems like an excuse to p*** on all the right-wing posts you can think of, which is a pretty pointless exercise in partisanship. Why not at least do an equivalent one with all the worst left-wing posts you can think of?

Posted by: Math_Mage on November 4, 2007 at 2:02 AM | PERMALINK

Well, we could misspell it Kim du Toite and then he would be a twat. Not that there's anything objectively wrong with twats, which are fine, upstanding bodily accessories, and the word really shouldn't be used as an insult. In his case, though, an exception seems prudent.

Posted by: shortstop on November 4, 2007 at 2:16 AM | PERMALINK

Wow, the terrible "partisanship" of mocking horrendously bad winger posts on a left-leaning blog seems to have gotten some freeper concern trolls' panties in a twist. This ain't Joe Lieberman's house. If Kevin wants to make fun of atrocious winger blogging, he (and we) will do it with no reaching across the aisle required.

Posted by: shortstop on November 4, 2007 at 2:20 AM | PERMALINK

The atlasshrugged/pamela geller/my sharia link crashed Firefox. Boo hiss.

Malkin - you'd think someone who subs for O'Reilly would have the least clue about video production value. Like editing out the second of inhale before yelling. It'd make her look more energetic.

Ann Althouse - is it wrong that I think I need the picture in question before deciding?

Hugh Hewitt's post sounds like a Fark cliche of some member who got shamed off the site when he huffily claimed being at some sort of risk on 9/11 because he had a view of Logan Airport. Can't remember or find it now, but *they* had the sense to ridicule him into oblivion. It occasionally comes up, especially in photoshop contests, usually in the context of "man up, you wimp ass"

But for me, if I were to put one post in a time capsule to describe the decrepit state of public discourse, it would be Instapundit. The most popular right-wing blogger, reflecting the attitude of the majority of media pundits, hand-waving at the oh-so-wrong naysayers. The capacity of self-delusion makes this the premier post, far and above everyone else.

Posted by: anonymous on November 4, 2007 at 2:31 AM | PERMALINK

I can't believe I read through all of them. They were all just so bad. I don't really mind the Instapundit-type ones that just happened to be wrong, but the sheer stupidity and cluelessness. den Beste has to be on the top because he doesn't want people coming from here to read his stuff and because he thought that France will attack the US over Iraq. My Sharia was the most cringe inducing - the if-I-knew-Geller-I-would-never-ever-recognize-her-in-public bad.

Thanks a lot Kevin.

Posted by: mcdruid on November 4, 2007 at 2:35 AM | PERMALINK

"Wow, the terrible "partisanship" of mocking horrendously bad winger posts on a left-leaning blog seems to have gotten some freeper concern trolls' panties in a twist. This ain't Joe Lieberman's house. If Kevin wants to make fun of atrocious winger blogging, he (and we) will do it with no reaching across the aisle required."

My point was that it was a stupid thing to do, and just happened to be partisan as well. My suggestion doesn't make it a less stupid thing to do, it was just facetious.

And my question stands - why Tribes?

Posted by: Math_Mage on November 4, 2007 at 2:37 AM | PERMALINK

Deciding which to vote for is hard, since most of these aren't bad posts. They're hilarious, enjoyable to read, and quite memorable... all things that are rather the opposite of bad. The concept is "wingnuttiest" which is different, I suppose, but worthwhile. The worst blog posts ever would be utterly forgettable, and not worth differentiating between.

Still, it pains me to vote for writing that I would find hilarious and enjoyable if it were intentional parody. The Kim du Toit post, for instance, is essentially vintage Maddox, author of the best page in the universe and a ridiculous How to be a Man comedy book I always get a few laughs from while browsing Borders.

Quite a few of these could slip effortlessly into the fake editorial archives of the Onion, for that matter. The Hindraker one about Bush's genius, for instance.

It's also tricky to judge some with the benefit of hindsight. I don't think there's any rational defense of the de Benste Francophobic betwetting, but Glenn Reynolds' "nah" had some factual basis, at least at the time it was written. Then it was just mean and petty and stupid. It's only with the benefit of time that it's become vote-worthy. How will the rest of these selections age?

Posted by: Flux on November 4, 2007 at 2:45 AM | PERMALINK

The atlasshrugged/pamela geller/my sharia link crashed Firefox.

Lucky you.

Posted by: Thlayli on November 4, 2007 at 5:42 AM | PERMALINK

I don't see how anyone but Hindraker could win. I still remember the day that was published. It took quite some time to be convinced their site hadn't been hacked.

Posted by: Jazz on November 4, 2007 at 7:16 AM | PERMALINK

My vote went to Pam "Atlas Shrugs" for her My Sharia video. Any vlog with the words "When you gonna cut my va? va jay jay!" has got to win the prize for worst post ever.

Oh dear. It just dawned on me what she is saying here. My shoulders were so hunched up in permanent cringe mode that I missed it the first go around.

Posted by: JAC on November 4, 2007 at 7:18 AM | PERMALINK

"Kim du Toit for being an impotent, misogynistic weakling with a French girl's name."

1. I'm not impotent.
2. I'm not a misogynist.
3. "Kim" isn't a French name, male or female.

"I'm crushed. I was going to make the Kim du Twat joke and I see that I've been beaten to the punch by, oh, 2,511,653 people."

So by your own admission, you're not only pathetic, you're unoriginal.

Making fun of someone's name always works SO well in the grade-school playground, which is what this silly little exercise of Drum seems to be.

I should point out that of the email responses from women that I've received about this rant, the positives outweigh the negatives by about 300 to 1. At least most women seem to get the point of the post -- too bad it seems to have flown over the heads of most, including Kevin Drum.

Oh, and by the way, I'm really upset that more people are offended by John Darbyshire (surely, the mildest of conservatives) than by me. That stings.

And I can't believe that the Pussification essay made it ahead of Let Africa Sink, which has also triggered the liberal Offend-O-Meter so much in the past, so that horrified liberals could add "Racist!" to the "Misogynist!" epithets.

Maybe next year, Kevin?

Posted by: Kim du Toit on November 4, 2007 at 8:28 AM | PERMALINK

Kim's site is so sophisticated. The air of an intellectual. So thoughtful too. Mustache? Arrogant? Not likely to take a joke well? HA HA

Posted by: bobbywally on November 4, 2007 at 8:39 AM | PERMALINK

Nothing by the anti-idiotarian rottweiler? (nicedoggie.net)

Probably the most deranged right-wing blog I've ever seen.

Posted by: Speed on November 4, 2007 at 8:51 AM | PERMALINK

Gee, Kim, it's good to see that you don't take this stuff (or yourself) too seriously.

You obviously have the Bloggers' Disease (which the late Steve Gilliard suffered from): you spend an enormous amount of time & energy battling with other bloggers and responding to negative posts and e-mails, defending your Ego, rather than keeping some perspective on how unimportant most of this stuff is.

Posted by: Gay Old Potty on November 4, 2007 at 8:55 AM | PERMALINK

Funny how many of the right-wing blogs have closed commenting systems. They want to fight the Global War Against Islamo-Fascism but they're afraid of a few liberals leaving comments.

Posted by: Not a Troll on November 4, 2007 at 9:18 AM | PERMALINK

This was a tough call! Finally voted for Derbyshire's piece on the Virginia Tech shootings. For me, this article epitomizes neo-conservatives extraordinary lack of conscience in pushing their agenda. Their "end" always justifies their "means".

Posted by: JerseyMissouri on November 4, 2007 at 9:28 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin writes about the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate and whether anyone here remembers why it was considered a "latest master stroke" by Bush.

Fortunately "anyone here" does not include rdw. He posted extensively about the Asia Pacific Partnership and how they were going to leave Kyoto in the dust. This was back in the latter days of '05, when rdw would post for hours - There was one time in December '05 when rdw, Alex and TBroz hooked up about APP, the EU and the US. It became so bad that Pale Rider actually thought it was a rdw parody. If only rdw would have had his own blog site, he could have been in the top five.

Posted by: bert on November 4, 2007 at 9:30 AM | PERMALINK

Man, that Kim du Toit has some real issues. I scanned though his post and the bit about the Cheerios commercial caught my eye. Going off on a rant about characters in a tee-vee commercial? Yikes. Somebody has some real deep-seated issues with their Mommy, I'd say...

Posted by: Mark on November 4, 2007 at 9:45 AM | PERMALINK

Homer: Get off your butt. That's a job for conservatives. This is a contest for worst wingnut blog entry.

Kevin views politics as tribalism rather than a serious discussion... so, of course, his 'side' couldn't have a bad blog post. Sad but expected.

Posted by: Al on November 4, 2007 at 9:55 AM | PERMALINK

But Otis, Kevin, Atrios, Kos, et al, and the commenters therein, have been explaining for years why those posts and similar are idiotic. It's disingenuous of you to expect that *every time the posts are mentioned*, we have to reinvent the wheel and provide rebuttals again right there.

Posted by: Neil B. on November 4, 2007 at 9:56 AM | PERMALINK

OK Al, since you believe that honor means providing bad posts from your own side, let's see your nominees for worst right-wing blog posts.

PS: I was addressing Otis, but then listing Kevin et al - a quirk of comma use.

Posted by: Neil B. on November 4, 2007 at 9:58 AM | PERMALINK

Guys, I know hard-core lefties are notorious for lacking a sense of humor, but let me suggest that the Hinderaker post was an over the top put-on to get your eyes spinning in concentric circles until your heads explode.

Posted by: minion on November 4, 2007 at 10:02 AM | PERMALINK

I voted for Pam "Shrieky" Atlas since she got her children involved. That takes it to a whole 'nother level of terrible.

And minion, it didn't work, did it?

Posted by: Doodle Bean on November 4, 2007 at 10:05 AM | PERMALINK

All we should do is make sure that none of Africa gets transplanted over to the U.S., because the danger to our society is dire if it does. I note that several U.S. churches are attempting to bring groups of African refugees over to the United States, European churches the same for Europe. Mistake. Mark my words, this misplaced charity will turn around and bite us, big time.
-- Kim de Toit, Let Africa Sink.

Kim is right. This essay is truly pukeworthy.

Posted by: Douglas Watts on November 4, 2007 at 10:10 AM | PERMALINK

Funny how many of the right-wing blogs have closed commenting systems. They want to fight the Global War Against Islamo-Fascism but they're afraid of a few liberals leaving comments.

Actually, I think they are even more afraid of their own supporters leaving comments - that would just reveal how stupid/hateful/racist/misogynist/etc their fans are - not to mention the inevitable schisms that would result.

Posted by: Cholly on November 4, 2007 at 10:20 AM | PERMALINK

why Tribes?

Since I nominated it, I'd say that this sentence alone does it:

if the Superdome had been filled with white, middle-class, racist, conservative cocksuckers like myself, it would not have been a refinery of horror, but rather a citadel of hope and order and restraint and compassion.

Even if we accept Whittle's protestations that this isn't about race, the smug self-satisfaction alone would be enough to put this over the top. Also that the "refinery of horror" stories about the Superdome turned out to be urban legends.

Posted by: Matt Weiner on November 4, 2007 at 10:20 AM | PERMALINK

Or, if you like, we can go to the Poor Man:

If anyone is wondering what exactly we are looking for in a wanker, using the country’s worst natural disaster in recent memory as a chance to exalt their hypothetical heroism is a pretty good example.

Posted by: Matt Weiner on November 4, 2007 at 10:24 AM | PERMALINK

I nominate this post: Paul Tibbets died a coward today at the age of 92.

Posted by: Bluto on November 4, 2007 at 10:37 AM | PERMALINK

A great pic of du toit, Whittle, and Emporer Misha. Let's roll!

Posted by: YesIAmALookist on November 4, 2007 at 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

What a great idea, drive a bunch of traffic to the wingnut sites. Those with ads will appreciate the revenue you drive their way.

Posted by: Chris Brown on November 4, 2007 at 10:40 AM | PERMALINK

I voted for the Derbyshire post on the Virginia Tech shootings, for the stunningly infantile macho posturing. You read that post think "this was written by a child." On second thought though, the Hindraker Bush-worship post is the clear winner.

Posted by: Del Capslock on November 4, 2007 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINK

Damn... I didn't read "let's take a closer look at those breasts" until after I voted. Can I get a do-over?

Posted by: keptsimple on November 4, 2007 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINK

Wow, Lookist--

He even LOOKS like a twat.

Shortstop--
As you point out, the twat itself is a noble thing. The word, however, is funny. And has fallen into disuse. Though just the other day, one of my co-workers revived the old joke about the TWA flight attendant of yore who went down the aisle offering her clients "TWA Coffee, TWA Milk, or TWA Tea?"
That got a big laugh in the fourth grade.

Posted by: jprichva on November 4, 2007 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

Lee Siegel's nomination doesn't really seem to fit in with the rest of those, in that he's not really a wingnut, per se. He's just a pompous fool. It's like if Harold Bloom took up blogging, only without the knowledge or intelligence of Harold Bloom.

On the other hand, that particular post is so bad that it frankly deserves to have its own category to compete in.

Posted by: Ray Radlein on November 4, 2007 at 11:31 AM | PERMALINK

As a pussified male who still takes as close a look at those breasts as possible, I am torn. How can I choose only one of these effusions of idiocy? I have a classic pussy-liberal solution: let's give them all the blue ribbon. They are all special and above average in their own unique ways and we should cherish them all equally

Posted by: JHM on November 4, 2007 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

A question from the illustrious B. Bunny:

"Was this trip really necessary?"

[Those much younger than myself will have NO idea how much irony lurks in that simple quote.]

Posted by: Poilu on November 4, 2007 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

Poilu--

I knew I shoulda taken that left toin in Albuqouique..."

Posted by: jprichva on November 4, 2007 at 11:51 AM | PERMALINK

Jeepers. It's really hard to throw any of these people off the bus. This kind of reading is an emetic corrective to any idea that Americans are, on the whole, just a better class of people than say, the Germans, circa 1937.

Kim Il Twa is just a prima facie case study. He could be very usefully exploited for a Psych into lecture.

But a tip, for real, consistent smug crapulosity it's hard to beat Keith Burgess-Jackson, who used to bill himself as the Anal Philosopher, which might provide the fodder for Lecture 2: Reverse Autism: Irony-Impairment and the Self-Blind. Yikes!

http://www.analphilosopher.com/

Posted by: Kalkaino on November 4, 2007 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINK

What, not more love for Den Beste?

I mean, he frets about wanting the war he so enthusiastically supported being OVER (like it was the night before Christmas, f' crissake), he blocks "liberal" sites from linking to his blog, AND he's got a frickin' STARDATE on the post.

I dunno, Crazy Pammy might be funnier, but I... I can't, I just can't.

Posted by: Pere Ubu on November 4, 2007 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

Well, obviously The Genius of George Bush was a classic from the day it was published. Never having the stomach (or the time to waste) to haunt these various sites, most of them were new to me.

I have to say, the meditation on What if France Invades Us seems to gather up all the neuroses of the right wing into one tidy little package.

Posted by: joanbeach4 on November 4, 2007 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINK

Well, as the author of what seems to be the most-cited anti-du Toit/"Pussification" post (note: not giving title or link, in order to avoid charges of fishing for hits), I hope I've got at least a little bit of credibility to speak to the "concern troll" issue.

Personally, I think Kevin's blog is the very best of its type. And I think this whole little 'worst post' project has been a hoot. And I think that all the posts in question are dreck. And I think that dreck deserves ridicule.

But, like some of the folks above, I do worry that we might do this general kind of thing too much. I'm not saying that there's some great wrong going on here, and I'm not trying to kill anybody's buzz. I'm just saying that expressing the thought in question doesn't make you crazy or conservative or a concern troll.

There ARE such things as concern trolls, but not everybody who asks "hey, aren't we fanning the flames of partisanship a little excessively here?" is one. A concern troll, I take it, is somebody who does that all the time, or does it insincerely as a sneaky way of defusing criticism...or who's just a tool about it. Or something.

But if you just use "concern troll" to dismiss everybody who raises questions about excessive partisanship, then you've taken a big step toward creating the very kind of hyper-partisan environment that these so-called "concern trolls" are warning you about.

So, though this is an enjoyable opportunity to revel in the worst of the worst from the other side, I don't see why it can't also provide an opportunity to recognize that the worst of the worst may not be all that the other side has to offer. It's just a reminder that it's easy to go overboard with the guilty pleasures...

O.k., bring on the ridicule...

Posted by: Winston Smith on November 4, 2007 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

"My Sharia"...That had to be one the hardest things I've had to watch in a long time...ooh it burns.

Posted by: sauce on November 4, 2007 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

I should point out that of the email responses from women that I've received about this rant, the positives outweigh the negatives by about 300 to 1.

And you received nothing but praise for it from your wife, Morgan Fairchild.

Posted by: ahem on November 4, 2007 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

Malkin's 'Still Standing' post deserves a mention, if maybe not the top spot. That's the one where she goes to Iraq and films a mosque with a giant RPG hole in its roof, then declares the AP report on it being 'destroyed' to be a big pack of MSM lies, 'cos, see! It's 'still standing'! And now it's even got a skylight!

Posted by: D. Aristophanes on November 4, 2007 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

Hi Winston Smith

I have to say, what's wrong with laughing at the enemy? And what's wrong with recognizing that the enemy is the enemy? Kim du Toit and the rest aren't trying to launch a debate. When they write it's for the purpose of throwing garbage at out heads. Sometimes we throw the garbage back.

One great thing about this contest is that it introduced me to "Tribes." Man, that's a hoot.

Posted by: Kyle on November 4, 2007 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

Winston Smith won't toot his own horn, but I will (too Winston's horn, that is, assuming he's into that sort of thing):

The duToitification of the Western Conservative

And also, my own:

The Genitalization Of The Western Amoeba

Posted by: D. Aristophanes on November 4, 2007 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

>I have to say, what's wrong with laughing at the enemy?

I dont think the problem is the laughter.

I think the problem is that you actually consider your fellow-countrymen to be your enemy, when there are real and dangerous enemies that are to kill all of us.

Posted by: Vince P on November 4, 2007 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

Does Martin Peretz count as a wingnut? I would think that a wingnut couldn't love Al Gore. On the other hand, who but a wingnut could accuse Desmond Tutu of threatening the Jews?

I threatened the Jews once. I kept Martin Peretz from cutting ahead of me at the 7-11. Not only that, but I did it with my "characteristic sneer."

Of course the Peretz post about Tutu isn't a manifesto (as Kevin requested for entries), just a brief crystallization of paranoia and ill will.

Posted by: Kyle on November 4, 2007 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK

The problem, Winston, is that you have said everything that a concern troll says, in precisely the same language, and with precisely the same followup "I'm sincere, how dare you doubt me" defense, not to mention your brilliantly executed form of prior restraint "have at me now" cherry on the top. Your sputtering of "but, but, but, you mean people are lockstep thinkers stiffling a good discussion" is classic trollism. An accident? The world collapses if Kevin's pages don't adhere to your faux standards?

Either you have a fatal lack of self-awareness or you are a concern troll. Neither possibility is all that attractive.

Posted by: Nash on November 4, 2007 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

"Tribes" is not getting enough love/hate in this poll.

Most of these posts are just people overtly saying things that they more subtly say every day. Only Bill Whittle actually goes the distance and uses a laundry list of racist cliches recast in a new language of "tribes", uses the same principles of limited executive power that Republicans claim destroy American security to defend Bush's response to Katrina, claims that he would have prevented September 11th if he was on one of the planes, and on and on. It's non-stop crazy with fantasies of personal and "tribal" aggrandizement mixed in.

Give it a chance, please.

Posted by: Tom on November 4, 2007 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

I can't believe I just wasted part of my Sunday morning reading all this claptrap.

Posted by: Crackpotpress on November 4, 2007 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, Vince P.

You must get your melodrama under control. But at least you left out "in a time of war."

Posted by: Kyle on November 4, 2007 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

Mr. du Toit: It isn't a silly exercise of Drum to have such a contest, even if some commenters make fun of your name, etc. I have seen similar or worse put-downs on the rightist blogs (the centrist ones are, of course, the most polite.)

Vince P: Can you tell that to the rightist bloggers (and politicians), who are manifestly more obsessed with declaring other Americans to enemies than anyone like Kevin Drum or even Atrios?

Posted by: Neil B. on November 4, 2007 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

ah, i didn't think the Ben Domenech piece was that bad, just wrong....
it did have a link to this post, tho...

Ben Domenech Resigns
In the past 24 hours, we learned of allegations that Ben Domenech plagiarized material that appeared under his byline in various publications prior to washingtonpost.com contracting with him to write a blog that launched Tuesday.

An investigation into these allegations was ongoing, and in the interim, Domenech has resigned, effective immediately.

When we hired Domenech, we were not aware of any allegations that he had plagiarized any of his past writings. In any cases where allegations such as these are made, we will continue to investigate those charges thoroughly in order to maintain our journalistic integrity.

Plagiarism is perhaps the most serious offense that a writer can commit or be accused of. Washingtonpost.com will do everything in its power to verify that its news and opinion content is sourced completely and accurately at all times.

We appreciate the speed and thoroughness with which our readers and media outlets surfaced these allegations. Despite the turn this has taken, we believe this event, among other things, testifies to the positive and powerful role that the Internet can play in the the practice of journalism.

We also remain committed to representing a broad spectrum of ideas and ideologies in our Opinions area.

Jim Brady
Executive Editor, washingtonpost.com

By Jim Brady | March 24, 2006; 01:17 PM ET

Posted by: dj spellchecka on November 4, 2007 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

I have to go with Blogfacism. The reason being is just the plain whiniest.

Posted by: Crackpotpress on November 4, 2007 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, "Tribes"! Overwrought grandiosity, plus sheepdogs.

I never heard of this Whittle guy before, but the first few paragraphs sold me. The rest changed my notions of the written word and its, uh, potentialities. What an outpouring! What slopping passion! I must get something to wipe my shoes. But it was worth it to learn I am a, a ... oh wait ... a Pink Sheepdog? Something like that.

Posted by: Kyle on November 4, 2007 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

Wow. Just wow. Some of those posts were absolutely wrong in hindsight...but what is Tribes doing there? More generally, this seems like an excuse to p*** on all the right-wing posts you can think of, which is a pretty pointless exercise in partisanship. Why not at least do an equivalent one with all the worst left-wing posts you can think of?

Posted by: Math_Mage on November 4, 2007 at 2:02 AM | PERMALINK

See this..

Or, if you like, we can go to the Poor Man:
...
Posted by: Matt Weiner on November 4, 2007 at 10:24 AM | PERMALINK

If you don't see the breathtaking, self serving, stupidity (indeed the rank wankery) in dividing the world up, first into grey and pink tribes, then into "sheepdogs," "sheep," and "wolves," calling your self a "grey sheepdog," and the people in New Orleans, and on the planes on 9/11 "pink sheep," and in general spending some 11,000 words heralding what a very brave, manly, courageous person you are, all in the wake of one of the greatest catastrophes in American history, then that's your problem.

Posted by: Bas-O-Matic on November 4, 2007 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

Like, where do you even begin? I voted for Reynolds on the theory that he, unlike Kim du Toit, Pamela Geller and, to a lesser extent, Ann Althouse, is sane.

Posted by: Joe Strummer on November 4, 2007 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

I'm sorry I tried, I really did. I was only able to get through a couple of them before I couldn't take any more.
After so long of reading these (I had in the past read a few of them), my tolerance is not what it used to be.
For those who were able to read them all, I salute your resistance.
You deserve to pick the winner, I recuse myself from voting.
All I had read and the 3 I read today are very worhty contenders.

Posted by: Kahn on November 4, 2007 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

Kim du Toit may be a complete prick, but his surname is pronounced "Du Toy" not "Du Twat". It's a Huguenot name that evolved in South Africa from "Du Twa" to "Du Toy" as the Huguenots became Afrikaners. Also, "Kim" is not a very uncommon name for men in South Africa. Whatever hang-ups about sexuality Du Toit may have, I doubt very much they have anything to do with his name.

Posted by: SCM on November 4, 2007 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

Assrocket is approaching to genius.

Whatever happened to him anyway? Is checking the kerning on the U.S. Constitution?

Posted by: HeavyJ on November 4, 2007 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

Den Beste is certainly the nuttiest, but almost lovably. The rest are psycopaths.

I vote for Assrocket. Just when the idiocy of his post might seem to flag, he concocts the most supremely unrelated wingnut baloney you could want: "I doubt that the pact will make any difference to the earth's climate, which will be determined, as always, by variations in the energy emitted by the sun". Ah, the master at work.

Posted by: Gary Sugar on November 4, 2007 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

Gotta go with defeatocrats - can't help myself.

Posted by: sherifffruitfly on November 4, 2007 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

Um, where is Charles Johnson's leaping lizard drivel?

Posted by: getalife on November 4, 2007 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

Anyway there's nothing wrong with the name "Kim." I knew a Kim once and he ran a bait-and-tackle shop when he wasn't yanking kerchiefs off the heads of little Muslim girls on their way to school. Or writing posts about how he would have parachuted into North Korea to kill Kim Jong-il if it weren't for his nosebleeds. Or setting up his little action figurines so they could watch anime videos as a group. He was a great guy with an endearing high-pitched voice and lively views on the feminization of cereal box graphics. When he leaned forward his stomach touched his toes for him. I miss Kim, but he was up for a job with the USIA and no one's heard a thing from him since.

Posted by: Kyle on November 4, 2007 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

So many assholes...so little time.

Posted by: Zak44 on November 4, 2007 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

Kim of the Roof(the translation of his name: du toit)is too couch-potato fat to be French. It doesn't surprise me that he might have South African apartheid roots.

He looks the part.

Posted by: bernarda on November 4, 2007 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

Went with:

Ann Althouse: this likely will remain topical at least through 2012, possibly longer.

Steven Den Beste: perfectly sums up a lot of hawkwingnut attitude prior to the war.

John Derbyshire: staggering at the time, continues to be so even at length from the event. A classic example of how wingnuts see the world through Manly Men glasses, even when they themselves aren't.

Kim du Toit: An instant classic, perhaps moreso than anything else on the list.

Lee Siegel: How can one *not* vote for this?


Near misses:

Ben Domenech: the meltdown was great. The post itself doesn't have much staying power, and sadly has more truth in it than some of us want to ponder. He's off on the notion that the views of the left have "failed" since the 90s. It's really all the views of the right that have failed badly. But there is a lot of truth in the fact that many of the Dems that have won office swiming against the tide the Republican base have done so by being Red Dogs. We look around too many Dems that frustrate the hell out of us a lot more than Crybaby Bohnner. Out here in California, DiFi talks tough and then rolls over to give the Admin what it wants, along with the Telcoms and far too many other folks who've been lining her pockets. So while the flameout was wonderful, there are some painful elements of the post.

Jonah Goldberg: I'd love to vote for Loadpants, but this isn't his most intellectually dishonest moment... or even close to it. It is a nice moment of wingnutty behavior, but it's too easy.

Robert Hahn & John Hinderaker: There remain entertaining posts.

Don't Rate:

Hugh Hewitt & Glenn Reynolds: they've said so many nutty things, that while these are prime examples of their nuttiness, they don't get me all that worked up. Hewitt and Reynolds are more of a cumilative effect - one post never sums up their full insanity.

Pam Geller: Weak selection. It's embarassing, but in 5 years no one will pay any attention to it.

Michelle Malkin: Strikes me as a lazy selection. I would have preferred something that she wrote that was a total trainwreck of facts and logic than the cheerleader video. Malkin looks like a fool, but she is one all the time. This simply isn't biting.

Bill Whittle: This is almost a throwaway. I've got to think there are better candidates out there.

John

Posted by: jdw on November 4, 2007 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

My Sharia - for being the most absolutely disingenious bare-naked prejudice, couched in the most effective type of graphic media. People who like this also like to watch maggots devouring a dead rat. Yum!

"President Bush understands money.." OMG! WTF? There really are aliens among us not from this planet!

Glenn Reynolds...how's that CROW tasting now, buddy? HAHAHAHA.

"Tribes" - PUH-LEEZE don't tell me this guy is a product of our best Ivy League schools...'cause if he is, we're in BAD shape! His tribe is fat, prone to heart attacks, their major workout is tracking their investments, and they have WAY TOO MUCH time on their hands.

He is right on one point: race is often used to explain CULTURAL differences. There's a huge difference in ascribing behavior to skin color pigmentation (which of course, cannot possibly affect behavior) or to cultural conditioning (which of course defines behavior for many people).

That was actually a deep insight coming from a racist. But, he's still a racist, probably due to his own cultural conditioning.

Posted by: getyeryayasout on November 4, 2007 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

I would like to see the Liberal version of this, really. Every post on the list was from a major conservative blogger. I'd read posts from every person on the list prior to this vote being called, and while these are crazy bad, their day to day output is funny too.

Imagine the worst, most crazy posts from Matt Y., Kevin, Paul Krugman ect. They are nowhere near as mind-bendingly bad as the posts on this list.

Posted by: mickslam on November 4, 2007 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

What about the most controversial comments? I had fifteen nano seconds of infamy for my Michelle Malkin comment.

Posted by: Hostile on November 4, 2007 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

Derbyshire isn't a wingnut as much as he's an ass.

Posted by: Batocchio on November 4, 2007 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

I vote for you.

Posted by: grams on November 4, 2007 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

Did Steve den Beste take down that post, erase it from the site's archives? I can't read it - I get a 404 from his site, when I search it through his archive search, I get sent to the same 404 page.

Did he dismantle an entry in his archives just to annoy people coming from here?

If so - he really deserves a mention in the annals of greater wingnuttery for doing just that; not letting other people read his writings.

The wanker even has blocked Archive.org from his site: I'm proud of what I wrote, but I won't let you read it ... !!!

Yeah right. He'll get my vote in these grounds alone.

Posted by: Ole on November 4, 2007 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

Is there anyone copying interesting posts and comments etc., that might not be on archive.org? I suppose someone/s would think to do that.

Posted by: Neil B. on November 4, 2007 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

"Did Steve den Beste take down that post, erase it from the site's archives? I can't read it - I get a 404 from his site, when I search it through his archive search, I get sent to the same 404 page."

Same here. Now I'm curious as to just how bad that post is.

Posted by: Paul on November 4, 2007 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINK

Why not at least do an equivalent one with all the worst left-wing posts you can think of?

What would the point of that exercise be, exactly?

God, I hate the motherfucking Civility Brigade.

Posted by: Fishbone McGonigle on November 4, 2007 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin views politics as tribalism rather than a serious discussion... so, of course, his 'side' couldn't have a bad blog post.

Hilarious, considering that it was someone from your "tribe" who once said that the eleventh commandment was "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican."

How is that not tribalism, again?

Posted by: Fishbone McGonigle on November 4, 2007 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

I says:

Pam Implant Shrugs
Bennie Boy
Jonah Pantload Doughy Division
Hyoooo Hyooouu-it
And of course, Kimberly Dew Toy. Much like the famous Carlin skit about the name you are given(Wayne Pierre for gawds sake), imagine being tagged a girl's name in middle school. Lots of teasing going on there that builds up over time. Rush, Newt, to boot.

Posted by: adj on November 4, 2007 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK

Den Beste seems to have scrubbed the post from his site, so I guess that should earn him some kind of award.

Posted by: Steve J. on November 4, 2007 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINK

DuhTwat's post got my top vote for two reasons: 1) lots of 'scientific facts' but no references; 2) it was the most obvious example of making stuff up to prove a point I think I've ever seen.

And who can resist the frustrated, bitter, inadequate Asshouse? She was my second pick.

All in all, a good lineup.

Thanks!

Posted by: Caveat on November 4, 2007 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK

This may seem hard to believe, but it appears Pammy *wants* her devoted tens of readers to vote for her here.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/

Posted by: marsden on November 4, 2007 at 6:13 PM | PERMALINK

imagine being tagged a girl's name in middle school. Lots of teasing going on there that builds up over time.

yeah, might explain the guy's overpowering impulse to constantly prove his manhood.

I'm telling ya, I've known a few men in my lifetime (my ex-father is one of them) who were waaaaaaay too concerned about what constitutes 'manly' or 'masculine' behavior. Paging Dr. Freud...

Posted by: rnato on November 4, 2007 at 6:25 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not quite sure how Debbie Schlussel managed to avoid being on that list.

Posted by: ChenZhen on November 4, 2007 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

"Ex-father", Renato? There must be a story there.

Posted by: Boronx on November 4, 2007 at 6:46 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry Whittle got my vote by virtue of the level of sophistication of his commentors' responses - "dur I agree", "dur you rock", "dur - erm - dur"

Posted by: Zellaby on November 4, 2007 at 6:51 PM | PERMALINK

"Ex-father", Renato? There must be a story there.

there is and I shan't bore the shit out of you and everyone else here by relating it.

Posted by: rnato on November 4, 2007 at 6:57 PM | PERMALINK

Where's the ALL OF THE ABOVE button???

Posted by: The Oracle on November 4, 2007 at 6:58 PM | PERMALINK

With a post like that, he should change is name to Hinde-licker.

Posted by: Buck on November 4, 2007 at 7:02 PM | PERMALINK

A great eviceration of Kim du Twat's whiny rant.

Posted by: Ken on November 4, 2007 at 8:51 PM | PERMALINK

Just saying that the other side has cooties and are stinky stinkpots is something that should not happen after, say, second grade in elementary school.

Who said they have cooties? (But go look at a website like Protein Wisdom. They say all liberals have cooties on the GOOD, more grownup days.)

Maybe the real nutters like Geller should be divided from the rest, who are mostly people the Right takes seriously. VERY seriously. And that's the point. So we all have our biases and bad moments. But really now - how can one tell the bottom from the top when people like Hindraker, Goldberg and Hewitt are saying the things they do - and they're so damn sincere about it?

You think that's unsporting to remind others of their "unhinged" moments? (A word, ironically favored by the totally unhinged Malkin.) Seems fair, to me. In a better world, these people would get as much attention as a Ward Churchill.


Besides, it's fun, dammit.

Posted by: T4TN on November 4, 2007 at 11:14 PM | PERMALINK

Wait! I didn't see "vote for up to 5" line before it was too late. That still might make it too hard.

BTW...So by your own admission, you're not only pathetic, you're unoriginal.

Please tell me that's not the real Kim du Toit.

If people going to be that thin-skinned and humorless, they should keep it to themselves. Running about in a fit of comic self-righteousness and calling people names just makes them look.... let's say - quite unaware about how ironic that was.

another poster said..

Hewitt and Reynolds are more of a cumulative effect - one post never sums up their full insanity.

Good point but then the same could be said of Malkin, and others. Somebody..please tell me the grownup conservatives will come back in vogue one day soon. I used to think the madness was just about Clinton.

Boy, was I wrong.

Posted by: T4TN on November 4, 2007 at 11:42 PM | PERMALINK

Despite the fact that Den Beste appears to have scrubbed his site of the "It's the Waiting That Wears" post (and only that post, if you go into his archives the posts on either side of that one are still available), one of the commenters on Matt Yglesias' site found a cached copy on the wayback machine:
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/11/worst_post_ever.php#comment-786387

Posted by: msmackle on November 5, 2007 at 2:44 AM | PERMALINK

"I am aware of the fury that this statement is going to arouse, and I don�t care a fig."

That is the statement of a truly pussified twat. At least Kim resembled his topic. Wonder how many guys he's blown in the airport.

Posted by: JustSickOfIt on November 5, 2007 at 3:09 AM | PERMALINK

OT (almost), but I am a compulsive storyteller -- K of the Roof's pussification post reminds me of a story a Viet Vet I used to know loved to tell. I sorta doubt its veracity (my beloved points out it sounds bit much like the "now where's this woman you want me to wrestle" kinda story), but, well, let's have K dT judge:

This guy did 18 months in Vietnam, of which the first three, pre-Tet, were a blast, full of dope and dough and women, and the last year+ was hellish, mostly in the Ashau Valley. When he returned (shouting out to a crowd of strangers at JFK: "did you miss me?"), he was most seriously alienated.

This guy also had (has) a last name that is a widely known slang for a gay man, which he had not known until he joined the Army. This lingering revelation did not make him less homophobic in his violent alienated peak physical condition combat vet early 20s. And thus, a story about manhood.

So he was in Chicago driving a cab, still pissed off at the world and his hair had only just started to grow out. He didn't know anybody in town, so at nights he'd go to bars to see if he liked the scene. He was just finishing his first beer at one bar, so he tells the story, when he realized that the guy a few stools away was gay -- early 70s, big city disco era, when gay men were starting to come out of the closet and get buff. When the bartender came over to my friend with his nearly empty glass and asked how he was doing, he snarled: "This would be a really nice bar even you didn't let queers in it."

The bartender raised an eyebrow.

The gay guy heard him, of course, and put down his glass, looked at my friend, and said: Son, there's just two things I love to do in this world, and that's suck dick and fight.

"Let's fight then," says my friend the recently-returned combat vet, and the bartender points to the unalarmed fire door into the alley.

My friend loved to tell this part of the story, explaining that he was in the best shape of his life and felt ferocious, so he just attacked this guy, intending to knock him down and stomp him with his jump boots. But the gay guy had evidently both experience and training, cuz he handled this kid with ease -- tripping him, kicking him in the chest, countering berserk charges by throwing him into trash cans with his own force, and generally just beating the hell outa the guy until finally all the the fight was out of him, plus he felt like a damn fool when he realized that not only was there no way he was gonna hurt this gay man, but that the guy he had insulted was essentially playing with him: could've crippled him or worse at any time, but just let my friend wear himself out.

So the vet finally just lay there, his nose bleeding a little, breathing heavy, and he sez: Okay, you win. The gay guy helps him up by the back of his shirt, pushes him through the door and back onto his barstool, and tells the bartender to put a couple more beershis tab. The gay guy drinks a long swallow, looks at the vet, and says: Well, what do you think now?

My friend wipes his bloody nose, takes the gift beer, his ribs hurting, and he sez: "No offense, but I bet you give one helluva blowjob."

Posted by: theAmericanist on November 5, 2007 at 8:08 AM | PERMALINK

Helena Montana: Kim du Toit is African-American

Posted by: Henry Bowman on November 5, 2007 at 8:53 AM | PERMALINK

Well so far you children have only managed to make fun of names, bash vets with gays(with an old worn out but ever-changing yarn), and accidently transfer your collective neurosis to the light of day. I'd check back later for any coherent arguments, but we all know that's not going to happen. Right? Right. Bye-bye.

Posted by: President Mitt on November 5, 2007 at 9:36 AM | PERMALINK

Those are a lot of great posts and it was hard to choose one as best but I voted for Kim because that was one of the most influential blog posts I've ever read. Kim Rocks!

Posted by: mike on November 5, 2007 at 9:59 AM | PERMALINK

"OK, I AM a woman, but I just can't resist. Kim du Toit. French name, right? Wouldn't the correct prounciation of that be "Kim du Twat"? Sounds like a femal porn star. Explains a lot about him."

Liberals: in favor of the French; in favor of bowing before female genitalia at the alter; and in favor of pornography. In favor of all of that, except when used to smear the name of someone because he's conservative? Trust me, pal: you're the only Nazi in the room.

Posted by: workinwifdakids on November 5, 2007 at 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

It never ceases to amaze me that those whom claim to be tolerant and great supporters of diversity are those with whom debate cannot be had. Open mindedness is a rare commodity within the ranks of those whom claim to be open minded. What do we get instead? Turd reference. Trashing someone because of their name. Grade school jokes. The problem with many here is that the internet seems to provide an anonymous environment that allows them to feel free to lose all civility and decorum. Instead of actually being able to refute what the aforementioned posts state instead use personal attacks against those with whom they do not know.

You wonder why political debate is so bad you just have to look at the above posts. It really is time you all grow up and use what time you have to debate the premise and content of the posts instead of using childish and immature personal attacks. You don't make your point, you don't further your side of the debate, you just come off looking like a childish, spoiled, bigoted, and close minded brat.

Posted by: David Homoney on November 5, 2007 at 10:42 AM | PERMALINK

OK, as an anime blogger, I am ashamed that someone who currently runs an anime blog has, at some time, posted a blog that would be nominated for this list.

At least he likes Angelic Layer, so he can't be 100% horrible...

Posted by: Josh on November 5, 2007 at 10:52 AM | PERMALINK

i have to say that the entire Robert Hahn post: "I will suggest that President Bush understands money better than any President we have ever had," is simply the craziest version of economic 'thinking' i've ever come across....
and nobody voted for it

Posted by: dj spellchecka on November 5, 2007 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

I love polls, and I love laughing at idiots, so this might be my favorite post here yet.

You know, though, Joe Strummer makes a great point. Clearly, several--if not all--of the referenced bloggers are seriously crazy. Some are crazy enough to belong in an institution (that Pam person), but most of the others have deep-seated anxiety disorders that cause them to lash out angrily. I include Instarube in that category. Du Toit, well, he has a constellation of diagnoses. The poor little man.

Posted by: Charles Giacometti on November 5, 2007 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

Nothing from Kos????? All of this pales to "Screw them" Kos.

Posted by: Servius on November 5, 2007 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

David Homoney - Simmer down. You don't understand that we're only working for what's best for you. Our goal is a State that takes care of everyone and makes everyone feel good about himself.

You right-wing nut cases think we can't have rational debate? We can, but it doesn't serve our purposes. We need to win so that we can take care of you.

Our Chief Strategist said several wise things that guide our principles and our actions:

"There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel."

"The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses."

"Give us the child for 8 years and it will be a [liberl] forever."

"It is true that liberty is precious - so precious that it must be rationed."

"A lie told often enough becomes truth."

We regret that we sometimes have to do things that you think are "unfair" or "rude", but remember: it's for your own good. What we accomplish will be best for you in the end.

Posted by: Weetabix on November 5, 2007 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, Lord, David H wants to be SERIOUS. (And how Mitt thinks my thrice-told tale bashes vets with gays is DSM-able in itself.)

Ya want serious? The BEST post of the nominees is probably Instapundit's "maybe we should rise above the temptation..."

Why?

Cuz it was a genuine, verifiable benchmark. That's what opinion writing ought to DO, after all -- state testable things.

And that he was so obviously, demonstrably wrong, is how the BEST post makes his blogging record WORSE. What's the point of doing this if you're merely making public that you're incapable of learning from your mistakes?

The nominees fall into two basic categories:

1) self-conscious parodies trying to make more or less arguable points, like Goldberg's "grow gills!', which was actually a second apology for trying to be funny at the wrong time, just before Katrina got really bad AND a serious attack on Randall Robinson for exaggerating how bad it got, or KdT's "pussification" rap, which was an overstated, badly written whoop for a genuine cultural loss.

and

2) More or less serious attempts to state opinions on their merits, like Den Beste's even more over the top version of Instapundit's gloating (except of course Den Beste's post came before the war he wanted, while to his invisible surprise, Instapundit's came in the middle), Derbyshire's dissing of the Virginia Tech victims, and Althouse's OMG, there's a young woman with tits screed.

Blogging is famously direct, without an editor or other mediating function. It's got the defect of its virtue -- any good editor would have sent most if not all of these back with "BULLSHIT" stamped on 'em.

But ain't that the point? No editor.

Folks complain about "High Broderism" largely because it has the OPPOSITE dynamic -- never quite take sides, always applaud the bipartisan middle, expect the good guys to make most of the concessions cuz, after all, making concessions is what makes 'em the good guys in the first place. Everything is pre-chewed.

Fuck that. Gimme blog posts that are opinionated, argumentative, obscene; that take sides and don't take prisoners, much less hostages; I want to read posts with big chunks of life in 'em. So now and then, some will be brainfarts or worse -- but dammit, this tells you who the folks who posted 'em ARE -- Derbyshire, f'r instance, obviously has no clue about genuine violence, much less courage: worth remembering whenever he talks about it.

Althouse has issues with women: worth remembering.

Instapundit is the law professor equivalent of the famous engineer -- who never makes mistakes, just design changes.

But puh-leeze, don't confuse "bad" and "worst" just with opinions you don't like.

BTW, -- I corresponded with Instapundit when he posted about no "quagmire", and told him he was wrong -- the best Vietnam analysis I know was Ellsberg, who directly refuted the quagmire idea: the American war effort was a stalemate machine. He promptly posted about the 'tired" Vietnam analogy, pretty much salting away how he misses the point.

I think THAT stands up rather well, fwiw.

Posted by: theAmericanist on November 5, 2007 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

I think my favorite part of this thread is the occasional posts from aggrieved, whining conservative crybabies. Afterall, it's sooo unfair that we're not rationally addressing all of these batshit-insane irrational right-wing blog posts based on their "merits". It couldn't possibly be that these posts are just so over-the-top ridiculous that the only reasonable thing to do is laugh at them. Besides, don't they always complain that liberals lack a sense of humor whenever they try to pass off psychotic right-wing mouth-foaming as "jokes"?

Posted by: DH Walker on November 5, 2007 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

Kim du Toit's "Pussification" certainly helps explain and make sense of most of the posting commenters mindsets here for me. So I'm voting for it since it seems to set most of the Kossites and DUmmies flailing in spasms, their tinfoil caps falling to the ground.

It's a badge of honor to be so listed by such a hateful group of moonbats.

My second vote goes to Althouse, because breasts are something we should all agree are wonderful.

Yay!! Boobies!!

Posted by: dpatten on November 5, 2007 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

Let's get this striaght! Only conservatives can be wingnuts! Only right wingers can write outrageous stuff in blogs! Anybody who doesn't think so, Screw them:http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:vTDMM1aLwYgJ:www.dailykos.com/story/2004/4/1/144156/3224+kos+%22screw+them%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

Posted by: Jim O'Sullivan on November 5, 2007 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

Hey, dpatten, since you are not pussified, I have an army recruiter you and the other wingnuts can talk to. Put your real name and email address in a reply and I will have them reach out to you today.

Since your post sounds like you are about to burst into tears, I am not holding my breath here.

Posted by: Charles Giacometti on November 5, 2007 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINK

First, I read very few blogs on a regular basis. I don�t have the time. It�s called �working � being preoccupied by being a productive and contributing member of society.�

I don�t live in my parent�s basement. They�re dead. I�m old. Actually, I own the buildings I�m sure many of you pups focus on for the basements.

And I no longer debate liberals � I take no joy in beating children.

That said, I�m here to vote for Kim du Toit, and, I might add, at his request, as posted on his blog.

Making fun of someone�s name? What is the matter with you? Are you still prisoners of the playground? Grow up!!

I know Kim face-to-face, for real, not merely in the neurotic, self-indulgent silliness of your cyberworld. He is a gentleman, and he speaks the truth.

And if you silly children of the left want to be taken seriously, and don�t want to be pissed on any more, stop acting like urinal cakes.

Please respond (or not) however you wish. Just don�t expect me to participate. I won�t be back here. I work for a living.

Posted by: Bob K on November 5, 2007 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry, Bob K. I don't think Kevin's going to add your post to the voting list. Nice try, though.

Posted by: DH Walker on November 5, 2007 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

How come nothing by Kevin Drum is in here?????

Posted by: Bill Paisley on November 5, 2007 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

Kim du Toit? Talking about "pussification"? Someone is putting someone on here.

Posted by: purvis ames on November 5, 2007 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

@Charles Giacometti

Ahh, the old chickenhawk slur.

For the record Mr. Giacometti, the recruiters I've talked to all tell me that since I have a non-correctable vision defect, (I'm blind in my left eye due to a birth trauma) that I cannot join the military. Believe me I've tried.

So how come you hate handicapped people?

Posted by: dpatten on November 5, 2007 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

The conversation 'bloggers' have is the secondary conversation. The primary conversation is in comments.

Posted by: Brojo on November 5, 2007 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

DPatten: So, the reason why the moronic neocon blowhard in the cube next to me doesn't join the army (and put his money where his giant mouth is) is because he's handicapped?

Good to know.

Posted by: DH Walker on November 5, 2007 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

According to the votes, Super Badass Kimberly Dew Toy is getting beaten by a girl, Ann Althouse. In Do Toy's current post urging readers to come here and vote for him for most laughable winger blogger evah (no, really), it's unclear whether he keeps talking about Ann Coulter because he's confusing her with Althouse, he's confusing her with Pam Geller or he's simply hallucinatory.

All that potency must be drawing blood from his brain. What price exceptional virility?

Posted by: shortstop on November 5, 2007 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

I'm sorry, but how can you have a competition such as this without a contribution from the truly deranged Debbie Schlussel?

Posted by: The Purple Cow on November 5, 2007 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

Kim du Toit is awesome! Easily the best post above.

I've almost read all of them, and so far, these seem like the BEST blogs, not the worst. You sure you've got your contest straight?

Posted by: Brian on November 5, 2007 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

Conservative whining is the best. They have no sense of humor. Just like those dead Blackwater mercs, Screw em. While we post about tragedies like Katrina and the pile of dead bodies in the Superdome and people driven to canibalism, they make fun of peoples hardships. They always want to question our patriotism just because some protestors want to carry signs saying they will support the troops when they shoot their officers. Or because one of our top Presidential candidates refuses to wear a flag pin. Wingnuts all of them.

Posted by: SM Knutsac on November 5, 2007 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

I voted for Kim too, because he asked for my vote on his blog.

Du Toit is an over bloated windbag and a slimy bleggar for the most part, and he plagiarized that piece from Fred Reed.

Even so, he is correct and he is a better man than most of you whiny liberals. The average liberal male has become a whiny, ineffectual metrosexual and an embarassment to mankind.

This does not sit well with the hairy chested feminists, but very little does with those douche bags.

Oh well.

Posted by: Jim on November 5, 2007 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

Jim - good points, all of them! I think I'll vote for Kim, too. Did he palgiarize that? Do you have a link? I'd like a more well-written piece that made the same (very valid) points.

Posted by: Brian on November 5, 2007 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

I have voted for PWM and Tribes (du Toit and Whittle) because they contain more ultimate truth than any of the others, thus from the sociofacist point of view, must be the worst. If the winners in this contest will be remembered by history the longest, as this websites owner suggests, than these are the ones I wish to be well remembered!

Posted by: Frigate on November 5, 2007 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

OK, I don't agree with the Robert Hahn piece. He has one of my votes, because he is genuinely crazy. He's incoherent and nonsensical.

Posted by: Brian on November 5, 2007 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

A competition to see which republican is the world's biggest dumbass? I don't see how any one of them could be picked. The field is just too wide.

Posted by: me on November 5, 2007 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK


Wow, so instead of the usual lefty ad hominem, we get an ad hominem contest! I guess it was pretty much the end of leftist intellectualism when you guys discovered that it's impossible to refute a sneer, because somewhere along the way you guys lost your ability to distinguish between contempt and an actual argument. It's too bad really. In these times we could use all the grown-ups we can get. Thanks anyway Kevin.

yours/
peter.

Posted by: peter jackson on November 5, 2007 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

That Tribes piece is really good, too. Very passionate.

Posted by: Brian on November 5, 2007 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

Does anyone have a copy of den Beste's post anywhere?

Posted by: Bombadil on November 5, 2007 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

This poll and the comments I've read only help to make Whittle's and de Toit's cases.

Time to go blend a puppy...

Posted by: Wyatt on November 5, 2007 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

I can't believe Medved's "American Slavery Wasn't All Bad" got cut from the list!

It just proves the depth of the field in this category.

My picks:
John Derbyshire, for imagined bravery in a difficult situation;

Kim du Toit, for reminding me of my neighbour who insists I should teach my Rottweiler to "pee like a boy";

John Hinderaker, for his astounding suspension of disbelief;

Robert Hahn, for comparing government debt with corporate debt, apparently unaware that corporations fail because of bad fiscal management all the time;

Glenn Reynolds, for unbridled glee that knee-jerk reactions win out over thought and careful consideration - then being proven 100% wrong within one year, and in the years to follow, even in his own "update".

Honourable "man"tion: Steven Den Beste for sending anime children and cartoon characters to fight his rhetorical battles.

Posted by: Thursday on November 5, 2007 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

Hinderakers prophetic “brilliance approaching to genius” of course.

While re-reading that classic I actually had a ‘memories moment’, complete with music:

The haves and have nots...
Puttin’ food on yer families...
Gannon/Guckert in the White House...
Those WMDs’ve gotta be around here somewhere...
Dead or alive / Don’t know don’t care...
Doin’ a heckuva job...
Turnin’ corners...
Never about stayin’ the course...

Good times ya’ll!

Posted by: freD on November 5, 2007 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

Peter Jackson (not the talented one) says:

It's too bad really. In these times we could use all the grown-ups we can get.

If by "grown-ups" you mean Texans who weave fantasies about replacing the WTC with 140-story gold monstrosities, then I guess you're a grown-up. Although maybe a grown-up wouldn't spout such expensive pipe dreams immediately after calling for all viable taxes to be rescinded, would they?

Posted by: Dobby on November 5, 2007 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

Dpatten calls the chickenhawk argument a "slur," proving that he is too much a coward to ever serve his country but is happy to argue for others to fight.

Then he makes up a disability--on the spot!--and lies, claiming he spoke to (multiple!) recruiters about it. How low can the wingnuts go?

But the real proof here is that he continues to post anonymously and with a fake email. Another typical wingnut coward.

Posted by: Charles Giacometti on November 5, 2007 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, and Peter Jackson? The nominated blog posts here are 50% the product of mental retardation and 50% the product of mental illness? And we are supposed to argue with them?

Sorry, little man, but when you are faced with abject stupidity and lunacy, you do one of two things. You laugh at it, or you walk away. I happen to enjoy laughing at idiots, so here I am.

Posted by: Charles Giacometti on November 5, 2007 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

This was so fall-down stupid I had to post it as an example of how to end your career as a critic. We could start another list of worst posts just based on this one example.

Andy Denhart, good luck finding work.

COMMENTARY
By Andy Dehnart
MSNBC contributor
updated 9:53 a.m. ET, Mon., Nov. 5, 2007
Someone watching "Family Guy" for the first time might mistake it for a cheap knockoff of another animated series.

That show, "The Simpsons," also airs Sunday evenings on FOX, and also follows an absurdly dysfunctional yet relatable family, with a father who's rude, insensitive, clueless and dumb; a mother who's in control but painfully alone in her groundedness; and a daughter who's smarter than anyone else. Both series have bars where their main characters hang out after working at their menial jobs, and both are known for their pop-culture references.

There are some major differences in the two shows: "Family Guy" features brighter, rounder line drawings; a nearly human talking dog who's fond of martinis; and a matricidal, violent, scheming baby with a British accent and ambiguous sexuality.

Still, "The Simpsons" (which debuted in 1989) has directly accused "Family Guy" (which debuted in 1999) of plagiarism in its own episodes. Whatever inspired its creation, "Family Guy" really stands apart because of its flashbacks, cutaways and throwaway references. They have made "Family Guy," which just aired its 100th episode, the altogether better series.

That's right--"Family Guy" is better than the Simpsons?

Oh. My. God.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 5, 2007 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

Did you even read any of these posts that you picked for the poll, or did you just post them because of the name associated with them?

And if you did read any of those posts, did you understand them? I have my doubts you did.

Posted by: dfwmtx on November 5, 2007 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

Thank you so much!!!

I love reading through those posts.

Posted by: Otto on November 5, 2007 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK

Kim Du Toit:

This link's for you!

Posted by: Old Hat on November 5, 2007 at 5:57 PM | PERMALINK

And if you did read any of those posts, did you understand them? I have my doubts you did.

Yes, I now understand Muslims hoards are after Pam Atlas's "va-jay-jay."

Posted by: Old Hat on November 5, 2007 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, I now understand Muslims hoards are after Pam Atlas's "va-jay-jay."

Who are those girls in Pam's little production number? Please tell me those are not her children.

You guys lay off Kimmy. Clearly, this is no pussy but (scroll down to Sept. 14) a powerful, manly hunk of burning love, and I don't think anyone will dispute that this is the face of one satisfied customer.

Posted by: sadly, yes! on November 5, 2007 at 6:16 PM | PERMALINK

The problem with du Toit and his wife, "The Mrs", the relentless bleggers of Blogosphere, is that they continually speak out against political correctness, but fail to grasp that, without it, life could be pretty glum for attractiveness-challenged people such as themselves. I mean, it's thanks to the doctrine of PC that we all learn to tolerate the likes of them in our midst, with total disregard to the trauma they can cause to one's eyesight.

As for du Toit's gullible readers, they actually believe that he, an Afrikaner, fought against apartheid in his "native" country, South Africa. An Afrikaner against apartheid? One who often writes about his intense dislike of Nelson Mandela...against apartheid? One who escaped to America the moment apartheid crumbled in South Africa...against apartheid? Who would have "thunk" it?

Posted by: Hillary4President on November 5, 2007 at 6:24 PM | PERMALINK

"Did you even read any of these posts that you picked for the poll"

Yes.

"And if you did read any of those posts, did you understand them?"

Yes.

Next stupid question?

What's even more hilarious than the really idiotic posts is the really idiotic people now trying to defend those really idiotic posts.

Posted by: PaulB on November 5, 2007 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINK

Like I said once in a debate with Brimelow, KdT is yet more proof we need more Americanization in naturalization -- cuz they both show it's possible to become a US citizen without understanding what it means to be an American.

Posted by: theAmericanist on November 5, 2007 at 6:36 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary, I am one of his readers but I am anything but gullible.

On average, du Toit's message is good even if the man himself is a POS. His wife is a braying stunned cu*t too, but they are right that political correctness is ripping this country apart. Anyone that doubts that has no business calling other people 'gullible'.

Posted by: Jim on November 5, 2007 at 6:36 PM | PERMALINK

Here's a vote for Mr duToit. Though he has the nub of it, he doesn't go far enough by half.

Posted by: yahyah ibn alli on November 5, 2007 at 6:57 PM | PERMALINK

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MToIWM0qkbc

Tell me this doesn't beat all.

Hint, so as not to spoil it: It involves Pamela from Atlas Shrugs, and Spartacus.

Hilarity ensues.

Posted by: Joe on November 5, 2007 at 7:08 PM | PERMALINK

"...they are right that political correctness is ripping this country apart. Anyone that doubts that has no business calling other people 'gullible'."

LOL.... Sorry, but those of us in the reality community insist on actual evidence to support silly assertions like these, evidence that is notably lacking from du Toit's "essays". The essay in question is the height of silliness, long on stereotypes and macho posturing and short on data, logic, and common sense.

Posted by: PaulB on November 5, 2007 at 7:27 PM | PERMALINK

"The Krugman comment that the collapse of Enron would be more important than 9/11 - not a blog post either? Couldn't find any worthy blog posts defending Dan Rather?"

There is almost no doubt that 5 years from today Enron will be considered to be bigger than 9/11. It will be considered to be the first of the major financial blowups related to off balance sheet financing. I just hope we don't go into another great depression soon due to the way the credit market reacts. It going to be very, very bad for the next few years.

Posted by: mickslam on November 5, 2007 at 7:36 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks for posting an extremely interesting and engaging set of links. Vastly better (IMHO) than the stuff from the likes of Monbiot and Chomsky

Posted by: Quentin on November 5, 2007 at 7:44 PM | PERMALINK

"Real men know how to use their fists, certainly."

Real men do, but what about the likes of KdT, for whom guns are the weapons of choice? Perhaps, he should write an "essay" highlighting his own "pussification".

Posted by: Hillary4President on November 5, 2007 at 8:30 PM | PERMALINK

Hmmm, "Bob K" from about two yards up this thread reads an awful lot like our very own, curiously missing Norman Rogers.

* I'm rich and you're not. Check.
* I'm old. Check.
* You're all silly children and I'm still old. Check.
* I'm far too busy for the likes of you, but somehow have the time to a. read this blog; b. read the comments; and c. crank up the Victrola, mix up a nice glass of Nestle's Quick and bravely post some insults. Check.

What's up Normie, you get banned along with mhr? Pity.

Posted by: trollhattan on November 5, 2007 at 8:43 PM | PERMALINK

As a confirmed rightwingnut I just wanted to share that I voted for my favorite essays. The ones that moved me inside and caused me to try and become a better person, a better American, a better man. I find it amusing that the very essays that speak to the heart of the 'real-man-right-wignut-neocon-neanderthal...' (well, you get the point) are the same essays that give you liberal panty-waists the vapors and get those knickers all up in a twist.
Men, wouldn't it be nice if you could grow a pair and reclaim your manhood? Guess that's not gonna happen though. More's the pity...

Posted by: heywood on November 5, 2007 at 9:50 PM | PERMALINK

"As a confirmed rightwingnut I just wanted to share that I voted for my favorite essays."

LOL... Thanks for confirming you're an idiot, dear heart.

"The ones that moved me inside and caused me to try and become a better person, a better American, a better man."

ROFLMAO.... It's easy to see why you liked some of the essays, dear.

"are the same essays that give you liberal panty-waists the vapors and get those knickers all up in a twist."

Dear heart, we're not "all up in a twist," we're laughing our asses off at the idiocy in those posts. There is a difference, dear. Do try to keep up, won't you?

"Men, wouldn't it be nice if you could grow a pair and reclaim your manhood? Guess that's not gonna happen though. More's the pity..."

ROFLMAO... Q.E.D. I'll just let this bit of stupidity speak for itself.

Posted by: PaulB on November 5, 2007 at 10:10 PM | PERMALINK

One would think that the testicle-free lib set (meaning 99.8% of them)
would vote in droves for "The Pussification" essay.
Hell, it's an expose' of those that brought us metrosexuals, pharmaceutical parenting & drag races.
Anyhow, thanks for having your High School Musical inspired contest.
It's cute to see how the helium heads think (that would be infrequently and\or shallowly).
Keep on doing what you're doing, it's cheap entertainment, and the Hollyweird writers are on strike.
Tootles.


Posted by: IClubMoonbats on November 5, 2007 at 10:25 PM | PERMALINK

Did you even read any of these posts that you picked for the poll, or did you just post them because of the name associated with them?

And if you did read any of those posts, did you understand them? I have my doubts you did.

Well, ain't nobody reading or understanding De Beste's "contribution", 'cause he erased it from his site.

I think that really speaks to how willing our wingnut friends are to stand by what they've written, much less have some kind of "debate".

Posted by: Pere Ubu on November 5, 2007 at 10:26 PM | PERMALINK

The libtard definition of "debate" is making certain you can talk at a higher volume than the conservative presently speaking.
Or libs can always fall back on the "I know you are, but what am I?" page of the playbook.
We can only hope that Hildabeast can maintain her trembling grip on the dhimmocrat nomination.
I like her blank stares & excuses when someone asks her one of those "tough" questions, like what her opinion is of state sanctioned (i.e. illegal) amnesty.
Shes already answered her "tough" question for this year, so she can breathe easily, until the next great "left-wing conspiracy".
Stupid is as stupid does.

Posted by: IClubMoonbats on November 5, 2007 at 11:15 PM | PERMALINK

Jay?
Is that you?

Welcome back!
We missed you man.

Posted by: Mr DeBakey on November 5, 2007 at 11:19 PM | PERMALINK

No reason to go beyond Pussification.

It has the pure essence of wing-nut overcompensation.

Posted by: Joey Giraud on November 5, 2007 at 11:33 PM | PERMALINK

Dobby and Charles!

Thanks for thoroughly demonstrating my point, although it really wasn't necessary.

yours/
peter.

Posted by: peter jackson on November 5, 2007 at 11:36 PM | PERMALINK

I suggest you all read Kim du Toit's "Pussification" article closely, and for your retarded brains, S....L...O...W...L...Y.
It's for you own good you bunch of simpering twats.
Peace and Love.

Posted by: Ken on November 5, 2007 at 11:46 PM | PERMALINK

So now the community based reality has invented wing-nuts with only a right side. Ted Rall, of course, is so middle America.

Posted by: TYREE on November 6, 2007 at 12:26 AM | PERMALINK

The best takeaway from this entire endeavor: Winston Smith's description of a defiant Joe Wilson w/ a noose around his neck (screw you, Saddam Hussein!) in The duToitification of the Western Conservative, linked to upthread by D. Aristophanes.

Posted by: Susan Kitchens on November 6, 2007 at 12:41 AM | PERMALINK

I see that the Toitettes have been directed this way. Though I'm surprised that he still has the six readers who bothered to show up.

Posted by: ahem on November 6, 2007 at 2:24 AM | PERMALINK

In the finest liberal/Democrat tradition, I've completed voting for KtD and others multiple times.

Given the ad hominems, the anemic reasoning and utter lack of rational discourse here, it seemed that invalidating this absurd excuse for a "poll" was the least I could do.

I've met Kim. He's been a guest in my house. (No, I don't live in Texas, nor am I what you would call a "conservative." Frankly, I disagree with many of his views.) A lack of manners, intellect or erudition are not among his faults. He doesn't stoop to childishness, name-calling, pseudointellectual sophistry, pop psych "analysis" or bullying to make a point.

The simple fact is that many of you haven't a clue of what you're on about and never will, mostly because you can't reason your way out of a wet paper bag.

Fortunately, that's not my problem.

Posted by: DM on November 6, 2007 at 2:53 AM | PERMALINK

Clutch those pearls tighter, DM!

Posted by: ahem on November 6, 2007 at 4:43 AM | PERMALINK

To anyone who voted John Derbyshire -- you have no clue what you are talking about.

In 1993 at State University of New York in Albany, a student brought a rifle into class, took the entire class hostage, and made a list of demands. Since his demands included that President Clinton, Governor of New York, and the entire US Congress arrive to negotiate with him personally, it became clear he is not connected with reality. As the gunman was herding students from one classroom wall to another, one at at time, a student suddenly lunged at him and grabbed the rifle. The student was shot and injured, but within seconds 5 or 6 other students piled up on the gunman, and the crisis was over.

Nothing nutty about what Derb posted. He demonstrates a basic knowledge of the limitations of handgun technology. Handguns aren't death rays, especially in the hands of an untrained individual like Cho. If they had done as he suggested, the death toll would have been lower, probably much lower.

The problem is not his technical assessment but the cower and dont fight back mindset being drilled into the current generation. It was a variation on the prisoners delemmia played out in real life.

Posted by: Ilya on November 6, 2007 at 8:32 AM | PERMALINK

Hmm...as nearly as I can see it, the definition of "wingnuttiness" can be described by this syllogism:
"A" asserts that "t=Q"
"B" asserts that "t=R"
"A" therefore concludes "B" is "a Twat", has "issues with their Mommy","a hoot","The capacity of self-delusion", et. al.

Good syllogisms come and go, but bad ones will live forever...
Socrates was a man, right...?

Posted by: Kerry on November 6, 2007 at 9:06 AM | PERMALINK

I love how Ken, IClubMoonbats, and Heywood all come in and rage about their masculinity and how everyone else is pussified.

And do it anonymously.

Over the Internet.

The wingnuts have reached the end of the line, and they know it.

Posted by: Charles Giacometti on November 6, 2007 at 9:34 AM | PERMALINK

I'm assuming this poll will stimulate some conservative bloggers to assemble their own "worst liberal blog post" contest. I can't wait to see it. Any leads folks?

Posted by: Spinsterina on November 6, 2007 at 10:31 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

Were you trying to make some kind of point by having all your commenters engage in exactly the same kind of behavior as the writers of the blog posts you nominated?

Posted by: BD on November 6, 2007 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINK

PaulB Writes:

"...they are right that political correctness is ripping this country apart. Anyone that doubts that has no business calling other people 'gullible'."

LOL.... Sorry, but those of us in the reality community insist on actual evidence to support silly assertions like these,...
=======================================

Ok - here you go - how about Freshman indoctrination @ U of Delaware...

http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/8555.html?PHPSESSID=976f21c66bcd7d781fdd93114402746a

No-no, don't thank me - it's my pleasure.

- MuscleDaddy

Posted by: MuscleDaddy on November 6, 2007 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

Were you trying to make some kind of point by having all your commenters engage in exactly the same kind of behavior as the writers of the blog posts you nominated.

Oh noes, he found us out! Yes, I admit it, Kevin e-mailed each and every one of us individually and asked to write posts -- using computers and everything! -- just like the nominees. Maybe if we could just be sensible non-partisans like BD we would actually engage in reasoned dialogue with people who write fact-free multi-page diabtribes wherein they call us pussies. Huzzah!

Posted by: Dobby on November 6, 2007 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

Muscle Daddy is totally right! That University of Delaware incident has the entire nation taking sides. I'm afraid to walk out of my door because of all the molotov cocktails and rocks being thrown by the angry mobs.

Posted by: Super Masculine Manly Man - Really! on November 6, 2007 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

SMMM,R,

That's what is referred to as an 'example' - examples are often used to illustrate larger situations (and are sometimes referred to a 'microcosms' - easy there! the universe isn't falling).

Speaking from my own experience (of what seems like a thousand years ago), RA's don't take the job for personal glorification or power - they take it to help pay for school. If they're willing to walk away from that because of the PC-practices of the university - accept that those practices are going to be fairly eggregious.

Also, the UofD situation can hardly be called an 'incident', since that denotes a certain 'one-off' aspect to the condition.
Look through the references & documents (what PaulB would have referred to as 'evidence') and you will see an institutionalized & long-term condition, fairly indicative of the sort of PC indoctrination that has insidiously taken root in colleges and universities across the country.

PaulB asks for evidence - I provide - you may feel free to ignore it but from this point, you're sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'LALALALALALA'.

- MuscleDaddy

P.S. - Nice nic - must get tiring to type all the time, though.

Posted by: MuscleDaddy on November 6, 2007 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

That's what is referred to as an 'example' - examples are often used to illustrate larger situations.

You mean larger situations that no longer exist? It's a good thing they got rid of that program because, in the words that your example so eloquently illustrated, it was "ripping [the UofD] apart." Why, I heard some student had to even fill out a questionnaire! Oh, the humanity!

Posted by: I Use an Uber-Masculine Name Because I Have No Insecurities on November 6, 2007 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly