In Arizona, right-wing wack-job J.D. Hayworth is giving John Mccain a run for his money when it comes to tacking to the right for the Republican primary. Other commentators have noted that this is a hard slog for Mccain; no matter how far right he swings, that’s not going to be good enough for the loons.
So, with that in mind let’s take a look at J.D. Hayworth: he’s a B-List radio jockey, in the same vein as Limbaugh, and he has long been a lightning rod in AZ. The rise of the Teabaggers obviously benefited his message, so he’s decided that running for office is a good idea. Like I mentioned, Mccain is a sell-out, RINO, commie, socialist no matter what he does, so I’m sure Teabaggers’ minds are made up.
A few days ago, Hayworth was quoted outlining his position against gay marriage in the same terms made famous by Rick “Man on Dog” Santorum: allowing gays to marry would eventually lead to men marrying horses.
I won’t go into the absurdity of that but rather, I’ll let the indefatigable Rachel Maddow handle it. Hayworth went on her show last night and she pressed him on the comment. I’m not that interested in his defense; he’s an ignoramus, ’nuff said. It is the way that he ended the conversation that got my attention and highlights the problem facing our national (and personal, for that matter) discourse:
…Maddow tried to explain that she looked for evidence to support Hayworth’s claim, and couldn’t find any. “Well, that’s fine,” Hayworth said. “You and I can have a disagreement about that.”
“Well, it either is true or it isn’t,” Rachel responded. “It’s empirical.”
Hayworth, perhaps unaware of what “empirical” means, replied, “OK. OK. I appreciate the fact that we have a disagreement on that.”
-From Washington Monthly, via Alex Koppelman
So, let that be a lesson and a warning to all you progressives who might deign to argue with a right-wing nutjob: empirical evidence Does. Not. Matter. All the bluster over global warming and evolution? Simply a matter of opinion, dontcha know. The reason that I even bring this up is because I have felt the frustration of this tactic many times while trying to make a reasonable point on Facebook, of all things. I know, you don’t have to tell me about the inanity of trying to argue on teh intranetz, but I am amazed at how often, when presented with information that directly refutes their position, conservatives will simply say, “let’s just say we disagree.”
Ok. Fair enough. From now on, my new strategy is just to disagree with anything inconvenient. Like gravity, or my gas bill. It’s simply Nat’l Fuel’s opinion that I owe that much money this month. I also will employ this tactic when PETA gets wind that I let Roxie, my cat, starve to death because it’s just those elite liberal scientists’ opinion that cats need food to live. I mean, I prayed for her! Won’t Jesus provide?
I can practically hear the rest of the world laughing. I’m fairly certain that international science institutions are scrambling to hire people who have a disagreement of opinion with the liberal bias of reality.
Lo, the sunset of the empire continues apace.