Why Does Conservative Spoogebucket Kevin McCullough Admit That He's a Screamer?:
There are days you wake up, hungover, angry at the sun for rising, angry at the clouds for blocking the sun, and out of coffee. An irrational man would want to kick a small animal, the dog or the cat or, if possible, because they're so annoyingly cute, a marmoset. With no marmosets available, and with a modicum of rationality still available, the Rude Pundit, on mornings such as these, turns to his nemesis, Kevin McCullough, allegedly nationally-syndicated columnist (although there's no trace on Google searching of any actual newspapers that carry his work); host of, no shit, Xtreme Radio (the "X" apparently means Jesus or, at least, the thing he was nailed to) with the Christ-loving Baldwin, whichever one that is; and author of books that tell you how to act like a good Xian man, a man's man who worships a nearly naked dude on a cross. And McCullough's writing reveals, to the Rude Pundit's thinking, the filled-to-bursting desires for gay love. Actually, to be clear, look at the dude's picture: that's a man who wants cock, lots of cock, so much cock that he wants a cocktopus to wrap its cocktacles around him and penetrate every orifice. But instead of fulfilling his true identity and being the kind of man he should be, McCullough is given to bursts of projected rage at the supposedly decadent left. It's like Elmer Fudd in leather.
In his latest "column" (if by "column," you mean, "conspiracy-mongering for the townhall feces tossers"), McCullough flogs the newest lie about how Obama is gonna have conservatives castrated. See, on the White House blog, the following is posted: "There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to firstname.lastname@example.org."
It seems innocuous enough. If you get an email that says, as this one does, "Health care will be denied based on age. 500 Billion will be cut from Seniors healthcare. The only way for that to happen is to drastically cut health care, the oldest and the sickest will be cut first. Paying for your own care will not be an option" (sic on all the errors), you could send it to the White House and probably get a nice form letter telling you the myriad ways that it's a lie. There's not a single thing the White House asks for that tells you to report anyone's name, unlike some funded programs of, say, the previous administration (Operation TIPS?). Besides, if you'll remember, one of the great qualities of the Obama campaign was its ability to respond quickly to lies and misinformation. So why not do it now, when lives are at stake, not just delegates?
Right Blogsylvania is exploding about this like ants whose hill just got stomped by a little kid's shoe. And McCullough is right there with them, scampering to get their dirt back into place: "Pardon me for asking such an obvious question, but what concern is it to the President or his administration if private citizens have disagreements, discussions, and dissections of his proposed take over of the health care industry? Last I checked I had the constitutional right to do so. But now he wishes to turn one citizen against another?" Again, what's in the request that has that? It's actually asking citizens to partner with the administration. It's actually asking people to unify about an issue, not divide by getting names of people. Answering misinformation instead of bulldozing over opposition? Understanding how the internet can spread lies quickly? How not quaint.
But that's not how McCullough sees it. Indeed, the title of his piece, "Welcome to Gestapo-care," tells you everything this drama queen is after, whipping up the masses to greater, more violent fervor. And he's not afraid to lie about it, either: "When President George W. Bush was being stalked by Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink on a daily basis, over a genuine issue of national security--the war on terror--he met with Sheehan, acknowledged her pain, and wished her well, all while respectfully disagreeing with her over the policy." There's about ten things wrong with that sentence, starting with his fucked-up timeline. (By the way, Code Pink fucks with Democrats about as often as they do Republicans.)
Finally, the Rude Pundit has a particular fondness for attacking McCullough because the poor bastard is such a wannabe - he desperately wants to be a Beck or Hannity, a silverback instead of a marmoset. You can smell the rancid flop sweat in every word he writes. You can hear the squeaking panic that the years are passing and no one really gives a shit about what he has to say. He ends with a rallying call, presented as written:
"So what should our response be?
"Greater demands for free speech...
"Louder volumes at Townhall meetings...
"Bigger belligerence the tighter they squeeze...
"In short, when free speech is threatened, screeching screams of volition are the only thing preventing the mandated, manhandled, chokehold of silence.
"So go ahead... report me... I will shout louder!"
Oh, fuck, Kevster. "Bigger"? "Tighter"? "Manhandled"? Hell, "man[-]dated" and "choke[-]hold"? Really? Dude, get a copy of Black Inches magazine and a hotel room, and work it out. Just remember: when you start to feel light-headed, undo the belt around your neck. The Rude Pundit would hate to lose such bounty.
(Tip o' the hat to rude reader Chris C. for the nutzoid email forward.)