How not to prove you're not a "clown"

Blog ››› ››› SIMON MALOY

Earlier today I gently poked fun at Matthew Vadum for saying we should be scared of Hugo Chavez's secret espionage squads despite acknowledging that he has "no proof" that they exist. In doing so, I called him a "clown," which might not have been the most politic thing to do, but I thought the circumstances merited it.

Vadum has since taken to Twitter to demonstrate that he is not, in fact, a "clown," but rather a very serious person whose views and opinions should be taken very seriously.

He has failed.

After calling me a "pantywaist," Vadum attempts to establish his bona fides by tweeting:

Ah, yes. The Manchurian President. Surely no one can doubt Vadum's scholarly acumen now that he's proudly flaunted his inclusion in a book that champions Birtherism and suggests that Bill Ayers ghostwrote Obama's memoir. Only a political mind of the highest caliber would be worthy of citation in such an intellectually rigorous tome.

Of course I jest. The Manchurian President is a sloppy, guilt-by-association smear job that features some of the worst, most dishonest "journalism" the right has to offer. In that way, Vadum's inclusion is entirely appropriate.

But I will thank Vadum for enabling me to expand my list of reasons why that book is "ridiculous crap" -- it repeatedly cites a clown like him.

Person
Matthew Vadum
We've changed our commenting system to Disqus.
Instructions for signing up and claiming your comment history are located here.
Updated rules for commenting are here.