Turdblossom: Michelle Obama Did Not Show "Adequate Enough" Love For America
Or:
'Democrats Hate America': True by Definition

So, apparently Karl "Turdblossom" Rove went on America's fair and balanced network last night to say that Michelle Obama had not shown "adequate enough" [sic] love for her country. (I think what he probably meant was that she didn't show acceptable levels of adequate sufficient satisfactory enough levels of love levels enough for her country. Enough.)

Now, to those of you who actually watched the speech last night, this might seem surprising. You might think that, if anything, the levels of America-love displayed were a little over the top. Perhaps almost unseemly. In fact, it kinda seemed like Obama--and several other speakers last night--wanted to, ya know, make out with America. Seriously. I'm pretty sure Kennedy was giving us the sex look.

Yeah, baby.

We've still got it.

So how, you might wonder, can even T-Blossom say this with a straight face?

This question betrays the fact that you are treating the question "does Michelle Obama (or any Democrat) love her country?" as an empirical question--that is, roughly, as a question that is to be answered by observation and evidence.

Silly you.

You should realize by now that Mr. Blossom and company do not think that "Michelle Obama loves her country" is an empirical claim at all. They hold that it is something like an analytic or definitional or conceptual truth that:

(L) for any x, if x is a Democrat, then x does not love x's country.

Such claims are not to be investigated by observation any more than, say:

(T) for any x, if x is a triangle, then x has three angles.

If you understand what a triangle is, then you understand that they all have three angles; and if you understand what a Democrat is, you understand that they all hate America. That's just what it is to be a triangle...and that's just what it is to be a Democrat.

See, it's kind of like:

(R) For any x, if x is a Republican, then x is a two-fisted war hero

and

(D) For any x, if x is a Democrat, then x is a draft-dodging wimp.

On Turdy's view, (R) and (D) are necessary truths. Of course, someone might think that he's found counterexamples to (R) and (D)--but such claims can be safely dismissed, just as any claim that someone has found a four-sided triangle can be safely dismissed. So, sure, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, etc., etc. might seem like clear counterexamples to (R), just as John Kerry, Jim Webb, Wes Clark etc., etc., etc. might seem like clear counterexamples to (D). But, you see, since (D) is a necessary truth, empirical evidence is irrelevant. Just as we can, if we understand what triangles are, be certain that we'll never find one with four angles, we can be sure that, if we understand what Democrats are, we'll never find one that is a war hero. If we ever suspect that we've found a counterexample, we can be sure that it's merely illusory.

And, of course, it's the same with (L) and Democrats who seem to love their country. No matter what they say, no matter what they do, no matter what empirical evidence might be available to us, we can be apodictically certain that they do not love America. Therefore we can be certain--by definition--that Michelle Obama does not love America.

QED