Liberal Ha-Ha

James Taranto points to a (inadvertently) funny bit of liberal logic from Slate:

It's a classic trap, right out of the right-wing playbook.

Ever since the resignation of Richard Nixon, a very smart man who got caught abusing his executive power, the GOP has deliberately avoided nominating conspicuously intelligent people for president. Gerald Ford was smarter than he looked, but he was unable to dispel his buffoonish image. Ronald Reagan was famously checked out and ill-informed. George H.W. Bush, though clearly smarter than Dubya, is not exactly imposing in the brains department, and he's demonstrated almost as much difficulty as his son in formulating a coherent sentence. And George W. Bush? Let's just say the guy is either mentally lazy, not very bright, or some combination of these two. I've never felt it necessary to refine that diagnosis; the term I favor is "functionally dumb."

Two things must be said about my assertions in the previous paragraph. One is that they are all unmistakably true. The other is that whenever a liberal repeats any one of them out loud, that liberal--and contemporary liberalism generally--come under attack.......

A classic trap? Don't fall for it, or for the second, only slightly less well known, which is this: never go up against a Sicilian when death is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha

But there are three things that must be said about the previous, previous, previous paragraph, 1.) they're all unmistakably true, must be, really, no, they are! I'm seriously, 2.) liberals will come under attack if they repeat them out loud, and it's just not fair, because they're the smart ones, just ask them, they called it, and c.) these facts can all be proved using the same logic they used to prove that the guys in the Chess Club were smarter than the guys in Band.

Oh, and 4.) if you disagree, you probably also think Scotty could take Spock in unarmed combat. I'm seriously.