Did we ever decide what to call a group of wingnuts? It would seem appropriate when Frank Gaffney and Andrew McCarthy get on the radio to praise Robert Bork and Michele Bachmann and claim that liberals are in bed with Islamists for criticizing Bachmann’s absurd witch hunt for Muslims who have allegedly infiltrated the federal government.
Gaffney: Let’s start with a woman that I think we both admire, who has been vilified in both Democratic and Republican circles, shamefully, for having had the courage to speak the truth about a problem that you have documented, most especially involving the woman that I guess caused so much controversy when Michele Bachmann and four of her colleagues asked the perfectly reasonable question: how did Huma Abedin with her ties to the Muslim Brotherhood get a security clearance and what influence is she having on policy? Give us your read on the fact that the so-called People For the American Way and I must say it sounds much more like it’s the People For the Islamist Way is up to when they try through a very substantially subscribed-to petition to have Michele Bachmann thrown off the Intelligence Committee in the House?
McCarthy: Well it seems to me Frank that it means that Michele has irritated all the right people who ought to be irritated. The American people ought to understand since we’re talking about People For the American Way that that organization is a contrivance of a far-left television icon of the 1970s and 80s named Norman Lear who was instrumental in the slander of Judge Robert Bork, so much of a slander that Judge Bork’s name became a verb in our modern lexicon and Michele Bachmann is the latest person that the left has decided to ‘bork’ because she has been so effective and because she’s been a staunch defender of American national security…
Gaffney: Andy McCarthy you have also drilled down in your writings about the axis, some call it the red-green axis, between the left and the Islamists. This certainly seems to be a prime example of it as you say with Norman Lear’s background and the role that they are playing and in this instance promoting the Islamist agenda in the attack on Michele Bachmann.
This is a common type of argument. Wingnut makes crazy claim about some grave (and mostly mythical) danger facing society and when you point out that they’re chasing ghosts, that proves that you’re on the side of the bad guys they want to root out. It’s exactly the kind of thing done in the McCarthy era — if you condemned their witch hunt against communists, you must be a communist.
41 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Akira MacKenzie
January 20, 2013 at 10:19 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
A Klan of wingnuts, perhaps?
Barefoot Bree
January 20, 2013 at 10:33 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Returning to what a wingnut actually is in hardware, as well as what they love to do to facts, how about…
a twist of wingnuts?
grumpyoldfart
January 20, 2013 at 10:37 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It works though. For decades after McCarthy a politician could be instantly ruined if associated with communism.
yak2
January 20, 2013 at 10:57 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’ve always favored an inquisition of wingers
Randomfactor
January 20, 2013 at 11:02 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Did we ever decide what to call a group of wingnuts?
A grove. Commonly farmed by a Grover.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterocarya_fraxinifolia
Larry
January 20, 2013 at 11:10 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
You almost had it, RF. I propose that a group of wingnuts be labeled with the, somewhat obscure, term used for a portable toilet used on camping or rafting trips. I’d call them “a groover of wingnuts.”
John Pieret
January 20, 2013 at 11:15 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
A garble of wingnuts.
rmsc
January 20, 2013 at 11:21 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Y’all laugh, but do you remember Lear’s episode of Sanford and Son when Lamont tried to re-connect with his African roots and quit eating pork? Fred knew it was wrong and ate all the sausage. Fred G. Sanford: the G stands for Great American.
Donovan
January 20, 2013 at 11:46 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I thought there already was a name for a group of wingnuts. Isn’t it called a gop? I think a gop was backing Romney in 2012. I’ll look into it.
joe321
January 20, 2013 at 11:56 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
How about a stupor of wingnuts?
timgueguen
January 20, 2013 at 11:57 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
If I were an agent of a foreign power I’d try my hardest to recruit Bachmann. She’s clueless enough that you could probably convince her to give up all sorts of useful info in exchange for “evidence” supporting her claims. Hmmm, is anyone at the FBI’s counterintelligence unit watching her to make sure this doesn’t happen?
Gvlgeologist, FCD
January 20, 2013 at 12:38 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I thought an asylum of wingnuts was already the word of choice.
Dr X
January 20, 2013 at 12:58 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
He’s still going on about Huma Abedin? Gaffney is a filthy little man.
rmsc
January 20, 2013 at 1:00 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Since wingnuts are purchased from the hardware store from a bin; I say it’s a bin of wingnuts.
Nentuaby
January 20, 2013 at 1:17 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I vote “gaggle.” It’s already recognizable as a group word, and it’s appropos on account of how there’s a lot of discordant honking and shitting on everything.
busterggi
January 20, 2013 at 1:37 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I propose the term combine the bird connection to wings and the fucked-up minds of the nuts to give us the term ‘fluck’ of wingnuts.
Tabby Lavalamp
January 20, 2013 at 1:59 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It’s such a shame. I liked Andrew McCarthy in Pretty In Pink.
(Sigh. I hate that I have to ruin the joke by preemptively pointing out that it is a joke, and I know it’s not the same person.)
Pieter B, FCD
January 20, 2013 at 2:10 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I like ‘a flight of wingnuts’ myself, although ‘bin’ is coming on strong with its suggestion of “loony bin.”
Yeah, I think ‘a bin of wingnuts’ is the winner. Make it so.
azportsider
January 20, 2013 at 2:30 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’d like to recommend a ‘steaming pile’ of wingnuts.
abb3w
January 20, 2013 at 2:36 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
A screw of wingnuts?
Ignoring my own, of those thus far I’m most partial to Randomfactor‘s suggestion of a “grove”.
chasbo
January 20, 2013 at 3:31 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
A CLOT of wingnuts.
neil
January 20, 2013 at 3:44 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Given the wingnuts favourite punctuation mark, lets call them an exclamation of wingnuts.
Nibi
January 20, 2013 at 4:10 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Thinking of Palinesque incoherent rambling bafflegab, a babble of wingnuts. Or maybe a cacophony of wingnuts would better cover the more general tenor.
neil
Or, given their gun fetish, a bang of wingnuts to cover this and the exclamation point.
thebookofdave
January 20, 2013 at 4:25 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
How about a bedlam of wingnuts?
d.c.wilson
January 20, 2013 at 4:41 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Grrr. As a child of the 80s, I will go to my deathbed proclaiming that Molly Ringwald should have gone with Ducky instead.
As for what to call a group of wingnuts, I thought we already had a word for it: a tea party.
chilidog99
January 20, 2013 at 4:44 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
A “lug” of wing nuts?
CONWAY
January 20, 2013 at 4:56 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“Y’all laugh, but do you remember Lear’s episode of Sanford and Son when Lamont tried to re-connect with his African roots and quit eating pork?”
Odabo, jack.
2-D Man
January 20, 2013 at 5:14 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“Cross-thread of wingnuts” was my favourite from the last time this came up.
Although, a group of kittens is called an intrigue and kittens are cute and curious, while wingnuts do not share these qualities, so I’d suggest a disintrigue of wingnuts, which sounds just about right when you say it out loud.
thebookofdave
January 20, 2013 at 7:08 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I hope you pick one soon, Ed, and roll it out into the field for full use. I can hardly wait for it to become a common use term. Other suggestions: effluvium, junta.
Subtract Hominem
January 20, 2013 at 8:09 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
A confederacy of wingnuts.
LightningRose
January 20, 2013 at 8:37 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I propose “a whirl of wingnuts”.
It’s not only alliterative, but fits well with “Whirled Nut Daily”, one of their most prominent web sites.
Aliasalpha
January 20, 2013 at 9:20 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
How about an Arse of wingnuts?
CONWAY
January 20, 2013 at 11:46 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Subtract Hominem nailed it. Confederacy is perfect on so many levels.
democommie
January 21, 2013 at 8:30 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It’s already my favorite demoneologism but it could be used again.
An indignorance of wingnuts.
or maybe.
An intolerance of wingnuts.
John Hinkle
January 21, 2013 at 8:54 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Lots of good suggestions. I fancy bin of wingnuts, with cross-thread in second place.
blindrobin
January 21, 2013 at 9:16 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I like confederacy, bin and cross-thread, but thought dustbin or cesspit/cesspool might be descriptive.
lordshipmayhem
January 21, 2013 at 10:41 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I favour #2, Barefoot Bree’s twist of wingnuts.
kermit.
January 21, 2013 at 2:01 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
A frenzy of wingnuts.
blindrobin
January 22, 2013 at 8:24 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
entrenchment
pyschopenguin
January 22, 2013 at 1:42 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Come on….”a cesspool of wingnuts” is perfect……
DaveC
January 23, 2013 at 11:10 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
How about a Santorum of wingnuts?