To say that the last few weeks have been difficult for right-wing commentators would be tantamount to saying that Janet Jackson’s appearance at the Super Bowl upset a couple of people just a smidge.

In four short weeks, Robert Novak had an on-set meltdown, storming away from the safety of his CNN desk, while muttering a certain four letter word; Tucker Carlson praised a fatal police action against Greenpeace protesters; Rush Limbaugh used his radio talk show as a platform for calling a woman who just lost her son in Iraq a “phony,” and Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition and host of “The 700 Club,” commented, “If [Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez] really thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it.”

Between using profanity on a news program, chuckling about the deaths of a few political activists and advocating assassination, right-wingers must be doing a lot of soul-searching right now.  I myself can only posit the question: W.W.J.D.?

And, no, by “W.W.J.D.?” I do not mean, “What would Jesus do?”  That’s a stupid question.  Jesus a) never would have embroiled himself in such a mess by saying such hateful things, and b) if he ever did, he would apologize, and that would be the end of the story.  Finito.

No, in this case, we are not talking about Jesus, we are talking about right-wing pundits, and they are quite different animals.  For this species, an apology implies that one is capable of wrongness, and that admission is to be avoided with the same aplomb as Teletubbies, feminists and environmentalists.  For this group, the only solution to a blunder is spin.  (For example, Pat Robertson’s first reaction to the maelstrom following his comments was to go on record as saying, “I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out.' And 'take him out' can be a number of things, including kidnapping; there are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted by the AP, but that happens all the time.”)

Well, Pat, as you will note from the above, actually, you did say “assassinate.”  As you seem to have realized from your belated apology, despite whatever you may have also said about “taking him out,” this may not be the strategy you want to take.  You too, Mr. Christian Coalition, need to search your inner publicist and ask yourself, “W.W.J.D.?”

W.W.J.D.?!?  Yep.  W.W.J.D.?: “What would Jeff do?”  More specifically, “What would Jeff Gannon do?”

Fans of right-wing commentary will no doubt remember Jeff Gannon from a few months ago.  Jeff was the heroic correspondent from “Talon News” who, during a press conference, asked President Bush such hard questions as how the President planned to deal with Democratic Congressional leaders “who seem to have divorced themselves from reality.”  Brilliant!  Call the Democrats “divorced from reality.”  On the subject of “divorced from reality,” Jeff might have used his question to ask the President why his logic for going to war seemed more and more like something out of a fairy tale, but no, not Jeff.  Jeff was too creative for reality.  Jeff was made-to-order for Fox News.  Brit Hume was worried….

Unfortunately for Jeff, or James Guckert (his real name), however, right after Rush Limbaugh praised him nationally for his poignant question, it was revealed that Jeff/James had often accepted money for keeping more than his questions, uh, hard.  That’s right!  Jeff/James was a gay male prostitute who had been featured on several nude websites!

So, what sort of advice could a man who achieved national notoriety by accusing the President’s critics of being “divorced from reality” offer to this gaggle of comrades?  It kind of boggles the mind.  And although I don’t hope to do Jeff/James justice, perhaps he’d say something like this:

“Bobby!  Babe!  Love your tie!  It’s like something out of a 1974 J.C. Penny’s catalogue!  I kid.  I kid.  Anywho, so you said “fuck” on TV.  Who cares?!  The same thing happened to Cheney.  And you know what happened to him?  Bush let him pick the next FCC Commissioner.  How ‘bout them apples?  Seriously though, I think we can work with this.  I’ve been mulling over a strategy recently.  I call it ‘right-eous indignation.’  The premise is that the girly-pinko-feminist-lefties have gotten us so pissed off with their welfare and their food stamps and their human rights that we have no option at this point other than to curse and throw things.  Get mad-as-hell, baby, because you’re about to become Howard Beale meets William F. Buckley, Jr.  And look at that, I think Howard Beale may have actually worn that same blazer in ‘NETWORK.’  What a coincidence!

“Tucker, you are so my fave!  You’re so much cuter and more supple than Novak!  You ever think of starting a website?  Again, I kid.  C’mon, let’s hug it out!  Aww, that’s right.  Now, Tucker, this bad press you’re getting is worrisome to me.  After all, a bow-tie only buys you so much credibility.  Seriously though, so you laughed when a couple of law-breaking rabble rousers were killed by some policemen.  Isn’t someone allowed to have a good time in this situation?  Moreover, what were these people really up to?  One thing’s for sure, they certainly had no respect for the law, these environmentalists.  So, here’s what we’re going to do.  We’re going to let a rumor leak out: Greenpeace has weapons of mass destruction.  And September Eleventh.  See what I did there?  I didn’t say that Greenpeace was responsible for 9/11, I just mentioned the two things in rapid succession.  So, from this point forward, every time you say ‘Greenpeace,’ what’s going to follow, even if it is totally out of syntax?  That’s right.  ‘Nine-eleven.’  ‘Terrorists’ is also an acceptable answer.  Actually, that reminds me of a phrase I’ve been meaning to coin: ‘environmentalist terrorists.’  Why do we use this phrase?  Simple.  When some over-sensitive liberal watchdog accuses you of calling Greenpeace a ‘terrorist group,’ this phrase gives you plausible deniability.  You will not have called Greenpeace ‘terrorist-terrorists,’ you will have called them ‘environmentalist terrorists.’  You see the difference?  In the latter case, you can play it off as a joke!  Another example of liberals being too literal when put in the same room as a playful, funny, charismatic Republican.  Liberals so don’t have a sense of humor about things like terrorism, and this will drop them like a syringe on the Jersey shore.  So, call me, you!

“Rush!  I am so not worthy!  I can’t give you advice; you’re my hero!  Just keep on keepin’ on, my usually portly demigod!  Oh yeah, and I wish you had not been ‘embarrassed’ by my personal unpleasantness.  I’m working on a few things, and I’ve found God.  Maybe he’ll make me not-gay like he made you not-addicted-to-prescription-drugs.  Wink!

“Patty-cake!  You look fabulous!  Nothing takes ten years off your face like botox and Jesus!  Wow!  With that said, Patty baby, you have really stepped in it this time, haven’t you?  On the one hand, I applaud your instincts.  You’re a Conservative!  And what does that mean?  That’s right -- no apologies!  Good work there!  Also, good attempt to pass the buck.  Of course the AP misinterpreted you, the bunch of lousy liberal weasels. 

“However, Patty, you made a couple of boo-boos.  First, babe, it would have been helpful if initially, you avoided outright fallacies.  They are problematic.  Second, what were you thinking with that apology?!?  Did you see how I handled Rush?!  You can “express regret” for outcomes, but never EVER use the words “sorry” or “apologize!”  Now people will all expect explanations from you and whatnot.

“That’s not to say that we can’t resurrect you yet!  What we’re going to do is just pretend this whole thing has blown over – and that will be the end of it!  I see you addressing a packed stadium with a big red, white and blue banner in the background with the words “Mission Accomplished” scrawled on them.  Why?  Because this whole thing is over, that’s why.  We’ve already headed into Venezuela and “taken out” Chavez.  Sure, he’s still in power, calling for your extradition, but as you said, there are a lot of ways to take a man out!  And don’t I know it!  Also, remember that you will have a banner on your side!  And people like banners!  People believe banners, because banners never lie!  Communists lie, but a red, white and blue banner?  I think not!  And if that doesn’t work immediately, you could always just change the subject.  I for one think far too much time has passed since anyone has made even a glancing reference to Monica Lewinsky.  What’s she up to now?  And didn’t I see her at a fundraiser with Barack Obama?  Anywho, Patty, you just hang in there!  You know that none of your supporters will leave your side!

“And hey, guys, before I hit the road, where’s Jerry Falwell?  Five minutes have gone by since the start of this article; he must have said something stupid and offensive in the meantime!  Oh well, I guess I’ll just have to wait a week before I see that luscious muffin again.