The Political Chase

BREAKING: Goldberg research finds Obamas are ’self-hating yuppies’

Jonah Goldberg, an Xer, who received an undergrad degree from Groucher, claims he knows what is wrong with Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle. After a puzzling research and analysis project, Goldberg has now concluded the Obamas are self-hating yuppies. Well, I do hope Sen. Clinton was promptly notified.

Since Goldberg, a Gen X neocon, does not hold an advanced degree in social or medical sciences (to my knowledge), I would be interested to learn how Goldberg definitively came to this conclusion. Furthermore, what version of the DSM is he referring to support his conclusion. Are we taking about Axis I, Axis II, or Alex P. Keaton as Goldberg seems to be loosely applying below.

Discussion follows Goldberg’s notes.

Barack Obama, the yuppie candidate - Los Angeles Times

There’s always been a certain cultural lag time to Barack and Michelle Obama, a kitschiness that’s been hard to pinpoint. But I think I’ve got it: They’re self-hating yuppies straight out of the 1980s, which was to the Obamas what the 1960s were to the Clintons.

For those too young to remember, “yuppie” was shorthand for young urban professionals — think Michael J. Fox as Alex P. Keaton in the TV series “Family Ties” or Charlie Sheen in Oliver Stone’s “Wall Street” — who allegedly represented the collapse of ’60s values and the triumph of ’80s greed. Yuppies sold their souls for a BMW and a condo.

Ironically, the biggest complaints about yuppie materialism came from self-loathing liberal yuppies — like the Obamas.

The Obamas still seem stuck in that time warp, clinging to ’80s-style resentments and political assumptions. Michelle Obama is never so eloquent as when she’s complaining about the burden of student loans for her two Ivy League law degrees and covering the high cost of summer camp and piano lessons for her kids on her family’s half-million-dollars-a-year income.

“Don’t go into corporate America,” she exhorted low-income working mothers in Ohio in February, even though she is a highly compensated hospital executive. She admits to being consumed with “a constant sense of guilt” over having to balance work, politics and family. “It’s guilt, feeling guilty all the time.”

It’s Ronald Reagan — the president of the 1980s — who seems to loom so large in Obama’s world. (Recall how last year, Obama caught some flak suggesting he might be a new Ronald Reagan.) Reagan famously restored confidence in the nation while reducing confidence in government as the solution to our problems. He put a stake in the heart of the “Vietnam syndrome” and the blame-America-first ethos of the Democratic Party, as famously diagnosed by Jeane Kirkpatrick at the 1984 Republican convention. The Reagan Revolution moved the country durably to the right — so much so that even Democrats saw the writing on the wall.

It is worth noting that Dr. Mr. Goldberg is part of Generation X, whose thinking commonly has significant overtones of cynicism against things held dear to the previous generations, which would include Yuppies (Mr. and Mrs. Obama) and Baby Boomers. Although the distaste is more frequently associated Boomers.

It is possible Goldberg’s Gen X inclination for cynicism of Yuppies may have clouded his judgment and consequently let the "haters" modifier be included, but inappropriately so.

I quickly checked the DSM-IV-TR and was unable to find a specific reference to "self-hating yuppie" but maybe Dr. Mr. Goldberg is referencing the DSM-V, which is not scheduled for general use until 2011. (He’s probably in that special consultation section preparing for the release.)

It is also quite intriguing that man and wife share the same affliction, so the logical question is do they have the same etiology? Dr. Mr. Goldberg appears to suggest in his progress notes they may have the same etiology, although his notes are a tad cryptic and lend themselves to prose, rather scientific.

Second opinion, doctor? That would be my suggestion.

Kos: Lowe’s pulls advertising from O’Reilly show

If you are not already aware of it, there has been a knock-down, drag-out fight for about a week or so between Marcos (et al) at the Daily Kos and Bill O’Reilly. Bill O’Reilly initiated the conflict (I think) on his show, The O’Reilly Factor, when he slammed the Kos and the annual Kos convention - referring to the site as the KKK and much more. O’Reilly also did his mudslinging on his radio show - that’s where I first heard it.

Although O’Reilly was slandering Kos, he simultaneously targeted JetBlue for being a sponsor for the Yearly Kos; objective - get passengers to fly another carrier. After a long verbal battle with JetBlue’s chairman, JetBlue acquiesced to pulling advertisement from Yearly Kos and possibly other Kos related areas.

Two can play that game, because Marcos convinced Lowe’s to withdraw their advertising from O’Reilly’s show.

Replied On 07/27/07 15:41:09

Dear Lowe’s Customer,

Thank you for your comments regarding the program, The O’Reilly Factor.

Lowe’s has strict guidelines that govern the placement of our advertising. Our company advertises primarily in national, network prime-time television programs and on a variety of cable outlets.

Lowe’s constantly reviews advertising buys to make certain they are consistent with its policy guidelines.  The O’Reilly Factor does not meet Lowe’s advertising guidelines, and the company’s advertising will no longer appear during the program.

We are dedicated to providing the best service, products, and shopping environment in the home improvement industry.  All three of these are very important to our business, and our customers will always be our number one priority.

We appreciate your contacting us, and hope this information addresses your concerns.

Thank you,

Lowe’s Customer Care

Good work on Marcos part. The words I emphasized are strong and can have a domino affect if Marcos propagates Lowe’s message properly to other sponsors of O’Reilly’s Full Spin Zone.

Daily Kos: Lowe’s pulls advertising from O’Reilly show

John Aravosis on Ann Coulter

John Aravosis frames Ann Coulter perfectly.

She walks around calling people “fags,” mocking their dead children, wishing that they were murdered, then when people respond by saying “uh, you’re kind of mean,” Ann flips out over the level of venom that’s directed against her.

He has more to say, but that captures the Coultergeist. Indeed.

Lieberman at it again

Lieberman: “If Kristol says what I’m doing is right, it must be right.”

This guy has lost control of his faculties.

Cheney and Kristol’s Neocon Organization

In my note about the State Dept.’s conflict with Vice President Cheney, I mentioned an organization that Cheney et al started circa 2001. The organization is Project for New American Century (PNAC) and was started in 1997.

You can read their statement of principles here.

I was probably confusing the initiation date with the date of a notable letter they wrote to President Bush on September 20, 2001. A mere nine days after 9/11 and this statement about Iraq was included in their letter, which I think you will find striking.

We agree with Secretary of State Powell’s recent statement that Saddam Hussein “is one of the leading terrorists on the face of the Earth…” It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism. The United States must therefore provide full military and financial support to the Iraqi opposition. American military force should be used to provide a “safe zone” in Iraq from which the opposition can operate. And American forces must be prepared to back up our commitment to the Iraqi opposition by all necessary means.

The Mindset of the Right-Wing

The mindset and vitriol expressed by right-wingers never ceases to amaze me. I don’t intend to stereotype here, there are exceptions; however, many seem to have common characteristics. Rush Limbaugh can be used as a reasonable standard reference. I have two examples to cite.

You know people can comment on videos at YouTube the same as in a regular blog. Well, the first thing I read this morning was a comment made on a video here at TPC.

1) Democrats only speak hatred and fear to the American public.

2) Liberals trust our enemies at every turn, but show no trust in the government that they run. Never forget that the Liberals are in charge of the Senate and the Congress.

3) Liberals want to decrease our military, and want to defund intelligence that could have prevented 911.

4)If our country is attacked again by terrorist, these same liberals will ask if more could have been done to stop them.

Then I read a post of Josh Marshall’s, which surprised me - but didn’t, that the right-wing thinks YouTube is biased against them and have created Qubetv, which is for the right-wing only and as Josh so eloquently stated, “an innertube for folks who can’t hack it out on the actual internet.”

For the verbose commenter in the first example, I couldn’t resist replying with a simple question, “What proof, not opinions, do you have to support your allegations?”

Technorati Tags: Qubetv

Another point on Ann Coulter

I reread my last post and this counter-argument occurred to me. As stated in the previous post, one excuse given for not pulling Coulter’s column was, “she didn’t use that language in her column.” That misses the point entirely. While the language may not be acceptable, this goes beyond inappropriate language.

It has everything to do with character, bigotry, slander, values, ethics, and the values and image an organization wants to present to the public and its clients. It’s easy to ward off simple rebuttals before they are even spoken. Negation of possible rebuttals in advance minimizes the opportunity for the organization to say “no”…all part of pleading the case up front.

Think like Patrick Fitzgerald.

News outlets beginning to drop Ann Coulter

While the rate of news outlets dropping Ann Coulter’s column is not as rapid as the stock market decline last week, some are ceding to pressure and wisdom. That’s good and not-so good news.

Editor and Publisher is reporting that at least seven of approximately 100 media outlets have exorcised the Coultergeist. E&P has contacted some of Coulter’s clients and received lame excuses for continuing to run the column. For example, Michael P. Clark, editorial page editor of The Florida Times-Union in Jacksonville, said, “She didn’t use that language in her column.”

Although the current rate of dropping Coulter may not be breathtaking, seven percent of her client base is much better than none. But, let’s look at this pragmatically. It has only been about a week since Coulter issued her proclamation that John Edwards is a “faggot.” Getting newspapers to remove her column, when the editorial board may have not even thought about it, will take time.

Absent pressure from the public and particularly their subscribers, conservative papers will probably not rid themselves of this creature from hell. Obviously, that means increased and consistent pressure from the grass roots campaign. Pleading a well organized, substantiative case, can make a difference.

Some things to consider:

• I suggest removing as much emotion as possible from any correspondence.
• Proffer facts and capitalize on professional ethics.
• Cite known organizations that have already exorcised the Coultergeist.
• Demonstrate consistent bad-girl behavior patterns by citing specific incidents from a well established Coultergeist history.
• If at all possible, send a real U.S. mail letter rather than email.
• Capitalize on competition to the extent possible (X paper/company in your market has already undergone an exorcism).
• If you know or can obtain demographics that are applicable and helpful, use them.

Just how dense is the pro-Scooter Libby crowd

Ever since Scooter Libby achieved Republican neocon martyrdom status Tuesday, I have heard wingnut after wingnut whine that Libby was unjustifiably charged. This thick-headed group has said ad nauseam that no criminal charges directly related to leaking Valerie Plame Wilson were filed, therefore there was no basis to charge Scooter Libby. They have pounded Patrick Fitzgerald relentlessly - calling him a zealot and other unjustified, childish names.

Today, the esteemed Mr. Charles Krauthammer joins the rest of the nitwits. Playing his cry-me-a-river violin and with all the melodrama he can muster up, he sings the refrain:

Why [should Libby have never been charged]? Because on his essential charge as special prosecutor — find and punish who had leaked Valerie Plame’s name — he had nothing. No conspiracy, no felony, no crime, not even the claim that she was a covert agent covered by the nondisclosure law.

Weeping, Krauthammer transitions to the next verse about the charges brought against Libby:

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald chose to make Libby’s misstatements about the timing of the receipt of one piece of information — Mrs. Wilson’s identity — the great white whale of his multimillion-dollar prosecutorial juggernaut.

Pray tell, what is the IQ threshold level, where the logic and results of the Scooter Libby trial are no longer a distortion of reality?

OK, Mr. Krauthammer, listen carefully. No criminal charges were filed for leaking Valerie Plame’s name because Scooter Libby, and arguably others, obstructed justice, which illegally kept Fitzgerald, or any other prosecutor, from being able to effectively investigate and charge those responsible for leaking Valerie Plame. Got it? Remember, Fitzgerald plainly stated multiple times, it’s like a baseball game; Libby threw sand in his eyes and he was unable to play the game effectively. Lying and trying to cover your butt are not legal. Got it?

Moving along…Fitzgerald presented his case to a grand jury and the grand jury decided, not Fitzgerald, Mr. Libby should be charged for throwing sand in the eyes of the prosecutor and the investigators.

Next, Mr. Libby was tried before a jury of his peers, which all eleven of them decided Libby was guilty. The jury decided the validity of Fitzgerald’s charges and convicted Libby, not Fitzgerald.

Furthermore, if Mr. Libby was so profoundly innocent as Krauthammer and the rest of the wingnuts proclaim, why did he not simply get on the witness stand and tell a mere eleven people he was innocent? If Mr. Libby was  innocent and wrongfully charged, why didn’t one or both of his bosses, Dick Cheney and George Bush, rush to his aid and testify under oath how and why Libby was innocent? If Libby was so innocent, why couldn’t two of the best lawyers in the country easily convince the jury of his innocence?

Mr. Krauthammer, until you and the rest of your melodramatic ideologues provide truthful and exonerating answers to my questions, just remain quiet. You’re acting like a bunch of cry babies. Get over it and be glad that Fitzgerald didn’t take Cheney, Rove, and Bush down.

AEI publishes plan for victory

The neocon organization, American Enterprise Institute has published its plan for Iraq, “Choosing Victory.” The plan dismisses political solutions and sends more troops to Iraq.

Iraq has reached a critical point. The strategy of relying on a political process to eliminate the insurgency has failed. Rising sectarian violence threatens to break America’s will to fight. This violence will destroy the Iraqi government, armed forces, and people if it is not rapidly controlled.

…

We must change our focus from training Iraqi soldiers to securing the Iraqi population and containing the rising violence. Securing the population has never been the primary mission of the U.S. military effort in Iraq, and now it must become the first priority.

We must send more American combat forces into Iraq and especially into Baghdad to support this operation. A surge of seven Army brigades and Marine regiments to support clear-and-hold operations starting in the Spring of 2007 is necessary, possible, and will be sufficient.

These forces, partnered with Iraqi units, will clear critical Sunni and mixed Sunni-Shiia neighborhoods, primarily on the west side of the city.

After the neighborhoods have been cleared, U.S. soldiers and marines, again partnered with Iraqis, will remain behind to maintain security.

As security is established, reconstruction aid will help to reestablish normal life and, working through Iraqi officials, will strengthen Iraqi local government.

H/T Think Progress

Late Update: The link at the top of the page is the Executive Summary. To read the entire report click here (PDF). Spencer Ackerman at The American Prospect has an analysis (realistic).

Tom DeLay Profiles Progressive Bloggers

Tom DeLay psychoanalyzes bloggers.

Where does the strength of the liberal blogosphere emanate?

It takes root from two things - one internal, one external. Externally, it had the behind the scenes efforts of, and coordination with important new organizations like the Phoenix Group, which I blogged upon here.

The internal strength of the Liberal blogosphere itself is probably over-rated, though it is certainly much stronger than the Conservative blogosphere. It flows from a high degree of passion partly driven from a sense of being out of power.

Read more…

Divinity and ammunition

I feel like a kid in a candy store. Tom DeLay’s blog will be one of the best things to ever happen to Progressives. It is definitely fodder for exposing the true intellect of the neo-con base, some of which are destined for prison. At minimum, it’s great a source for cut and paste humor.

For example, this comment is from a warring thread on Christianity in the federal government. There is no levity intended in the comment; this person was quite serious.

Praise God and pass the ammunition.

I think someone forgot, “Blessed are the peacemakers.”

Add ice, stir, sit back, and make your own jokes.

B _ _ _ _

Uncommon language for me to use here, but what a bitch!

Michel Malkin - What American journalists should be thankful for

In between breathless condemnations of the Bush administration for stifling its free speech, endless court filings demanding classified and sensitive information from the military and intelligence agencies, and self-pitying media industry confabs bemoaning their hemorrhaging circulations (with the exception of the New York Post), my colleagues in the American media don’t have much to time to give thanks.

Allow me:

I can’t/won’t paste the remainder of her post.