Re: Timmy may unwitting (purposefully unwitting) be trying to shore up Bush's accounts - This is just a guess - But it's possible that Bush's belligerent and provocative speech about Iran may have led to some margin calls on Bush's account deep within Bushland and a reckoning and reassessment from establisment types with some influence. Because Timmy was otherwise so way off base because everyone knew Bush was not misunderstood.
Meanwhile Pastor Meachem is on Charlie Rose saying absolutely nothing.

Pastor Meachem was comparing Bush to Churchill (God, how great it would be to throw that c*** back at 'em) by talking about how Bush said Chuchill reminded him of being a Texan - just keepin' at it, etc. What colossal garbage! Pastor Meachem should go back to his main job as Bill Graham's ambassador to the haute bourgeosie.

Meachem's pundit stature is a mystery of the Imperial City group grope — much like Beschloss. A social historian truly is needed to record and analyze this farce for posterity.

A good editor is a separate skill set and to be treasured. By all accounts he is detail oriented and a good manager.

Am glad to have missed that performance on Rose. Similarly, when he comes on Imus (usually at 6:30 AM, a sign the I-Man knows he is a weak guest) it is time to step into the shower or otherwise be out of earshot. Too tedious.

But there is a career track for every white journalist in the 35-50 age bracket which mandates one ponderous tome recycling secondary and tertiary sources on either FDR, Churchill or Lincoln. Alter, Meachem, etc. He's punched his ticket.

His glomming on to religious subjects is appalling in its sanctimonious bromides. Meachem shines in the reflected glory that is Russert, Tweety and the crew.

“ ... linking Hezbollah explicitly with Al Qaeda and the Iranian Shia complex.”

This is just such a stupid way to frame things because the whole world knows that it's a fake linkage , so you set the American people again to be the fall guy for an inside joke. The Davos set is already laughing, as is Nasrallah.

Perhaps Ali Khamanie instead of Nasrallah should have been “Time's Man of the Year.”

Afterall, the latter keeps a picture of the former on his wall. Plus he has Ahmadinejad under carefull supervision. But look at how he has the CIA and the Brits and French Intelligence going after his enemies in al Qaeda. He has the Marines and the Army attacking his Sunni enemies in Iraq while his other Sunni enemies in the Gulf plot against his American enemies. Plus he has his western enemies going after his enemies in the Taliban all the while the President of the US feels the need to mislead his own people (something most foreign countries usually pay to do) by trying to convince them of various falsehoods.
This is not apology for Hizbollah, an enemy organization, but it is beyond stupid when you see the cable hosts do 9-11 specials about Hizbollah . Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, but Stephen Hayes, if properly paid, could easily make a case that the Bush family had more links to the 9-11 plot than Hizb. But Bush still believe on waging psyops on the American people - because the authoriarians who didn't want to go to Vietnam now thing you always have to blame the 'Murkan Pee-pohl for wars.

Have you noticed - there's a certain tone all of these cable folks take - They always pause dramatically before uttering something ordinary of maudlin. Lots of them have Lippman envy, a desire to be Scotty Reston types who hold onto news, but later claim to regret it. One of the reasons Pat's stilll popular is because of the contrast content-wise (albeit soft on Goering and even Tojo) with his colleagues and Keith's basic intelligence and experience in sports has trained him to respect truth and facts. Pastor Meachem gets his share of scorn from the better bloggers, both religious and secular, because they both sense the game he's playing - He probably is a great editor , the Law of Conservation of Talent would suggest a compensation bonus in that area.

In the UK there's been quiet a bit of coverage of Operation Rockingham - as being, in reality. a joint US-UK psywar propaganda campaign against their own citizens. They are reported that US-UK intelligence often knew the INC 'intel' was vetted and in some cases originated in Iraq by Iranian intelligence. In other words, they were using Iranian deception and propaganda against their own citizens to trick them into a war that was largely in Iran's interest. We have to stop tricking our own citizens, but it now seems the war hawks are dependent on that method. They actually prefer lies when truth would work because they can use the lies to bait domestic enemies. Pat admitted , in so many words, that they did this with Nixon. Now its standard Bush practice.

As a protest against Webb's reply - Dubya held his daughter's party slippers up high in triumph as Webb delivered his defeatist spiel.

Movement conservatives will be given simulcra Bush daughter part slipper pins to wear, along with mock purple hearts.

Some encouraging shrieks and tsk tsks from The Corner re Webb. Some just didn't like his tone - ungracious, said one. There's some confusion. Jpod is conflicted - he says he disagreed with Webb's words, but that's not really true - because Webb told the truth. That' what bothered him. But one thing that we really liked last night - was Webb's cleverly precise and indisputable wording “a majority of the military” - We knew that was flypaper for war types who cringe at the idea of taking on Webb because they already know the reply.

But what made us really smile - is that Webb did not do the normal Dem thing and stop to source his assertion or to qualify it. - He just said it with relish and with prejudice. Jonah was annoyed Webb did not source it. Why? The hope, obviously, to trash the source or link it dishonestly to nazis or something like that.

They all picked up on that - but they approach Webb gingerly and nervously. The A team is still thinking thru their approach.

Another thing at the Corner was the Scooter coverage - They're a little po'd that their dumb non sequtors (“Armitage was the first to leak so ...” have zero impact in the court case and have nothing to do with the actual case. They're still in an inertial frame of reference - thinking they can try it the media. York's whole approach is predictable - always trying to set up a bemused pose. “The A-word” is his portentious term - Dumb code for “uh helloooo? where's the pardon? Uh the A-word, uh you know he can't have coordinated with because he bench presses and doesn't read Strauss and ....”

The regime's destruction of the judiciary is only partially underway. And even then, the prospect of a lifetime appointment on the federal bench can change perspectives — witness the Bush appointee who savaged 'Intelligent Design' and 'Creationism'.

There are greater long term prospects to undermine both the Congress and the judiciary by Alito and Roberts et al. from above. Although Roberts is too bright to simply impose ideology regardless of precedent. One more judge by this Administration and all bets are off.

What the Corner wants and yearns for is their own Vyshinsky/Freisler-esque judiciary. There their AgitProp memes would have probative value - perhaps dispositively.

re Iran — There is a minor school of thought that tries to link Stalin's 1937 purge of the military with misinformation spread by Heidrich and Berlin. It is all silly given Stalin's preparation for the purge in 1935 and 1936 and more ahistorical History Channel fodder. The Iranian role in assisting and then manipulating the U.S. into removing both threats to it in Afghanistan and Iraq is in contrast very real and ranks up there in legitimately astute statecraft (aided by the most foolish Great Power in modern times).

re Webb - Yes, Webb practiced excellent meme warfare: short declarative statements based on unassailable political (and actual) facts. Jonah is another burden of the age. How and why the Nation is forced to deal with the juvenile musings of youngster whose claim to fame is that his mother accidentally knew Linda Tripp and outted her and Monica Lewinsky is in the Top Ten Signs of the Times. (Number One on the list perhaps is Tom Friedman as the world's most important columnist).

Re: Vyshinksy - Freisler. Have to read up on them more. Since we know them primarily as symbols , not being well versed in the particulars, that seemed like a bit harsh of a comparison. However - a glance at some of the press of that time, which disgrees with them but gives 'both sides' does indeed suggest some similarties. The ran an automated Auto-de-fa, just for materialism instead of mystical. In the same sense the Bushian right views many people in Gitmo and Bagram as guilty just because they are there, even though they are objectively innocent. Indeed some on the right believe its better - imagewise - to let objectively innocent people suffer in these pens than risk looking weak - That's the ideology part. There's an outside possibility Dubya may have executed people in Texas who could have proved their innocense if they had been allowed DNA tests, but Gonz and Dubya clearly decided to err on the side of death.

What makes youd Vyshinsky comparison piquant is that predictable objections would be directed toward the relative small scale and the intent. Indeed - this is why it works because they are on a far smaller scale that the Sovs, but one could argue they have operated their 'justice' at a greater scale than the Inquisition. The latter even introduced the practice of waterboarding - obtaining false confessions of false crimes. Comparatively few were actually put to the torch, just as few are actually put to the Chair now. Similarly there was a lot of simple racism and prejudice hiding behind religious orthodoxy and ultra nationalism.

RE Iran - It's really crazy when you think about it when people say Iran assisted us in Afganistan , instead of saying “we assisted Iran.” But this would require an introduction in the meme-sphere some political problematic realities of various terrorism threats and how they differ from each other. As it stands now, it's embarassing to let the world and our enemies see Bush mislead the American people. No one is kidding them - they know who is who and what is what and they know our government knows. But they see the hollow men, the vacuous men, the little men, tell lies. It's really unfortunate.

RE: Carlson - You previosly noted his motive for crushing the clerk. When he chose to attack Nifong today it was revealing that his way of wishing Nifong ill was to hope to see him working in a fast food serving capacity. This is in keeping with his overall 'tude of disdain directed at the less fortunate. Some people can pull this snobbery off with charm and humor and make it part of their schtick, but it's hard to see why he gets away with it - what are his compensation attributes, the Buckley-type charm?, the Waugh-like wit?, or even a Hitchens thing. It must be a postmodern thing.

Webb's winged word still sail over the Sea of Misdirection. Those short statements - all true - may have been linguistic manifestations of his boxing days of old. Kerry, on the other hand, was always like a white basketball player from the 1940s who time travels and tries to play college ball today - studying his manual, thinking out 'moves' he'll use on the court, etc.

Carlson I think suffers from extremely low self esteem and over compensates. It pops out now and then such as when he conceded that he has no meaningful job skills other than talking.

Unfortunately he has been rescued from his 11:00 PM exile when his desperation was palpable — one could see he knew as he read the teleprompter that he was speaking to exactly 12 people outside the studio.

He is another Jonah Goldberg from a slightly more upscale frat with a good tennis team and friends with houses in the Hamptons. Not only substantively empty, he is a terrible broadcaster. Willie Geist, the senior producer who closes the show, is far better broadcaster persona-wise.

re Kerry, even his floor speech today on the Senate was lamentable. It is dismaying to me to see the active disdain among the progressives for HRC. Some of the people pouring cold water all over HRC are the same who saw Kerry as an “authentic” war hero and a “winning” candidate over other candidates (including Dean (microphone audio over compensation notwithstanding)). One has to call the judgment of some into question.

There may be sound reasons to prefer another candidate to HRC in the primaries. All fine and good. But in the end, the goal has to be to deny the White House to these maniacs for another 4 or possibly 8 years.

One would think Democrats and progressives learned from 2000 when some indulgently declared that there was no difference between Gore and Bush so it was safe to vote for Nader in protest. 500 votes and the world changed forever.

Right now HRC has an edge - with Obama the only competition. The progressive frustration re HRC was expressed via SNL wherein HRC is revealed as a calculating shrillstress compared to the magical Obama. It's was an interesting progressive cry. Perhaps HRC's vote for the war was insincere, perhaps not. Same with Kerry. Maybe not. Iraq happened - But due to being part of a long conflict, some saw different ambiguities in their vote.. But the real question is not whether or not HRC was clever about Iraq, but what she'll do re Iran. HRC's guile and calculation could be assets going forward - Total Nadarian candor is impossible these days. Edwards can't makes it. We doubt it , at least. We thought Gore stil had a shot, but then we heard Jimmy Carter say the same thing and we figured that might be an anti compass moment. Incidentally - Pelosi did pretty well last night - just by not giving the right anything to laugh at or sneer at. She classed up the place, as Carlson's shoe shiner might say during his weekly boot black chat/.

Re Iran - We've heard a number of gop gentlemen contest that charge - on TV and off. They say Iran opposed the war against Iraq, so there goes your theory that Iran supported it. Often they will point to some Iranian official denouncing Bush for invading Iraq. There are often the same types of people - including a reporter we know - who think UBL's decision to denounce Bush before the election was a calculated effort to sway Blue state wobblies away from Bush out of fear. There's a lot of these people, Doc, who find it impossible to consider the possiblity that UBL was trying to help Bush. These are often solid well meaning conservatives who think this way. They are being manipulated and they don't know it. Perhaps we're all manipulated eventually, but it's easier to spot it when its happening to others.

And Timmy insists that the Warlord was “surprised” at peoples' reaction to his speech specifically singling out Iran and that there “are no signs” the U.S. is actively seeking confrontation with Iran . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.c...

Sad.

Somewhat related an excellent non denial denial in yesterday's McClatchy:

“In the 45-minute interview, Rockefeller said that it was ”not hearsay“ that Cheney, a leading proponent of invading Iraq, pushed Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., to drag out the probe of the administration's use of prewar intelligence. - ”It was just constant,“ Rockefeller said of Cheney's alleged interference. He added that he knew that the vice president attended regular policy meetings in which he conveyed White House directions to Republican staffers- Republicans ”just had to go along with the administration,“ he said. - In an e-mail response to Rockefeller's comments, Cheney's spokeswoman, Lea McBride, said: ”The vice president believes Senator Roberts was a good chairman of the Intelligence Committee."

Btw - On points, Byron York is getting clocked by Marcy Wheeler from Firedoglake on c-span re Fitzmas.
York is doing his best to put on his bemused “you wouldn't believe this ...” act, and he's trying to re-redefine the commencement of the affair with Novak, when we now know that it began with Kristof. It's true. as was the case with Hiss, that Libby is not being charged with leaking classified information. You can have some fun with movement types (though it's a stretch in most ways) comparing the cases.

They brought up Milbank's report that Cheney said he controlled Russert - which was a great moment of illunination. The callers are classic - one winger called and managed to combine in one run on sentance a desire for Wilson-Plame to leave the country with other terror threat liars and other who ignore Bush, the leader. Marcy checks York - York is being very carefull with his insinuations - the ones is uses to toss as red meat. York does his “well I never” vapors act of the whole Armitage non issues, but he very carefull to use vague words, unlike before, to insinuate that Wilson said Cheney sent him (which he never actually said). It's great TV - Wheeler is right out of central casting for a liberal blogger with a PhD (though from flyover country) . York is trying his best - speaking mostly in code. Yes Doc, Wilson is a tough characte, but this trial is another terrible beauty aimed at another declining Imperial staff. Watching York's transparently insincere sadness and concern is priceless.

It's worth noting that York is playing a double game - even with his misdirections, he makes nods toward reality on the Tv, but in his earlier reportage he made many errors (intentional? uncorrected) on NRO - Probably hoping it gets picked up lower on the right wing food chain, and then be used as you know how.

Good for the FDL team. re York, perhaps it is incipient . . .

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id...

But that is too optimistic. We suspect it will be the Warlord is Dead Long Live the Warlord. CPAC promises to be more entertaining than usual this year.

That Wolf - the concierge for the fleetingly powerful - asked more direct and aggressive questions than Timmy ever did or could is the sweet 1-2 on Milbank's comment. (And Wolf folded at the end an abashed courtier scrambling from the wrath of his feudal lord . . .)

Wheeler and FDL have the factual edge - if you were handicapping the face off for Vegas. York understands the facts - though he may grok some kool aide for his own acting purposes - But you can tell he knows the facts by the unnatural circumlucations he embeds in other his otherwise linear narratives. His best gambit (this is when Wheeler with her pleasant high IQ face reacts beyond her fashion frames ) when he sort of re-invents a “who is this Wilson guy” narrative that supposedly took place around the Veeps office. It doesn't stand up to scrutiney when you check the timeline and WH statements from the McClellan days. Of course, if we had to guess - we think that Bush said to Cheney privately re Wilson , 'Get that Mo .......' durng a secret one on one meeting Cheney and the rest is history. Btw - Your “hush puppy” description of Brooks is spot on - He's putting on his full hush puppy tonight on Lehrer Rolling his eyes, looking like a victim, rolling his shoulder, smiling defensively, LOL. Brooks looks sad and disappointed that HRC is not as firm as Webb (who he privately resents) etc.

One thing that's funny is Brooks pretending to be surprised by the EOVP and WH media obsession with planting stories and facts about stories - That surprised him, he said. He was probably told to be seen saying that.

So that bee report - Are you saying that Barbara Bush is the Queen and Grandma Boxer was reacting to her decision to render inactive the .... j/k

“Within a week of her death, her chemical signals wear off, the workers' ovaries become active, egg-policing stops ...”

False Bee Consciousness? - Late stage Beegeosie decrepitude?

Bottom line - In neoconservative terms, there is that one week period when the Queen is actually (objectively) dead , but not *yet* spiritually (subjectively ) dead.

So, the hidden Bee philosphers have to hide the knowledge of the death of the Queen bee, for the one week while her chemical power residue still lasts - And then use that false Beegeosie consciousness as a motivator to attack another insect colony to please what is not, but what could be, Beetopia!

“Where do we find these brave men and woman, there not hanging around my local mall.” (Kate O'Beirne - National Review Institute panel)

This is , of course, silly. That is exactly where soldiers come from, but notice how Kate projects what she sees within and among her colleagues, onto the slackjaw and slovenly “other” in the USA. These woman are being ridcuclous - they went from being pro Tillman to being ant Tillman a few years ago and now they wonder why the WH hides medal winner stories. The WH does not publicize, until recently, medal winners because - as they told the Times - they are afraid of Kerry type dissenters. Then you have Malikin, who seems to hate more than half of the country she claims as hers. They are all what they used to dislike - like an insular group of ideologues still arguing that Hiss was framed.

The only thing that can save all of them is something they can blame on the Dems - Mona is now invoking Lincoln.

To clarify - that forked comment from Kate was her attempt at complimenting soldiers in Iraq (read: “we do not deserve these people”. She can't pull it off with at sticking in that revealing insult, as she was unable to congratulate Webb without insulting him and half the country. KLo is pretty funny, because he comments are always easy pickens' for a cheap shot by critics . She means well, but she doesn't seem to realize that she's in this vortex wherein she's always seems to be praying against people, as Jimmy Breslin says, and always living with the idea that most Americans are seditious fools who lack the proper spiritual leadership.

One wonder's what a David Brooks Life Coach would be advising him about now. Not just walking away from the Warlord's car wreck. Or his moral cuplability for what has transpired.

More pressingly, what should he do in the new media era? PBS is doomed to ever more marginal fractions of audience share, even among coveted inside D.C. elites. His columns no longer have anywhere near the meme impact locked up behind NY Times Select walls.

The quiet desperation of a pundit . . .

The Romney hive is showing problems. The McCain hive pheromones smell funny to the Movement. The Giuiliani hive is enemy territory. Meanwhile chaos in the Warlord's hive is growing as the rank and file sense and know death is in the air . . .

Brooks could score a real coup if he went freelance, embedded himself with the Marine, and went to Iraq and told the stories of the ordinary men and woman who, quit literally, hail from the areas near Kate O'Beirne's second choice mall. This would provide him with a lifetime of manyly anecdotes and corresponding film footage. Shields would have double up on his Depends, just to be able to deal being near him.

A few posts back, referring to the cultural history of the movement Catholcons, we made a comment that in the our comic symbology we said they were Frankfurt School truants - That seems a stretch, granted, because if any movement conservatives would get that label it would be the neos. But if you look for it with Malkin and O'Beirn, the trickle down socilogy of the Frankfurt school left is embedd in all their commenst - Malking just used the term “self-actualize” about her being an open conservative at Oberlin. That's a term that descends directly from Adorno and Luckacs and company. Just as Marx reverse Hegal, these folks are trying to reverse it back.

RE KLO Webb panic. Webb's winged words about “a majority of the military do not support the President's plan” are still soaring of the Sea of Meme. As you know Webb did not say “most” or “thirty percent” or “whites” or whatever. But the KLO types have been trying to intuit a lie behind that truthful statement by Webb.

Just because The Corner types always used words to misdirect, they miss when Webb uses them accurate.

Any - to make a long story less long - KLO decided to re-word (lie?) , beyond recognition, what Webb said and ask Malkin if the soldiers she met in Iraq agree with Webb and want to rush home (presumably in tears) - Then Malkin says “no.”

This dumb transparent game is so tired - But it's hard to devine this - but we guess that KLO and Co, would justify re wording Webb's winged words out of some deeper truth they think they are trying to tell. Igraham is smarter, as is Mona, but they really think their respective experiece at Dartmouth and Barnard are somehow typical. They do not realize they have much more in common with those liberals than they do with the “workers” they extol in the red states.

Bonus moment - Kate O'Beirne complaining about HRC being brittle, angry, and insincere. You had to see it to believe it.

Re The culture wars , a simple seeming audience member wonders why there is no Frank Capra, why thete os no organized propaganda and Hollywood cooperation. This is another tired meme - the “base” forgets that 'conservatives' didn'y like Capra and FDR and their movies - They forget. But they all forget that Hitler and Tojo were real threats and powerful nations with armies and navies and economies that were at war with us and that we declared war, etc. Anyway - Mona goes on to say conservatives should go into media because Media Uber Alles. That's another indicator that the right wing is eating into it's own capital - They extol Capra movies and op-ed journalists.

To show how phony these culture wars are - wait till Paradise Lost is released. Will the Catholocons protest a Milton movie? There is no doubt that Milton was ferociously anti Papal, and many think he was cryptically secular. But we bet they will embrace Milton falsely and claim him - Because it's just an image. Lord Black played into that a bit.

Last point about obvious delusion - without any irony - Ingraham talks about how every year the NY Times does a survey that suggests younger women are becoming more opposed to abortion. Then she says it's not covered in the media. Even though she is wrong - she read it the New York Times, of all places. She actuall reads it every year in the Times! But be careful what you wish for NRO Institute ladies — the reason the numbers against abortion are changing is due to immigration from Asian Muslims and Hispanics. It is not because Laura and Michelle and Mona went up to Barnard and held a panel discussion and convinced their high SAT brethern. LOL - That would be funny thought.

Clarification - Did not mean to suggest Lord Black played into anything re Milton or Paradise Lost. On the contrary - Black honestly would probably admit that he would be against Milton and in favor of the Royalty.

We meant to suggest that Black was coded 'conservative' as an image and that was also part of is media product. A postmodern irony is to see Milton being falsely 'coded' into the 'conservative' side and that it will be funny to see some Catholicons praise the anti Papal Paradise Lost (not Black, he knows better) when it comes out and group in their column in the Kurturkampf (which was also anti Rome, another irony)

Ingraham perhaps just misses her glory days with Greg Fossedal, D'nish at the Review. Outting Dartmouth students was a definite bonding event with D'Nish, a shame he left her. Her radio show is a weirdly atonal, strident view into her self loathing. She is bright but wasted her gifts — just in the end a mid tier anorexic harpy.

This Frum take on SOTU is hilarious unintentionally . . .

http://www.aei.org/publicat...

Some time ago we heard that Ingraham was ill for a spell and that cruel rivals and some liberals made insulting comments to her about this. This was very sad , if that happened as she said it. Same with Malkin - she was on Lamb and discussed some of the disgusting hate mail she gets. Again, that is lamentable - But none of the folks have any sense of awareness of the kind of bile they dish out - The idea that they are trulu respectful to soldiers is ludicrous. Militarism is not the same thing as respecting soldiers.

At CPAC this year, will the burn modern European history text books, or just rip out the chapter on the Enlightenment? The pencil out Article One in their US texts.

Does Frum really want to take on the Saudis now? Talk about strecting too little sheet (s***) over too much bed (head). What does he propose - where is the Frum plan? His Ending Evil book - (we have not read thru yet, because we're waiting for some of the ironies to become clearer) is a endless warr ion everything. There are lots of gems in there - he loves to invoke people who are dead that would probably disagree with his interpretation of them. We don't really know, but we guess that this is bogus:

“There is a famous story of President Franklin Roosevelt listening to a passionate debate between protectionists and free-traders. As the argument ended, he turned to his speechwriters and said: ”Weave them both together."

Sure it probably happened - but something tells us that he's using the anecdote in a very wrong way judging by his past. Or more likely - there's an added element to the FDR story that undermines everything else Frum writes. What does Frum think about Lebanon - is he looking forward to Civil War? Does he support Saudi's friends - like Sinora and the Sunni or has he put his faith in Samir Geagea? He may just wast Nasrallah to win it all, thus creating a threshold of plausibility to re-introduce the idea of ww2 strategic bombing (future Frum: 'Sadly we had to bomb Monte Casino, we should not hesitate to protect ourselves by exempting Beirut.')

Another thing Ingrahamed did - (she can't seem to help herself) was take digs at John Kerry's wife, Theresa. Kerry's wife is by most accounts a kind woman and an impressive person. Indeed, she is no leftist. Igraham dishonestly reports some alleged shift back to her Heinz name, etc - Then reveals her hollow dishonesty by saying she doesn't know where Theresa is , etc. Does she wonder why she gets vicious hate mail, when she habitually slurs and slanders woman like Theresa even when a campaign is over - all for a cheap NRO laugh, based on false facts.

There was some other Webb related shreiks and panic - Mona tried to remind the crowd that most Democrats do not wish their country well , once againt mistaking her red friends in college (a fraction of a fraction of a percentile) for standard Democrats.

Mona - has this great moment that Stewart would love when she talks about the horrors on Tv - without any ironic sense of self-awareness -

“I assume we're killing a boatload of people.”
~Kate O'Beirne
National Review Institute
(Pro-life Kate, said with
a smile, Not a transcript quote)

Pardon our segue into amateur pop psychology here, but it is irresistable given the subjects. We imagine an encounter among Malkin, Ingraham and Dr Phil (impersonated by Rob Bartlett on Imus with his usual deliberately bad makeup and skull cap).

(Our Dr Phil would punt on Mona as a relic from the more gentile 1980s ideological wars striving to stay relevant among a new generation of younger, more photogenic harpies with far greater emotional distortions to fuel their punditry. Alas, she is not damaged enough for good TV ratings — in her field and his).

The ersatz Dr. Phil would tell Malkin and Ingraham, facing him on another sofa:

1) They need the anger because it validates that they are alive and someone is listening;

2) Anger gives them freedom and license to lump all “Others” into the “hater” category. All tactics are fair game to stop the “haters”;

and 3) most importantly, Ingraham and Malkin need to admit that they are anger addicts and vent and misdirect their own inernal anger, rage and fear which comes from deep seated self-loathing.

Then Dr. Phil (Rob Bartlett in the bad makeup) drops his killer line that always gets his studio audiences fired up for a teary collapse: “How's that working for you???”

Suprisingly to Dr.Phil/Bartlett, both women answer cheerfuly “Amazingly well, thank you!” Malkin reports her book deals and web hits, and Ingraham rattles off all her career 'successes' (omitting very visible missteps at MSNBC, etc.).

----------------------------
Undeterred, our faux Dr. Phil would probe Malkin more closely —

He would ask why Malkin, a Filipina, embraces and revives fringe arguments about Japanese-American alleged (and debunked) treason threats. And note that she accomplishes two things — revenge for the 1941-1944 occupation and its brutality (and thus standing up for her Filipina self image), and most importantly, it allows her to also self-identify with the White Anglo American mainstream she so desperately wants to be a part of but secretly suspects they hold her in contempt as an outsider.

Malkin is then shown a video montage of Malkin erupting on TV appearances uncontrolled, and then calling people who disagree with her “unhinged”.

Dr. Phil/Barltett would then note that Malkin can almost always be counted to to embrace and extend (to quote Gates out of context) without nuance whatever memes generate from Powerline or other *perceived* quintessentially angry white male/unalloyed “Amerikhun” quarters.

Sensing the TV ratings “kill”, Dr Phil/Bartlett closes in for the coup de grace, gently asking Malkin if late at night, alone from her ghostwriting husband and children, unbidden thoughts of Wonderbread and Disneyland don't creep into her mind. And then asks if she doesn't have alot of John Cougar Mellencamp songs on her iPod.

Malkin sobs, wracked by tears. Our fake Dr Phil puts his arm around her (and covertly cops a feel, having seen several of Malkin's photoshopped and airbrushed publicity photos) and gently says all of her life has just been a cry for help and acceptance.

Looking over his shoulder at Ingraham, peeved to be off camera for so long, Dr Phil says “We'll get to you and your need to sell yourself as an 'addiction' after the break . . .”

::Fade out to commercial::

That works. We can imagine the commercial that follows. Hey, pop psychology never hurt any one. Then again -amateurism can be getting out of control; until the aei crowd, armchair Generalship never hurt anyone either - We've never actually seen Phil's show - just the 'coverage' of it on Comedy Central or regular newes, but here's our take - Phil says : “Michelle, there seems to be some hostility in your click thrus? Do you sense that?” She replies, “No,” but the audience boos, then, with his hands, he instructs the audience to quite down and then say, “Michelle, be as strong as your smile is bright.” (tied in with whit strips ad) Sudddenly Michelles frown disappears and she smiles and the audience claps. Later she writes it up as a leftist ambush. (whene it was actually a capitalist ambush) Is Rob Bartlett the one who plays Falwell? We've only seen it few times in the past year.
There is another bonus that Michelle gets from endorsing the debunked Japanese-American treason threats - Her wannabee bien pensant liberal critics often critique as an “Asian,” not as a Filipina, thus revealing their ignorance of the recent past or their willingness to lump in all Asians as Third Worlders in a way they would not do with Europeans. For example, from the Balkans who still resents the German occupation would not be described as self hating European. The big question is whether or not Michelle lays this trap with eyes wide open, or is it , as Dr. Phil might think, a cry of the heart - a rightist cri de coeur.

Can't honestly claim overt familiarity the real Dr. Phil except for Letterman and Imus parodies. So it may be off. We'd be unashamed to concede watching if we did — just as we have admitted to watching Carlson's show, which is probably even more debasing. Just a hunch.

A TV pundit we know was speculating that the Coulters and Malkins are not thinking rationally at the moment, and meant it explicitly and calmly.

The point made to the Stiftung was that when one catches “green room fever” and hitches a career to chasing self-generated controversy, noteriety, fickle memes and book sales, etc. the inner logic of pushing the boundaries of extremism to top last week's forms a vicious cycle of behavior that seemingly is internally rational yet when viewed externally is undeniably irrational.

This pundit thought the only escape after inevitably hitting a wall was to disappear for a while — either at a Think Tank or on “research” and relaunch the brand with the volume turned way back down. A career and life reset.

Although two caveats are in order: (a) the pundit may have had some professional rivalry in mind; and (b) that prediction was made 6 months ago and there is no evidence the diagnosis is accurate . . . yet. (Que Keynes quote . . .“In the long run . . .,” etc.)

Terry McCauliff was just on Book TV being interviewed and having a book party. He's an incredible salesman - and everytime he talks it's always about things and people he likes and loves. He even has a positive edge to his Bush critque (we can do better, not the end is neigh). But of all you knew about him was what you heard from the right noise machine or conservative columnists like Novak, you'd be expecting McAuliff to be a very dark personality - someone who came off as a combination gangster and ward heeler boss. A dark and dangerous man - someone capable of menace. Aside from any political criticism of Terry, it's seems that the hatred directed toward him was some sort of projection. But it's so clear with him, just because the obvious brightness and ebuilence to his personality. You can discount that cheer when he exaggerates on behalf of his friends and clienst, but he errs on the side of spreading cheer. But the right has been captured by that element, always around and about, that errs on viewing things darkly and cynically - (not in a good funny way). Thosse women at the NR “institute” can learn from Terry - how to have better 'tude. But then again, didn't Andrea Mitchell say that Gwen Ifil told her that what they really need.