Marginalize The Opposition
If your critics are insane, why listen to them? The WaPo continues its tussle with left wing bloggers - I would cite the Abramoff debacle and the recent WaPo editorial on pre-war intel as examples, if I had time to put in any links.
And keep in mind - WaPo columnist Charles Krauthammer trained as a psychologist, so the WaPo may be getting expert guidance here.

Dry enough to be a fire hazard.
==================
Posted by: kim | April 15, 2006 at 09:57 AM
Another shrink (per Larwyn) does, too.http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/
Well, I'll keep checking DSM to see if they set up a new category. Kos Derangement Disorder or something.
Posted by: clarice | April 15, 2006 at 10:03 AM
What I like about Somerby's latest is that he can now make vague references to 'moist places' or 'the waterfront' and it's completely understood that he is referring to the far-left 'fever swamps'.
=====================================
Posted by: kim | April 15, 2006 at 10:05 AM
CK=psychiatrist. Nit, now picked; however the point may be even more precise. There is pathology there to be remedied, not merely understood.
I already regret the 'merely'. It is not possible to write such that you cannot be misunderstood.
==================================
Posted by: kim | April 15, 2006 at 10:10 AM
Gee, I guess a lefty liberal bias icon like
Wapo has flipped it's little lid too!
Posted by: Semanticleo | April 15, 2006 at 10:19 AM
If you go to Kos, you'll see the blogger profiled is actually quite pleased with the piece.
I guess when you live in a fever swamp, and everywhere your eye can see, you see swamp-- well then, you look at your little bit of the swamp and you are darn proud of your little piece of real estate. You may consider yourself queen of the swamp.
Never realizing the people living on the beaches find you swampy.
Posted by: MayBee | April 15, 2006 at 10:23 AM
It's okay. They're not eliminationists.
Posted by: Paul Zrimsek | April 15, 2006 at 10:25 AM
Maybe someone over at the WaPo read Neville Shute's 'On the Beach', and wondered about the aura of inevitable doom hanging about the Wilsons.
================================
Posted by: kim | April 15, 2006 at 10:35 AM
I wonder of Joe is a 'joy racer'.
==================
Posted by: kim | April 15, 2006 at 10:37 AM
And speaking of terminal dipsomaniacs, has anyone looked into her eyes, lately? What are the reflections of a golden blonde?
=====================================
Posted by: kim | April 15, 2006 at 10:40 AM
Looks like the WaPo's got its "angry" marching orders from Rove. LOL!
Posted by: danking70 | April 15, 2006 at 10:48 AM
I blogged two pieces today though I don't know if or when they will run in AT. The first is on ts's point about the NYT's curious silence on the other 6 people about which interview notes were sought and the rest of the media's lack of curiousity about that selective disclosure of only Tenet and Fleicher.
The second, riffing off TM's Chris Matthew lies, to Spruill's David Schuster lies and the NRO and Capt Ed's Waas Nicht dissection. I contend that these repeated, demonstrable lies by msnbc and Waas are akin to the psychological phenomenon known as folie a deux. They'll keep lying so their delusionary viewers will keep watching.
Posted by: clarice | April 15, 2006 at 10:53 AM
This uncontrolled politically driven rage is akin to the "Two Minute Hate" described in George Orwell's book "1984".
Posted by: Chants | April 15, 2006 at 10:54 AM
Evolution of a leftie:
"She agonized over low wages for overseas workers every time she bought a $40 leather purse. Then George W. Bush was elected."
Posted by: JM Hanes | April 15, 2006 at 12:17 PM
Disillusion is best combatted by denial. It's best resolved by insight.
=========================
Posted by: kim | April 15, 2006 at 12:20 PM
In other news (h/t Kaus) Nevada Republicans are calling Reid a "rich Anglo"http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2006/apr/13/041310264.html
Posted by: clarice | April 15, 2006 at 12:37 PM
Clarice:
riffing off TM's Chris Matthew lies,
I started to respond that your judgment of Matthews (lies) was a bit over the top.
But then I read his colloquy with Ben-Veniste last night and one can't help but conclude that he is either dishonest or so completely seized by this "The-Neocons-and-Cheney-Run-the-World" chimera that he can't see things clearly.
E.g., Matthews:
[T]he [White House made a] case for a nuclear threat from Iraq, when we now know that was an isolated discernment [in the NIE], that many of the other agencies, including CIA and State did not share it, but yet it was portrayed to the reporter Judy Miller and Matt Cooper and the others apparently as the consensus belief.
As any person reading the NIE can see (link), the nuclear threat was the consensus view of all of the agencies and it was only the State Department (INR) that had doubts about the uranium-from-Niger allegations.
BTW, that entire Ben-Veniste/Matthews exchange is quite a hoot.
Matthews is either a functional illiterate or, well, a liar or deeply confused. And since he's written several books and hundreds of columns, one can only make one of the harsher judgments.
And to think, folks like O'Connor in the WaPo piece view Matthews as a White House shill or apologist.
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG | April 15, 2006 at 12:37 PM
SteveMG;
I also saw that Ben-Veniste interview with Matthews and I have to tell you on this topic they are both "Off the Hook". Deeply confused is probably accurate although Chris has been against the War in Iraq since the get-go. He continuously has people on who support his position so you have biased reporting. He interrupts people who disagree and then goes to commercial Many times he only has one point of view presented. He has a vendetta against Cheney because he blames going to war in Iraq on him.Folie a deux is absolutely the right way to descibe what is going on. Shuster has been marginalized by the blogs yet he continues to report falsely on this story by exaggeration,innuendo and outright lying.
Posted by: maryrose | April 15, 2006 at 12:56 PM
Chris Matthews really is not very intelligent. His books leave much to be desired and can be read in about an hour.
Posted by: Florence Schmieg | April 15, 2006 at 01:01 PM
I cannot for the life of me imagine why else Matthews and others would repeatedly falsely report facts which are in the public record except that they need to give their viewers what they know they want:a fairytale. The trade off is they'll pretend they are providing the news to readers who pretend they are getting the news.
Posted by: clarice | April 15, 2006 at 01:05 PM
Daily Howler on Matthew's
You think in Matthew's case it's a combination who's briefing him (Wilson) and memory. I definitely think he has Wilson on speed dial.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | April 15, 2006 at 01:10 PM
Clarice:
I cannot for the life of me imagine why else Matthews and others would repeatedly falsely report facts
I'm lost too.
Of course, they say the same thing (more or less) about us.
But how anyone can read this key judgment in the NIE:
Although we assess that Saddam does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on acquiring them. Most agencies assess that Baghdad started reconstituting its nuclear program about the time that UNSCOM inspectors departed--December 1998.
and then state, as Matthews did with Ben-Veniste, that it was the minority view in the NIE that Iraq was seeking to acquire nuclear weapons is mystifying.
Again: Most agencies. He remains intent.
How much more clear can one get? What is he reading? What does he see that we don't?
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG | April 15, 2006 at 01:25 PM
Seixon and Bob Somerby were masterful..Bob's "rubes and runners" take on the Ben-Venists, Zakaria, Biden, Kerry and Matthews bald face lying was, as usual, fantastic.
Posted by: clarice | April 15, 2006 at 01:28 PM
Jeff;
Please stop ascribing motives to Libby which just aren't there. On the July 8th meeting which you seem to obsess over Libby did NOT tell Miller anything he wasn't supposed to. He didn't lie to McClelland about not being involved in the leak. You want this to be true so much you can taste it but you are WRONG!
I frankly am disappointed in Matthews . I thought he was better than this.
Posted by: maryrose | April 15, 2006 at 01:41 PM
I've found that reading Angry Lefty blogs while whistling the 'Feeling 7-Up, I'm Feeling 7-Up" jingle puts everything they're writing into perspective.
Go ahead.
Give it a try.
~ feeling 7-up, I'm feeling 7-up! ~
.
Posted by: BumperStickerist | April 15, 2006 at 01:48 PM
Jeff is spinning round and round on the hamsterwheel....I get dizzy when I go there
Posted by: windansea | April 15, 2006 at 01:55 PM
I think people like Chris Matthews and the rest keep putting out the same old tripe, which drops them ever further into the pit of shrinking audience hell, because of their ideology. James Burhnam made the fundamental point in "Suicide of the West" that the left is an ideology while conservatism is not. Leftism wants the world to conform to its 'ideas'; sensible conservatives and the few sensible liberals conform their ideas to the world and human nature.
Its the same reason Hollywood makes awful, stupid R rated lefty movies when they know they can make far more money on G and PG non political movies. They can't help themselves. BDS is just the latest name for a very old malady.
Posted by: Barney Frank | April 15, 2006 at 02:21 PM
It's called denial, and it is wonderful solace in time of sorrow.
==========
Posted by: kim | April 15, 2006 at 02:57 PM
Barney,
Leftism is a faith,if you discuss any of the catastrophic socialist experiments,where millions perished,the retort will be,"That wasn't socialism,real socialism hasn't been tried yet",a direct analogy to the question,"Why haven't my prayers been answered?"..."Because you didn't pray hard enough,sincerely enough or in the right way,go back and try again".
Posted by: PeterUK | April 15, 2006 at 03:17 PM
i saw the chris and ben show it shows how the 9-11 commisson got around able danger and every other important detail the public would like to hear about .chris has a motive and he said it right on that show if he keeps showing cheney saying one thing one time and different the next he is obnoxious discusting and repulsive.i had a change of mind about chris when he treatrd michelle malkin and zell he is a creep.
Posted by: brenda taylor | April 15, 2006 at 03:27 PM
Say what?
======
Posted by: kim | April 15, 2006 at 03:29 PM
Are you a Matt Head?
==============
Posted by: kim | April 15, 2006 at 03:30 PM
Maryscott is truly pathetic. You have to wonder what would happen if she turned her energy and talent to something productive rather than indulging herself in pointless hatred. Apparently there are lots more where she came from.
I really hope she and the angry multitudes continue with their blogging. It keeps them from having the time to do the things it actually takes to win elections, like fund raising and get out the vote.
Posted by: Aubrey | April 15, 2006 at 04:55 PM
The really pathetic thing is that her addiction now is the rising numbers and the release of vituperation by expression which stimulate the rise. Tolerance, even to intolerance, develops. There is a time to unto all things. What next for her?
===================================
Posted by: kim | April 15, 2006 at 05:03 PM
Me and my Cindy McGee.
===============
Posted by: kim | April 15, 2006 at 05:04 PM
I can't decide if Cindy McGeehan or McSheehan would be better, there; or better left alone. Come vote, Purdy Word Tat.
===============================
===============================
Posted by: kim | April 15, 2006 at 05:06 PM
"Riddled with empathy"
I had that too, but a good dose of antibiotics knocked it out
Posted by: beautifulatrocities | April 15, 2006 at 05:21 PM
[O'Connor's] very first rant, which concluded with a wish that Bush, “after contracting incurable cancer and suffering for protracted periods of time without benefit of medication,” go to hell.
She wrote it, sent it to Daily Kos, saw it appear online, watched as people responded to it — and learned something about the effect of being both heartfelt and vicious. “It’s impactful,” she says. “It gets attention.”
Whew.
Calling Dr. Krauthammer, stat, real bad case of BDS in the ER.
Freud once argued that if it wasn't for sex, men and women would be at war with one another.
That was Freud, mind you.
I'm wondering though: if it wasn't for "X", the left and right would be at war with one another.
Fill in "X".
We're still a long way away from open violence. But I'm increasingly unsure as to whether that distance isn't diminishing very quickly.
One thing I do know: it's sure not getting wider.
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG | April 15, 2006 at 05:43 PM
C'mon - wingers have been milking the "Anyone who criticizes Buhs is deranged" meme for years now. Why is this news?
Posted by: mkultra | April 15, 2006 at 05:56 PM
ghee whiz.
=======
Posted by: kim | April 15, 2006 at 06:05 PM
Chants, I've been thinking of the 2 Minutes Hate for a long time. It's interesting to see with O'Connor and her readers that it's almost literally true.
Quotes from the article:
"'I feel like I'm being molested everytime I hear his voice,' one person writes on the Daily Kos Web site while watching a Bush news conference."
I'm sure people who actually were molested appreciate that comparison.
"'Powerlessness' is O'Connor's explanation. 'This is born of powerlessness.'"
Finally one of them admits it. It's about power, not anything else. I'm sure it's a huge shock after decades of having Congress. It's called democracy, majority rule. Deal.
"'I am this close to being one of those muttering people pushing a cart.
'I'm insane with rage and grief.'"
Newsflash: the only difference between you and them is that you have a computer instead of a cart. But at least you got the insane part right.
What a bunch of malignant drama queens.
Posted by: Jim C. | April 15, 2006 at 06:10 PM
C'mon - wingers have been milking the "Anyone who criticizes Buhs is deranged" meme for years now. Why is this news?
Wishing that the president contract cancer and die a horrible, painful death is simply "criticizing Bush"?
I'll agree with an olive branch offering that the "meme" is extravagantly used by folks on my side.
But why can't we agree on both? That the right liberally uses the charge but also that the language used by O'Connor and (some) others in the netroots community is ugly and really shouldn't be acceptable discourse in the country.
But let's do the flip.
If we had a Democratic president and prominent conservative websites - not fringe ones - had posts wishing for the president to contract cancer and die a horrible death and those posts were encouraged and celebrate, you would have no problem with it?
It wouldn't represent, to you, something troubling, something "deeper", occurring within a political movement or ideology?
I'm not going to bring out the old (by now) Hofstaedter paranoid style argument stick. But it's clearly not a healthy sign, don't you think?
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG | April 15, 2006 at 06:13 PM
beaut
"I had that too, but a good dose of antibiotics knocked it out"
Not to worry! Finkel tells us "the daughter got better." On the other hand, like many who quit their meds because they just feel so much better before the dosing is complete, she appears to have stopped somewhat short of full recovery. I'm trying to remember the last time I heard someone saying: Hi. I'm Maryscott and for several years I drank to excess.
Posted by: JM Hanes | April 15, 2006 at 06:19 PM
SMG
Anger makes the helpless feel powerful.
Posted by: JM Hanes | April 15, 2006 at 06:21 PM
mkultra, this discussion isn't about the assertion, it's about the proof.
It seems the "compassionate" left has lost even that vestige of civilization.
Posted by: Harry Arthur | April 15, 2006 at 06:24 PM
Let's ee two of Chris and Shuster's colleague (Mitchell and Russert) are likely to go before the jury at which time the defense may well explore the question of bias and (we think) Libby's complaint to Russert about MSNBC's coverage, do you think it's a good thing or a bad thing that this week Chris and David win the Press Pinnochio award from everyone?
Posted by: clarice | April 15, 2006 at 06:29 PM
Last Sunday the WaPo writes a reasonable editorial on the Libby case. This Sat we have the left nutsos..What is going on?
Posted by: clarice | April 15, 2006 at 06:33 PM
Finally one of them admits it. It's about power, not anything else.
Yep, and that's always been the case. The same goes for the far left's version of so-called free speech. When they are speaking, the demand is that we listen. When we "wingnuts" are speaking, they have the right to exercise "free speech" to interupt and shout down the argument. Funny how this hasn't changed since I was at UC Santa Cruz in the late '60s.
The other interesting point here, though, is that the "free speech" radicalism of the left in the '60s actually caused me to understand that all their ideology was truly about was power. In coming to that realization, I literally became a conservative overnight. I can't help but wonder why those on the looney far left still fail to see the connection.
Posted by: Harry Arthur | April 15, 2006 at 06:37 PM
Clarice,
"Last Sunday the WaPo writes a reasonable editorial on the Libby case. This Sat we have the left nutsos..What is going on?"
It is Easter,Passover,schools out,those whose parents have put a porn lock on the computer are simply manifesting their frustration here,it's the Democratic way.
Posted by: PeterUK | April 15, 2006 at 06:50 PM
Clarice & Kim,
Here's hot link to Robert Godwin's piece and "moist" - I remember Vanderleun used "moist men" in one of his masterpieces - or it was Godwin. I'll look.
Great Leaping Leftist, My Corrupt and Degenerate Soul
For what I really wanted back then was for my conscience to be asleep, and the last thing I wanted was to be around someone with an awakened objective conscience. That would have bummed me out. Big time.
Dr. Sanity is doing series on DENIAL - They are must reads.
Just joined in and confess only read comments thru 7:43AM this thread.
My darling daughter announced last night that although she had filed the Fed Taxes, that we did together last month, she hadn't completed the PA State for herself and the student grandson. "Would you read the book, so I do it right?" I never slept - and am having very nasty thoughts about what I should put in her basket.
So tuned into to JOM for diversion from very unholy Holy Saturday thoughts.
Promise I will tag nothing today!
Posted by: larwyn | April 15, 2006 at 06:57 PM