McCain, Obama, The Times and A Civilized Election

When John McCain received the typical media treatment that conservatives receive, the conservatives responded with typical conservative outrage, John Hawkins among them. The New York Times may continue to lead the charge to take down the "conservative" candidate, but everyone knows that John McCain is no conservative. The media's bias shines through. It's not conservatives they hate. It's anyone who isn't a Democrat with socialist tendencies they hate. McCain is Republican, sure, and a "moderate". Which is to say, he enjoys big-government intervention just like Democrats. He's not from the Bible-thumping corner of the party. He's not conservative on immigration, regulation, just about anything. He's been a staunch defender of the war in Iraq. That's it. Yet the Times gives him the same disrespectful treatment.

I do believe The New York Times miscalculated. They revealed their paper as the instrument of the Democratic party. They revealed themselves to be in the business of making news not reporting news. And their timing was purposeful. The story could have come out during the primary process where it could have hurt McCain's chances against other Republicans. But no, the Times waited until the timing most benefited Democrats. Megan McArdle calls her mom The Swing Voter who had this opinion:

As longtime readers of the blog know, I'm related to the Swing Voter, aka my mother. Her vote is an infallible indicator of who will win the general election. We had dinner last night, and somewhat to my surprise, The Swing Voter is completely outraged by the New York Times story--she vows to no longer take the Times, nay, not even for the Sunday crossword. She is also now thinking seriously about voting for McCain just to spite the New York Times.

It seems that the press will have to tread carefully all the way around, with a McCain-Obama election. Hammering McCain (they won't be able to help themselves, they love the Leftists too much) will further diminish their standing. Harsh pieces on Obama will engender cries of racism.

So will an Obama-McCain election be more civilized? Maybe so.


Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

On Socialists: Aren't They Awesome?

If you haven't heard, Castro's (future as president) is dead. Anyway, that doesn't mean that CNN can't extoll his virtues today. Ace has more.

Michelle Obama's recent pride in her country has caused quite the storm, but the always attentive Anchoress notes that Ms. Obama resembles another woman we all know a little too well. Speaking of Obama, is he using Mohammed Ali's strategy? 

Jon Henke called this Hope-a-Dope yesterday, after the strategy employed by Mohammed Ali in the ring to tire George Foreman and win the championship. Obama hopes it works as well for him as it did for Ali, and it just might.

Remember the Missouri prayer tower being built? Well, it seems that some fellow bloggers, Gateway Pundit and LGF are being abused by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch at CAIR's (Council for American-Islamic Relations) behest. Oh, and here's the results from my poll on this new development.

I'm tying all these random thoughts together with this: Socialists suck. They think they're better than everyone unless everyone is smoking the same crack they smoke. Michelle Obama, Castro and CAIR are rowing in the same stupid, ideological boat. I cannot believe people are buying this crap. But evidently, lots of Americans are really stupid.

D.U.D.S.

Yes, such a thing exists. Dr. Sanity elucidates the difference between healthy and pernicious narcissism:

Like many laypersons, Wolcott assume that narcissism is always a bad thing.

It isn't.

In fact, as I have pointed out repeatedly, narcissism--when there is a optimal synthesis of both the grandiose elements and the idealistic elements-- is an absolutely essential ingredient for a healthy, functional personality. For healthy narcissism, the essential task of the individual is to combine the grandiose side of the personality-- which is responsible for developing individual ambition and the energy to pursue happiness, as well as a feeling that one has a fundamental right to that life and happiness; with the idealistic side--which provides the ability to to develop values and ideals (see here for a full discussion). An excess of either side leads to dysfunctional, self-serving and often toxic behavior.

By definition, all ambitions, values and ideals are necessarily narcissistically invested. How could it be otherwise? These are the factors that define us as individuals.

This definition lays the foundation for her argument that the Democrats, specifically in this example, Nancy Pelosi's, narcissism is malevolent. Here's the good Doc's take:

Nevertheless, if Sean Hannity and others want to go down with their conservative principles completely inviolate and not vote for McCain-- that is their choice. I can appreciate and even honor such a principled choice. By the same token, it is also Nancy Pelosi's choice to call Iraq a failure and insist despite all the evidence that the surge is not working.

What 'prinicple' is Pelosi adhering to with unwavering determination? Ask yourself how it benefits Sean Hannity to be correct about McCain not being a true conservative and unworthy of support; versus how it benefits Nancy Pelosi that her country admit defeat and failure at the hands of a terrorist group. In the former case, if Hannity is correct, the Republicans and even Hannity lose. In the latter scenario, America loses but Pelosi and the Democrats win big---really big.

Placing your bets on your country losing a war so that you can win an election is the gamble the entire left has wagered. Contrast Pelosi's stance with McCain's statement that he'd rather 'lose a campaign than lose a war'. Which of the two has a serious narcissistic defect going for them and sees their own needs as first and foremost?

*******

And speaking of "marching in ideological lockstep"--could there be a finer example of goosestepping than the expectation that all blacks or women must be Democrats support Democrat policies--otherwise they are by definition 'traitors' to their gender or race? Isn't the whole 'identity politics' thing a mandate to conform to your group or race or tribe in order to maintain ideological purity?

In point of fact, both of these positions that are attributed to conservatives are actually psychological projections on the left's part, because they represent the only possible positions their rigid dialectical and propagandized brains can imagine. Due to the narcissistic defect that the entire movement suffers from, they are all more or less stuck on either the grandiose or the idealistic narcissistic pole without the ability to synthesize the two extremes of the dialectic. Thus they vascillate between the cold grandiosity inherent in believing they know what's best for all of us; and the utopian idealism that leads them to impose --by force if necessary--those beliefs on everyone else.

This as good a study as any into the mind of the pathological narcissist. And I said it before about the Dems. This election is about their own identity. When their candidate flops, it will be a personal crisis. Forget Bush Derangement Syndrome. This election there will be a new diagnosis: Democrats Unhinged Derangement Syndrome.

Expect D.U.D.S. aplenty after the Democratic candidate is chosen. Dr. Sanity has job security.