Obama's a Liberal Extremist? Is it August Already?
In "School is Hell," Matt Groening identified the "9 Types of College Professors." One of my favorites was "the single theory to explain everything maniac" and the warning at the bottom ("warning: theory may be correct.")
So, here I am, the single theory to explain everything maniac, back to remind everyone that McCain's pronouncement that Barack Obama is a dangerous liberal extremist was entirely predicable and surprising only because it is coming a little ahead of schedule.
Once again, this is coming from the standard old reliable GOP game plan that they've executed in every election for the last quarter century.
In June and July, the Democratic nominee is a convictionless, unprincipled flip-flopper (and his wife is unpatriotic). From August to October, he's the most scariest, liberalest liberal extremest ever to darken the corridors of power in these United States (and his wife is unpatriotic).
The only news here is that they've elevated the "liberal extremist" to their candiates talking points a little early. Usually, the "most liberal politician ever!" thing is only whispered by surrogates before the conventions, just to warm up the meme, you see, so the MSM doesn't hit it cold. Usually it only becomes the main line for their candidate during or after their convention.
And, like clockwork, every four years, the MSM obediently laps up the GOP talking points from those musty old pages (it's still in hardcopy, in a three ring binder, of course, because their candidates never seem to know how to use computers) and faithfully regurgitates them to the public like they're brand new, revealed wisdom. And never, ever, ever do they dare point out that the Republicans have been running this same scam in every election since 1984. Nor, indeed may they even take note of the glaring contradiction between claiming someone's actions show them to have made a career out of opportunistic flip-flopping and having made a career of being a rigid proto-Marxist ideologue.
So yeah, evidently, the flip-flopper thing ran out of gas a couple of weeks sooner than usual, and that is a little bit interesting. Otherwise, its just the same banality that's made journalism what it is today over these last two and a half decades.
However, the early roll out of Phase II of the GOP All-Purpose Master Plan for Electoral Victory does give me an opportunity to tie my two theories of American electoral meme-age into one grand Unified Theory of General Election Banality.
Yes, on the basis of anecdotes, some screeds written by real bloggers like Somersby and Greenfield and Josh, and my own dogmatic faith in the power of written snark to reveal actual truth, I dare to theorize that the overlap between the Republican game plan and my "only four stories" theory of MSM general election coverage is not a coincidence.
For the overwhelming majority of you who find me totally unmemorable or, worse, have blotted my posts out of their minds because I'm a clear and present danger to their liberties and, indeed, to their precious bodily fluids, my "only four stories" theory was laid out here in a post that took an unexpected turn into a calm, reasoned examination of my own political leanings.
Briefly, the "four stories" theory goes like this: the MSM only has four stories in the summer and fall of an election year:
1. The Democratic nominee is a flip-flopping unmanly flip-flopper (before the convention).
2. The Democractic nominee is the most liberalest librul who ever liberalized a government institution, a terrifyingly extreme extremist in his librulizm (after the convention).
3. John McCain is a straight-talking maverick who says what he means and means what he says. If it comes out of his mouth its true so you don't need to check it and you better not challenge it (he was tortured for his country you know, but don't mention it because he hates to talk about it).
4. Oh those silly, squabbling, back-biting, disorganized Democrats! Har har har! The idea that they could run a government is too laughable to seriously contemplate.
The reason for the overlap is obvious to devotees of the liberal blog critique of the MSM. After decades of abuse by Republicans for their supposed "liberal bias," the MSM became so accomodating to the will of its abuser that was incapable of even perceiving a fact that cannot be pounded into one of these frames.
There are encouraging signs of recovery among some members of the MSM which seem to date to the shock of Katrina, but breaking free of the effects of abuse cannot be accomplished overnight. The tendency to fall back into the supplicating behaviors and learned helplessness is ever-present. And, of course, some never break free and, indeed, are incapable of even perceiving that they have a problem.
So anyhoo, the only real question is whether the Republicans, having activated the "liberal extremist" phase this early can stick with it until November and, if not, whether the MSM's collective head will explode in the face of a mounting flood of facts that can't fit into one of their four frames.





I'm afraid this might totally blow your mind, but some have postulated the existence of a fifth story. Obviously, such a story, if it could be shown to exist, would completely destroy your "four story" framework. I think this early move to stage 2, however is indirect evidence that the 5th story exists. We don't know what it is yet, but I suspect we might all be "surprised" when it shows up.
July 18, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
There has certainly been speculation that "Democratic nominee's wife is un-American" and/or "Democratic nominee is an effeminate girly-man of uncertain sexual orientation" qualify as separate stories rather that implicit themes woven into the four verified stories. So far, however, the evidence is purely theoretical, inferential and somewhat suspect as they have only been seen in isolation from one of the four confirmed frames on Fox and on wingnut, and, more recently, Hillary diehard blogs.
July 18, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't it just earlier this week or late last week that Sen. Obama was REALLY "the third term of George Bush" according to these same straight-talking sources?
July 18, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's your fifth story right here, NCSteve. And you doubted it!
July 18, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, the fifth story is that John McCain's depends are really a fashion statement..... And after that, they got nothin'...
July 18, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
No Obama, no way and no how. Sorry Hillary, I cannot support you here. This man is a questionable rookie at best and to be feared at the worst. Come on people, Hillary must prevail at the convention. Join www.pumapac.com or www.realdemocratsusa.org to help our cause. Rise, Hillary, rise and stop this madness. We need you!!!
July 18, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, "Mary," so are you just a genius at subtle snark proposing a fifth story, or are you yet another white male Republican asshat who set up a fake i.d. so you could post some vacuous off-topic talking points under the guise of being a puma?
July 18, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to go with subtle snark. Otherwise I have to believe she's an idiot or a liar, and as it's Friday, I choose not to believe that.
July 18, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Userid set up today, just two virtually identical off-topic comments.
July 18, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Forget Liberal extremist.
McCain came right out yesterday and called him a socialist.
I really hope they keep going with it, it's so stupid.
July 18, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, well Al Franken hoped that the Swiftboaters would turn the election into a question of military service, too.
Underestimate the corrosive power of Karl Rove at your extreme peril.
July 18, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
He did? I'm aware that he claimed not to know whether Obama was a socialist. Was he actually willing to put himself that far out there in an attempt to woo the dregs of the neocons?
July 18, 2008 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those bastards! How dare they call Obama a "liberal extremist"?
Why, we all know he's hell bent on completing the Clinton revolution -- turning liberalism into conservatism.
July 18, 2008 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You ask is it August already? It probably feels like it to McCain looking at his internal polls and seeing just how badly he's doing. For a comparison go back to 1992 and look at the mud Bush 1 was slinging at Clinton after Perot imploded and Bill started taking off.
July 19, 2008 1:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
A diarrhea-of-the-mouth post.
July 19, 2008 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, as long as we're being all gratuitous and all, I've meaning to ask. Are you as relentlessly negative, invariably unpleasant and generally hateful in real life as you are here at TPM?
July 19, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's see: I criticize your post and you criticize me. Perfect! Tells me what kind of person you are in real life. Not that I wanted to know.
July 19, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose calling Obama a decadent sybaritic French dandy wouldn't work. The hair doesn't work.
July 19, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink