Meghan McCain’s Delusional Persecution Complex
My latest post at Human Events:
When Meghan McCain tweeted the link to her newest Daily Beast “article” on Twitter Tuesday night, my first thought was “How the hell did I get unblocked by her? Why am I seeing this tweet?”
This was disconcerting to say the least. I was afraid that I may have failed to pay my Vast Right Wing Conspiracy dues or that the H8R-Ade I had been drinking had expired and lost its strength. My second thought, upon reading the title, My Palin Problem, was “Oh, dear. This is going to be hilarious.”
I was right. The very first paragraph alone divulges Meghan McCain’s real problem; childish jealousy due to a gigantic, and unwarranted, ego mixed with a delusional persecution complex. She’s like Jan Brady, only not as groovy. The entire time I was reading the alleged article, I heard “Sarah, Sarah, Sarah!” in my head. In valley speak, no less. For that alone, she must pay.
The “Look at ME” attitude was clear right from the start. You know, instead of constantly focusing on the size of her “juicy ass,” as she calls it, she should pay a little more attention to her ballooning juicy ego. Her opening paragraph whined:
“Instead of the media concentrating on my admission of almost overdosing on Xanax the day before the election, or my goal for a new ‘big tent’ direction for the Republican Party, or any of the other racier confessions in my book, they only focused on Sarah Palin. In every interview and review it was all Sarah all the time.”
Perhaps because the ‘racier’ confessions are still pretty banal, nearly as banal as your political analysis, Meghan? Add to that the fact that even your editors apparently couldn’t make it through your entire drivel-filled book. I mean, the editing was non-existent. Which made muddling through your tripe all the more painful; in fact, I think I deserve hazard pay for doing so.
Others may not have had my fortitude, so forgive them if they failed to ask about your fancy-pants Uggs, your inane “big tent” comments, your “crazy-sex” tales, or your tragic over-use of commas. Your book was basically a tale told by a useful idiot. Full of shrieking sound and temper tantrum fury, signifying nothing.
Aside from the hilarity provided by someone who thinks incredibly highly of herself for no discernible reason, the irony displayed in the article is epic.
Jenny
Lori Ziganto
somegit
Snark And Boobs 
Lori says:
“Meghan McCain’s real problem; childish jealousy due to a gigantic, and unwarranted, ego mixed with a delusional persecution complex.”
Then she says:
“Your book was basically a tale told by a useful idiot. Full of shrieking sound and temper tantrum fury, signifying nothing.”
Yet her book is number 27 on the New York Times bestseller list last time I checked.
So, if McCain is such a “useful idiot” and her writing amounts to “nothing,” why do you continue to write about her and draw attention to her writing, Lori?
I think that you’re projecting a bit of “childish jealousy” here yourself, and by criticizing a perceived rival, you’re establishing your very own “Look at ME” attitude.
Exactly how many articles has Meghan McCain written about you?
Wouldn’t it be a satisfying “Look at ME” moment if McCain actually addressed your criticism in a post of her own?
Good luck with that.
So you’re saying, Molten, that in order to hammer at a nonsensical narcissistic fool, you have to be one? And you’re saying, Molten, that Lori is a nonsensical narcissistic fool? Well, I have to admit being surprised that you would so clearly admit you’re a nonsensical narcissistic fool.
Hiya Meghan! errr…. Molten….!!!
…But seriously… Though I’m sure Meghan is a nice girl, and I have defended her far beyond anything she’s earned; She is trying to grab a mantle and speak for an entire political philosophy that she
1.) doesn’t seem to really even get
2.) Has actively worked to diminish and ridicule *because* she doesn’t get it…
(I’m not even of that philosophy and I can see that)…
If I were in the hotel business, I would not want Paris Hilton running around claiming to be my spokesperson… Sometimes you must call a spade a spade… or perhaps ‘ho’… in this context… =D
I do still loves me some John McCain though… I admit it….
But this is all silly to even go into because Molten was clearly here look for an argument in the first-place or would not have picked such an esoteric nebula in the first-place, I’m guessing (by ‘guessing’ I of course mean ‘totally right’) there was an issue here long before this…
That’s a lame argument, John, and not at all what I was saying.
Why “hammer at a nonsensical narcissistic fool” in the first place?
Why read her book from cover to cover if you feel that the book is “drivel-filled” and “tripe”?
If you feel that someone is “banal,” “inane,” “childish,” delusional,” and a “useful idiot,” why bother with them?
Why not “hammer” someone who you consider to be your intellectual equal?
Why not research and write about something that you consider substantial instead of wasting your time trying to initiate a tabloid style cat-fight?
All of the questions above have a single answer.
Lori has an agenda of self-promotion which comes before informing and enlightening her readers. If blogging of this nature isn’t an ego driven pastime, I don’t know what is. Take a look at the bikini photo that Lori has posted on this page. Now tell me that she’s not saying “Look at ME!” Lori is quite capable of writing substantive articles, but the “snark” she exudes tends to make her look petty, unprofessional, and proves that she has quite the “juicy ego” herself. Lori needs to get serious if she wants to be taken seriously. These kinds of sleazy attacks on the weak-minded only bring her weaknesses to the fore. I’d love to see her be critical without all the name-calling, but I wont hold my breath in expectation of that day.
All this boils down to the fact that McCain has the name recognition and the fame that Lori aspires to, and she knows that if she can irritate Mccain to the point of answering her insults, then the game is on!
Your weak, circular defense of this article is amusing, John, but it bears no relation to reality.
What a bunch of projectionist claptrap. You have not presented one iota of evidence to support your ridiculous claims. Of course, leftists don’t need any evidence, so carry on.
John,
My argument is purely my opinion. It’s based in logic and inductive reasoning. What kind of “evidence” do you expect?
How about you point out one iota of evidence in the post that we’re discussing. C’mon…just one. You can’t, because that’s purely opinion too.
I hope that’s a guide dog in your photo. One trained to lead the blind. Because you definitely can’t see what is plainly in front of your face.
You can’t refute a single point I make in either of my posts, so you attempt to dismiss it out of hand as “claptrap.” You haven’t got one iota of “evidence,” or even an opinion that may cast doubt on any specific statement that I’ve made.
I understand. That’s what conservatives do. When they can’t intelligently refute an argument, they attempt to cast an umbrella of derision over the entire discussion. They believe that the use of mockery can win an argument. They are mistaken.
I’ve met you a thousand times, John. Your replies are always the same. The fact that you disagree with my opinion means nothing to me. Get back to me when you formulate an opinion as to exactly why Lori would waste her time covering Meghan McCain when she could be covering stories like this that are important to all Americans.
http://www.economist.com/node/16636027
The truth is, the only person who can even argue with me on this is Lori herself. You get a D for effort, though.
“I understand. That’s what conservatives do. When they can’t intelligently refute an argument, they attempt to cast an umbrella of derision over the entire discussion. They believe that the use of mockery can win an argument. They are mistaken.”
This is a textbook example of liberal projection.
Budd,
You must be reading one of those revised “Texas textbooks,” because there are two prime examples right here in this thread of a conservative (John Hitchcock) using mockery instead of rationality to attempt to discredit my opinion.
Why don’t you show us exactly where John attempts an honest refutation of my premise?
Better yet, why don’t you try to do that yourself? I dare you.
You should do some reading about political psychology. There are reams of data on conservative ideology out there dating back about 100 years. We’re talking qualitative research exactly like the market research done by huge ad companies. Of course, this is research based on the scientific method, so you’d probably dismiss it out of hand simply because of the word “scientific.”
Ever heard of the RWA Scale? It’s an very accurate predictor of conservative group behavior, and has shown over time that conservatives..
•Make many incorrect inferences from evidence.
•Are fearful of a dangerous world.
•Hold contradictory ideas leading them to `speak out of both sides of their mouths.’
•Uncritically accept that many problems are `our most serious problem.’
•Uncritically accept insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs.
•Uncritically trust people who tell them what they want to hear.
•Use many double standards in their thinking and judgements.
•Believe they have no personal failings.
•Avoid learning about their personal failings.
•Are highly self-righteous.
•Use religion to erase guilt over their acts and to maintain their self-righteousness.
Oh nameless wonder, I gave your and Molten’s (are you one and the same, mayhaps?) comments all the seriousness they deserved: none. You did not refute anything Lori said, instead you chose to throw out projectionist ad hominem attacks. Other than attack mode with zero evidence to back up your ad hominem attacks, there was no premise to debate.
And then you act all righteously high and mighty by throwing out an argument which not-so-obliquely calls Conservatism a psychological disease. So all who are not Liberals are sick and can be discounted with a mere hand-wave.
That list of twaddle you gave is hasty generalization, abject lie, elitism, and self-righteous bovine byproduct. There is nothing “scientific” about it. Thus, your comment is like cotton candy, all puffed up but no nutritional content.
Or, all bluff and bluster, signifying nothing. But, by all means, carry on with your extreme case of intellectual dwarfism.
I knew the word “scientific” would get to you. Conservatism has never been classified as a “disease”, but it has been studied quite extensively over the years, as has liberalism.
Your mockery and dismissal of hard core, repeatable scientific evidence as “a mere hand wave, hasty generalization, abject lie, elitism, and self-righteous bovine byproduct” only serves to prove my point, Richard.
Thank you.
I rest my case.
Molten
In reading the list of conservative group behaviors, my observation would be, simply based on my life experience of many years and knowing many conversatives and liberals; these are the behaviors of liberals and the opposite of conservatives in every case. Except, of course the last behavior,which to describe liberals would have to say, ‘uses their disdain for religion to erase guilt over their acts and to maintain their self-righteousness’.
Where are all these reasonable and informed liberals Molten seems to imply are out there? I can’t find a single one who can either give me a reason why they support the Obama agenda or why they think having the federal government tax us more and more to take over bigger and bigger sectors of the economy and society is actually good for anyone. Much less willing to have a debate about it without “identity politics” bashing.
And as for your RWA scale, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by such a thing coming out of modern academia, I would hardly call it scientific, much less objective. I expect for every “God hates homosexuals” conservative you could find, I could find a “Obama’s gonna pay my mortgage”liberal. Authoritarianism is not Conservatism.
These extreme outliers used to write off an entire political and social philosophy (either one) don’t do any good. While I expect Lori may well have something of a “look at me” tendency, as many attractive, out-going, opinionated people do, I relate to this article because I do not want the perception that Ms. McCain represents conservatism to be legitimized, in any way shape or form. And I expect that’s why Lori couldn’t pass up comenting once she’d read McCain’s latest inane tweet.
Kay says:
“And as for your RWA scale, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by such a thing coming out of modern academia, I would hardly call it scientific, much less objective.”
The RWA scale has now been in use for several decades. The data has been repeated many thousands of times. That is the essence of the “scientific method,” to be able to prove that your experiments are repeatable with the same outcome time and time again. You can disagree with the conclusions of the majority of social psychologists regarding this data, but the data itself is scientific.
Kay then says:
“In reading the list of conservative group behaviors, my observation would be, simply based on my life experience of many years and knowing many conversatives and liberals; these are the behaviors of liberals and the opposite of conservatives in every case.”
So, what you’re saying is that we should trust your “life experience” data as fact, and simply disregard the repeatable scientific data that is on the books? How is your “life experience” data “scientific and objective,” Kay?
Then Kay says:
I can’t find a single one who can either give me a reason why they support the Obama agenda or why they think having the federal government tax us more and more to take over bigger and bigger sectors of the economy and society is actually good for anyone.
I’ll debate you on that any day. Please prove the 3 following facts to be wrong using argument or evidence. That should get us started.
1. Obama’s tax cut, a provision of last year’s stimulus bill, gave a boost to 95 percent of working families. It reduced income taxes by up to $400 a year for individuals and $800 for married couples. A typical family got about $65 a month.
2. Since World War II, federal taxes have typically claimed about 18 percent of gross domestic product. That shrunk to 14.8 percent last year, the lowest rate since 1950.
3. The Financial Times reports that repayment of the Federal Reserve’s TARP loan programs have brought in profits of some $14 billion so far.
And tell us, Kay, where exactly is the government taking over “bigger and bigger sectors of the economy and society?” I’d love to have that conversation with you.
Molten
“Molten” opined: “The RWA scale has now been in use for several decades. The data has been repeated many thousands of times. ”
As has been often quoted and demonstrated repeatedly, a lie that is repeated many times, thousands of times, in fact, is still a lie. It is a premise of most authoritarian regimes and most politics, although Liberal lies tend to appeal to those in reduced circumstances and are often counched in envy of those who have been able – through hard work, good fortune or a combination of both – to suceed and rise out of the swamp.
That Liberals believe that giving the fruits of others’ labors to those who will not or do not have the courage to make it on their own is simply pathetic. Witness whole nations such as Haiti that have become welfare states when, for all the money and material that was pumped in, it should be well on its’ way to recovery on all fronts. But the welfare, big government, state control of all has made corruption and poverty the way of life there.
Herr Goebbels was a proponent of the big lie. Tell it often enough and it becomes the truth to many. Unfortunately for Liberals, Conservatives have the mental capacity and capability to question “the truth”, and challenge the status quo. Not all Conservatives, but some. And they are on the ascendancy. We will get things in order; we will fix the problems. You can be part of the problem or part of the solution. The choice is yours. Personally, I expect that you are like the pee-resident: I will not budge from my position, but we must work together and compromise. What a crock of compacted lizard excrement. As he said in 2008 – “WE WON” now it is he who must compromise or be the obstructionist.
Funny how that works, eh homie?
kbob
“Molten”, in his/her infinte wisdom stated: “Obama’s tax cut, a provision of last year’s stimulus bill, gave a boost to 95 percent of working families. It reduced income taxes by up to $400 a year for individuals and $800 for married couples. A typical family got about $65 a month. ”
Just curious, if I don’t PAY any income taxes, i.e. – my actual income tax is $0.00, and my income taxes are reduced by $400.00, i.e. – ($0.00 – $400.00), what “reduction” did I see? Or is this the “new math” that liberals practice whereby they would have paid something if they only could, but some evil capitalist has robbed them of their equal share of the pie that they never worked for but richly deserve? Because, after all, it’s not their fault they did not win life’s lottery and must work for a living while we support their every need.
Just another liberal bit of insanity that has become a “truth” and “fact” in the delusional world of liberal finances.