Under-the-Bleachers Blogger Externalizes Rage, Demands to See Speedo Picture

Posted on | September 24, 2010 | 98 Comments

Susie Madrak’s conference-call complaint that the Obama White House treats liberal bloggers like “the girl you’ll take under the bleachers but you won’t be seen with in the light of day,” has become the hottest topic on the ‘sphere. The premise of the conflict is itself a conundrum, as Allahpundit says:

Mind you, the purpose of the call was for Axelrod to beg the nutroots to help get rank-and-file Democrats excited to vote in November. . . . Aren’t lefty bloggers already doing everything they can to scare the hell out of their readers about the coming GOP wave? Didn’t Kos, whose site is big enough to have generated an annual conference attended by top Democrats, just publish a book comparing conservatives to the Taliban? What more do you want them to do, Ax, immolate themselves in grief?

Aleister of American Glob compares Madrak’s situation to Flounder in Animal House, and Left Coast Rebel says:

The story here is not that the ‘professional left’ is pissed with Obama. The real story here is that far-left, pseudo Bolshevik smear merchants like those at Crooks and Liars are given access to the White House in any shape, matter or form in the first place.
And the fact that a blogger at Crooks and Liars has her you-know-whats in a bunch? Give me a break, she’s a fringe-kook, that would probably make Ward Churchill look moderate.

She’s obviously got anger issues of the sort that raise the question, “If a tree falls in the forest, and there are no Republicans around to blame, who does Susie Madrak cuss at?”

Singling me out among the bloggers laughing at her absurd rage, Madrak writes, “Imagine, this guy thinks I’m ugly!”

Did I ever say any such thing? I merely remarked on “the demonstrably greater pulchritude of [conservative] lady-bloggers” — a neutral, objective fact — and certainly I did not offer myself as anyone’s aesthetic beau ideal.

You don’t hurt my feelings by telling me I’m ugly, a fact I happily admit. Once at a keg party, some redneck looking for a fight walked up to me and said, “I don’t like your face.” To which I responded, “That makes two of us, buddy. I never liked it much myself.”

Here’s the difference again, you see? I’ve written at length about this problem:

Good mental health is characterized by optimism and a sense of agency — that is to say, the belief that we are ultimately in control of our own lives. The sense of agency is critical to success and happiness in every area of life, in large part because it is necessary to self-improvement and problem-solving.
Everyone encounters failure and disappointment, but a person who believes that his life is within his own control will respond to such setbacks in a positive, constructive way — analyzing the cause of the failure, seeking ways to improve, determining to work harder to overcome disadvantages and remedy personal deficiencies. A psychologically healthy person therefore must accept responsibility for his failures and shortcomings just as willingly as he accepts reward for his successes and abilities.
While it is true that other people sometimes contribute to our failures by undermining our efforts, it is also true that our successes generally require the assistance of others. Factors which are genuinely beyond our control tend to even out over time. In a free and prosperous society, few people are so disastrously disadvantaged as to have no hope whatsoever of improving their lot in life.
Thus, it is psychologically unhealthy to blame others whenever things go wrong in our lives, but this is exactly what “therapeutic morality” encourages.
Attempting to comfort people by flattering their sense of blamelessness — “It’s not your fault” — therapeutic morality ultimately undermines the vital sense of agency, in effect telling people that they are neither culpable nor competent. It promotes the notion of innocent victimhood, the blameless self, and encourages people to avoid responsibility for their failures by wallowing in self-pitying rationalizations.

Maybe it’s not your fault you’re ugly, but it’s nobody else’s fault, either. Yet how often have we seen this phenomenon of unattractive women who spend their lives angry at the world, as if their ugliness were somebody else’s fault? Indeed, this phenomenon has a name: Feminism.

Excuse me for invoking Undeniable Truth of Life No. 24, but that’s what feminism is really all about. Complaining about the “oppressive patriarcy” is just an externalization of resentment, a self-pitying rationalization: “I’m not as pretty or popular as other women, therefore, I’m a victim.”

You’re not a victim. You are, in fact, drastically overprivileged — a citizen of the most free and prosperous nation in all human history, abounding with unprecedented opportunity.

Your problem, Susie Madrak, is your pity-party mentality, wherein the inevitable unfairness of life is perceived as some sort of conspiracy against you. As my late father often told me, whenever I’d complain that something seemed unfair, “Boy, whoever told you life was supposed to be fair?”

Hardship is God’s way of teaching us to be more grateful. Why should we sit around brooding over our shortcomings and disadvantages, when we have so many blessings and opportunities?

Yet when you look at someone happy and successful, Susie Madrak, all you feel is envy and hatred. We aren’t surprised, because such is the basic ideology of liberalism.

The poor are poor, you believe, because the rich are rich. You conceive grandiose schemes to rectify this inequality, and your desire to feel morally superior to others inspires you to this narcissistic conception of politics: Those who do not share my egalitarian vision are stupid and selfish, whereas I am intelligent and generous.

That conception not only explains your rage at Republicans, Susie Madrak; it also explains your confused rant at Axelrod. If your absurdly ambitious policy schemes prove unworkable and unpopular — if your ridiculous agenda of Hope and Change and Rainbows and Unicorns turns out to be a big fat failure — well, that failure certainly cannot be your fault, can it?

You fell for Obama’s act hook, line and sinker. It has clearly failed as policy and is evidently on the verge of failing as politics, and now the only thing you can do is look for scapegoats.

Blame Glenn Beck! Blame Sarah Palin! Blame David Axelrod!

See? It’s not your fault. Nothing is ever your fault. Because you’re a liberal and therefore blameless.

Why does David Axelrod treat you with contempt? Because you deserve it. See, Axelrod got paid — and paid very well — to sell Obama’s act to you chumps. The fact that you bought it, and then went out to sell it to other people even more gullible than yourselves, only goes to show what natural-born chumps you are. Or to cite Professor Reynolds’ response to a similar example:

JON STEWART ON OBAMA: “I thought he’d do a better job.” You did, huh? Based on what, his extensive experience? Rube.

If I may quote your own words back to you, Susie Madrak:

Hey, you. Shut up and sit down. Yes, you.

You’ve got nothing to complain about, ma’am. You are the author of your own disgrace, having devoted years to the advancement of false ideas and false leaders. Rather than blaming the people who have deceived you, or blaming yourself for believing their lies, instead you continue to blame the same old bogeymen: Republicans, Christians, “Corporate America,” capitalism, patriarchy, etc.

Hell’s bells, you even blame me! Well, let me remind you of something you wrote a few years ago:

I rarely comment on what right-wing blogs do. They’re witting tools of the Republican smear machines, they just make shit up. So I ignore them.

Perhaps you should resume that policy.

Maybe I’m notoriously ugly now, but once upon a time, I didn’t look too shabby in a Speedo.

Made you look, didn’t I?

Category: Barack Obama, Blogging, Liberals

Comments

98 Responses to “Under-the-Bleachers Blogger Externalizes Rage, Demands to See Speedo Picture”

Oh, My: Liberal Bloggers Getting Tired of Putting Out (Propaganda) for Obama? : The Other McCain
September 24th, 2010 @ 12:32 am

[…] The ‘Lanche arrived while I was toiling away on an answer to that burning question: “What’s wrong with people like Susie Madrak?” var addthis_append_data='false';var addthis_language='en';var addthis_options='twitter, digg, […]
Susie Madrak
September 24th, 2010 @ 12:46 am

More of that southern chivalry, I suppose.

Bless your heart!
Randy Rager
September 24th, 2010 @ 12:47 am

Beauty may only be skin deep, but her brand of ugly goes clear to the bone.
Randy Rager
September 24th, 2010 @ 12:49 am

False cheerfulness fools no one, Susie darling. Especially not after the raging frothing spittle flecked spectacle you’ve already made of yourself.

Toddle on back and see if Emanual or Axlerod will roll you back under the bleachers for another go.
FenelonSpoke
September 24th, 2010 @ 12:55 am

Wow; You really said about your face, “I don’t like it much either.” That was a good comeback. LOL. And anyone willing to subject themself to ridicule for wearing a striped speedo is one o.k. guy. :^)

Your father gave you good advice in telling you that life is going to be unfair.
FenelonSpoke
September 24th, 2010 @ 12:59 am

And this was brilliant:

Why does David Axelrod treat you with contempt? Because you deserve it. See, Axelrod got paid — and paid very well — to sell Obama’s act to you chumps. The fact that you bought it, and then went out to sell it to other people even more gullible than yourselves, only goes to show what natural-born chumps you are.
Robert Stacy McCain
September 24th, 2010 @ 1:07 am

what natural-born chumps you are

Glad you liked that. It’s true — that’s why I call the Democratic Party the Evil Coalition of Liars and Fools. The Liars are the politicians, the Fools are the people who vote for the Liars. So if you’re a Democrat, you’re either a liar or a fool.

I credit Ms. Madrak with being honest.
JeffS
September 24th, 2010 @ 1:31 am

I second FenelonSpoke, Stacy. To con artists, marks aren’t people, they’re fools easily separated from their valuables. Axelrod is a con artist on a national scale. Ms. Madrak is one of his marks, nothing more, and nothing less.

And, as you say, she’s realized that she’s been fleeced…..and won’t accept responsibility for it.

Being a chump ain’t easy, but it is curable. Like every other problem, the first step is admitting that one has a problem. There are plenty of ex-lefties around; Ms. Madrak probably won’t join their ranks any time soon, but that’s the road she’s looking down right now.

The rest is up to her.
Estragon
September 24th, 2010 @ 1:59 am

I feel Obama’s pain. At least Brezhnev never had to deal with recalcitrant bloggers . . .
room 237
September 24th, 2010 @ 2:47 am

Better under the blechers than under the bus.
Exhausted Realist
September 24th, 2010 @ 3:43 am

Some people have to learn the hard way that you can’t cheat an honest person. If they were honest with themselves, they should have realized you can’t get something for nothing, no matter how good they sound on TV.
Becky
September 24th, 2010 @ 5:13 am

What an example of lefty cluelessness. She outright asks for the comment about her looks, with her post about being the kind of girl who gets used under the bleachers but won’t be seen in the light of the day, and then takes you on in a contest of looks? No amount of joking or name calling will turn you into ugly and she only calls for more attention to herself in an unflattering light.

You post was a smack-down, but it paled in comparison to the smack-down she gave herself. She said it: She IS the kind of girl who allows herself to continually be ^^%% under the bleachers. And then, like Groundhog Day, she wakes up every morning, still wide-eyed and clueless as to why that somehow doesn’t translate into an invitation to the dance. Decades of blaming and hating others because she can’t come to terms with what she sees in the mirror (and I’m not referring to physical appearance) has to make it hurt that much more when Axelrod once again pops her bubble of denial – and forces her to face that she is not all that SHE believes she deserves to be.

She is the archetypical example of today’s liberalism: wide-eyed, clueless, *&&^ed and nothing to show for it.
Dr, Putz Extendo
September 24th, 2010 @ 6:51 am

More of that southern chivalry, I suppose.

Yes, Stacy. How DARE the real you not conform exactly to the Kartoon Khristian Konservative archetype that lives in Susie’s head?

YOU MUST VALIDATE HER FANTASIES!!!!!111!!1!
Asscheeks of Saturn
September 24th, 2010 @ 7:19 am

It ain’t her looks what bother me, It’s the lard.

Like I tell our kids, you might be ugly but you don’t need to be fat; you might not be so smart but you can always show up on time at work.
Robert Stacy McCain
September 24th, 2010 @ 7:48 am

She is the archetypical example of today’s liberalism: wide-eyed, clueless, *&&^ed and nothing to show for it.

If she were really smart — we posit a hypothetical — she would seize her moment of semi-fame to write a 700-word op-ed about how the Obama administration has abused liberal bloggers, and then leverage that into a book deal:

Fucked Under the Bleachers
How Liberals Got Screwed by Hope and Change
Bob Belvedere
September 24th, 2010 @ 8:00 am

In related news:
The New York Times May Have It’s Own October Surprise.
Shut up, that's who
September 24th, 2010 @ 8:08 am

Susie Madrak was never an Obama supporter. Not during the primaries or the general election and not since he’s been in office. She’s a PUMA. For her to portray herself on that call as someone who would help motivate the base if only she were asked is a joke. What a fraud.
Bob Belvedere
September 24th, 2010 @ 8:09 am

Estragon wrote: I feel Obama’s pain. At least Brezhnev never had to deal with recalcitrant bloggers . . .

He would have dealt with them like he dealt with all recalcitrants: in the depths of middle of the night when no one was looking, or dared look.
TC@LeatherPenguin
September 24th, 2010 @ 8:31 am

That there was some effin’ brilliant beotch slapping, Stace.
Eric Blair
September 24th, 2010 @ 8:35 am

@Stacy: But she won’t. She’ll just blame Republicans, because apparently that’s all she knows how to do.
upyernoz
September 24th, 2010 @ 8:54 am

wow, you really had no idea who susie madrak was, did you? i don’t think you have any idea just how hopelessly ignorant you are about what she thinks than what i see here.

sure, your groupies might call it a “brilliant beotch slapping”, but really all you’re slapping is a weird caricature that doesn’t exist. which may make you look brilliant to people who don’t know any better, but it doesn’t look so smart from where i’m sitting.
Robert Stacy McCain
September 24th, 2010 @ 9:19 am

She’ll just blame Republicans, because apparently that’s all she knows how to do.

That she could reach middle age and still think that way is truly sad. But so many people do. Such is the nature of the politics of scapegoating. People are reluctant to turn loose of their scapegoats because, if they did, their entire worldview would instantly fall apart.
richard mcenroe
September 24th, 2010 @ 9:43 am

“Some people have to learn the hard way that you can’t cheat an honest person. If they were honest with themselves, they should have realized you can’t get something for nothing, no matter how good they sound on TV.”

Horseradish. That’s a con man’s rationale right there. Honest people are the easiest people in the world to cheat, because they aren’t looking for people to cheat them. But the con artist has to console himself with the self-deception that they deserved it because they wanted to cheat too.

Which doesn’t necessarily rule out a mark who was looking for somethin fer nuthin…
I Fisk You, I Fisk You, But There Ain’t No Way I’m Ever Gonna Love You « The Camp Of The Saints
September 24th, 2010 @ 10:04 am

[…] gave our beloved gonzo reporter the license to deliver a First-Class USDA Fisk to her and her fellow […]
Cold Fury » Of course your base is barking mad!
September 24th, 2010 @ 10:17 am

[…] 50 years. As a result, they’ve got one of the craziest bases imaginable. See the reaction of one Susan Madrak to all this attention for all the proof you’ll ever […]
Susie Madrak
September 24th, 2010 @ 10:34 am

I’m fascinated by your version of Christianity, in which others are routinely and viciously attacked for the crime of not agreeing. So in your version, you get to ignore the basic tenets of Christianity without having to actually practice any?

What an interesting perspective. It’s like buying a bicycle, never actually riding it but pronouncing yourself a “cyclist.” If only Lance Armstrong had known.

And you have none of that self-doubt or pesky “conscience” stuff that those other lesser Christians bother themselves with, either.

Well, God bless you. Maybe one day you’ll have an epiphany and convert — to real Christianity.

“The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried.” – G.K. Chesterton
TC@LeatherPenguin
September 24th, 2010 @ 10:53 am

“So in your version, you get to ignore the basic tenets of Christianity without having to actually practice any?
What an interesting perspective. It’s like buying a bicycle, never actually riding it but pronouncing yourself a “cyclist.” If only Lance Armstrong had known.
And you have none of that self-doubt or pesky “conscience” stuff that those other lesser Christians bother themselves with, either.”

Beyond the “Wow, the nuns woudda killed me if I wrote that!” aspect of yer verbiage, I gotta ask: “it’s about teh thong, iddint?”
You want an “interesting perspective,” you calamatous cow? Someone ON YOUR SIDE leaked this, and you’re getting all trolly on Stacy’s porch.
Oh, BTW, what the hell do you mean by this: “Maybe one day you’ll have an epiphany and convert — to real Christianity.”

Last time I looked, Chesterton didn’t write thye Book.
Bob Belvedere
September 24th, 2010 @ 11:06 am

Oh my God: Susie’s a Concern For Your Soul Troll!
Bill Clinton
September 24th, 2010 @ 11:13 am

Susie Madrak
September 24th, 2010 @ 10:34 am

Pray, tell.. What tenets are those? Enlighten us.. please.
Dave C
September 24th, 2010 @ 11:14 am

Heh.. Whoops.. Sock off.
Randy Rager
September 24th, 2010 @ 11:15 am

Are there no depths to which you will not sink, Susan?

First you attempt (rather lamely) to excoriate RSM for not showing you southern chivalry, as if you’re the type of person that either deserves or appreciates it. Please. You’d throw a feminist fit if anyone ever flattered you so.

Now you’re attempting to judge others on the authenticity of their religion? You’re not even remotely equipped to begin that task.

Whats the matter with you? Bored? Can’t get anyone to roll you back under the bleachers?
Becky
September 24th, 2010 @ 11:16 am

haha! That’s all you’ve got, Susie? Trying to hurt him by telling him he’s not a good Christian? I almost hesitate to laugh because it seems so desperate. You actually could have scored some “hitting them with their own rule book” points if you had stuck to the chivalry thing and stopped right there. Waaay too late now.

As for that whole Chrisitanity thing, maybe you ought to try it. Nothing else in the universe is capable of washing so much bitterness from of your angry soul.
RebeccaH
September 24th, 2010 @ 11:25 am

Susie Madrak’s evocation of “southern chivalry” seems sarcastic and condescending. I, for one, am offended. I believe Susie is a bigot.
JeffS
September 24th, 2010 @ 12:33 pm

I’m fascinated by your version of Christianity, in which others are routinely and viciously attacked for the crime of not agreeing. So in your version, you get to ignore the basic tenets of Christianity without having to actually practice any?

This from the person who has to remind herself not to “choke the living shit” out of Republicans who quote from the GOP’s “Pledge To America”.

“Pot, kettle, black” comes to mind, since you don’t hold yourself to the same standards you want us to follow in regards to your tender ego. But double standards is what lefties do best, after all.
Susie Madrak
September 24th, 2010 @ 12:34 pm

God bless you all. I really mean it.
JeffS
September 24th, 2010 @ 12:35 pm

Oh, Susie is indeed a bigot, Rebecca. She hates anyone who dares disagree with her.
JeffS
September 24th, 2010 @ 12:36 pm

God bless you all. I really mean it.

So, can I read to you from the GOP’s “Pledge to America”? Without fear of being choked, I mean.
Unicorns, Rainbows and Scapegoats : The Other McCain
September 24th, 2010 @ 12:44 pm

[…] Cuts VoteLet’s face it: When it comes to externalizing blame for their own failures, even Susie Madrak can’t top Axelrod. var addthis_append_data='false';var addthis_language='en';var […]
Mikey NTH
September 24th, 2010 @ 2:20 pm

No, you didn’t make me look. self-preservation kicked in big-time.
Randy Rager
September 24th, 2010 @ 2:25 pm

God bless you all. I really mean it.

People who have a good working relationship with God generally do not have to pledge not to choke the living shit out of those with whom they disagree politically. They do not refer to those with whom they disagree as mentally ill. They do not call those with whom they disagree liars and latent slave-owners.

And they most certainly do not say things like “Fuck you, and fuck the elephant you rode in on.”

I can get away that sort of shit because I’m an atheist, and I never pretended to be anything but. For someone to pretend to be a Christian after those little displays of rage and hatred is just patently offensive.
Randy Rager
September 24th, 2010 @ 2:32 pm

Christians don’t call those with whom they disagree mentally ill unless they actually are mentally ill, I should have said.

Considering the way the Democrats have emptied the asylums the last 50 years, it’s no surprise to find a lunatic in charge of a high traffic Leftard blog.
Bob Belvedere
September 24th, 2010 @ 3:10 pm

God bless you all. I really mean it.

Jeez, she reminds me of the pimply-faced and fugly, four-eyed girl in high school who went around bragging about she would grow up to be a feminist lawyer/activist who thought she had decimated the unenlightened with lame comebacks like that and who would find herself on a Friday night hugging her stuffed bunny and drinking Tab to wash down the diet Oreos.
Bob Belvedere
September 24th, 2010 @ 3:10 pm

I should have added: ‘…while watching Maude’.
Rorschach
September 24th, 2010 @ 4:30 pm

“Burning question” Stacy? Yes, I’d say “Burning” is definitely the right word when asking what is wrong with her….. but then again you should have worn protection anyway…. You don’t know who else may have had her under the bleachers… She did say she was the town ho didn’t she?
Atilla
September 24th, 2010 @ 6:27 pm

Some say that screwing fat chicks, under the bleachers, is like riding a moped…fun but don’t ever let your buds see you do it.

Now screwin’ a fat chick, under the bleachers, with an attitude/personality like Susie’s….we’ll your probably better off with farm animals.

jus’ sayin’
J.M. Heinrichs
September 24th, 2010 @ 8:10 pm

““The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried.” – G.K. Chesterton”

And Miss Madrak demonstrate Mr Chesterton’s point.

Cheers
Dave C
September 24th, 2010 @ 9:50 pm

She probably went willing under the bleachers with Bill Clinton too..

That should tell you all you need to know about Sooie Susie.
S. Wolf
September 25th, 2010 @ 12:47 am

I wouldn’t take her under the bleachers, even.
Joan of Argghh!
September 25th, 2010 @ 9:43 am

The MadDreck is almost an avatar of the Left’s penchant for projection. And yes, there is projection on both sides of the psychological spectrum, but the Left owns the Dark Ops side: everything done by the opposition is suspected of evil intentions, outright malevolence and manipulation of the most murderous kind. The Left projects onto the Right a final and awful desire to kill, maim, and destroy the weak. But mostly, it comes across the same way children think: they see responsible parents making difficult choices, but the child has, as yet, no real-world experience to help them interpret what those choices mean. They grow up blaming their parents for all sorts of injustices until a good counselor helps them to mature their interpretation filters into a semblance of reality: their parents had love and concern for their kids and wanted them to be self-sufficient in a difficult world.

“They’re monsters!” cries the little boy-child, Obama.

“They’re mean and un-Christian!” cries the little MadDreck writer.

Now, class: why do we hate Pollyanna Right-wing types? That’s right, they’re always believing we can do more than we can, never affirming our victimhood and disadvantages; they’re always prompting us to think for ourselves and smile at our incredible good fortune in life’s lottery. What sort of warped imagination can look on the horror of living in the U.S. and not see the pain and suffering, and not cry massive tears of shame and guilt? Why won’t they pity us? They’re monsters!

And of course, if we point out the actual harm that the Left’s acting-out has produced, if we point out the actual murder and mayhem visited upon the world because of progressivism’s immature desire to remake the world into what it can never be as long as humans think they can MAKE other humans behave, well then, we are blamed for being un-Christian.

And we wonder why our parents said that children should be seen and not heard.
feba
September 27th, 2010 @ 1:54 pm

A little late, but better late than never.

Why is it that I feel no real anger towards the left, but rather a sense of resigned sadness. A distinct impression that those of Ms. Madrak’s ilk are, quite simply, unreachable? What it must be like in that tiny little mind, to have to go through the indescribably complex mental gymnastics to justify positions, beliefs and philosophies that are risible on their collective (oops, sorry, will try not to do that again ;~)) face. To spend day after day after day breathlessly beating on the walls of her mind in the dank, dark cold.

For you Ms. Madrak, I offer this. It’s not mine, but I think it will serve you well: If you’re in your 20’s and haven’t got a heart, you’re a Conservative. If, by the time you reach your 30s and you still haven’t got a brain, you’re a Liberal.