"110 People Who Are Screwing Up America"

So I'm enjoying Bernard Goldberg's book, "110 People Who Are Screwing Up America (And Al Franken is #37)" but I'm surprised at some notable omissions.  First, let's review his methodology.  In explaining why President Bush wasn't on the list, Goldberg writes:

I'm not at all happy with what's going on in Iraq, or with so-called conservatives spending our money like drunken sailors.  But this is a book about the culture -- not about politics or politicians.  Yes, there are a few politicians on The List, and yes, most of them are liberals -- but look closely and you'll see that they're not there because of ideology.  They got there for lowering the level of civil discourse in this country -- or for their shameless willingness to destroy decent people.

Fair enough.  Let's start with the first notable omission: Ann Coulter.  I blog now with the advantage of Coulter's latest reprehensible screed, that she had never seen anyone "enjoy[] their husbands' deaths so much" as the 9/11 widows.  If I really think hard about it and give Coulter far more of the benefit of the doubt than she deserves, I think perhaps what she was trying to say was the the 9/11 widows didn't have any special expertise in foreign policy or national security just because they happened to be more direct victims of the 9/11 attacks.  But if that's what she meant, she certainly could have been far more clear and tactful and far less inflammatory than when given the opportunity by Matt Lauer.  Instead, she just attacked him.

In fact, given Goldberg's definition, I don't see how Coulter isn't #1 -- or at least top 5.  I mean, screeching that the 9/11 widows' "shelf life is dwindling" so they'd "better appear in Playboy" is pretty much a textbook example of "shameless willingness to destroy decent people."

But even before this latest calumny, which post-dates Goldberg's book, there was the infamous "[w]e should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" suggestion.

Okay, besides Ann Coulter, why not George Bush?  #99 on Goldberg's list is Matt Lesko, the annoying late-night TV guy who screams about "free free free!!!" money from the government.  Goldberg writes persuasively:

Once, it was understood by almost everyone that there is no free lunch and that you got yours, as the old commercial had it, "the old-fashioned way" -- you earned it!  But now, this joker caters to a mindset that believes there's not only free lunch, but free dinner, and free midnight snacks, and a takeout bag if you're still hungry later on.  Matthew Lesko is the Pied Piper for way too many Americans who are only interested in themselves.

I completely agree with all of this, but this is also what I see in our current President, such as the ridiculous 2003 Medicare spending bill whose projected cost jumped from $400 billion at the time it was being debated to over $500 billion after the bill was passed by Congress and signed into law.  The bill seems like it was nothing more than a transparent attempt to induce senior citizens to vote for the President in 2004.  It certainly wasn't an example of fiscal restraint, because the funding for this $400 billion $534 billion bill wasn't coming out of other spending projects, seeing as how the President still has not vetoed a single bill in his entire Presidency.

Then there were the steel tariffs that President Bush sought successfully in 2002, benefitting Rust Belt states in time for the fall 2002 elections; the tariffs were lifted in 2003.

"Free lunches," "too many Americans only interested in themselves" . . . Describes much of the President's domestic strategy.

Don't get me wrong -- I can't quibble with Goldberg's selections, especially Michael Moore (#1), Ted Kennedy (#3), former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore (#21), Latrell Spreewell (#30), Markos Moulitsas (#52), David Duke (#66), Ward Churchill (#72), and Paris Hilton's parents (#100).  I just think that Goldberg is more lenient on conservatives than his principles would suggest.

Speaking of Paris Hilton, I have to say that although I like to make fun of Donald Trump as much as the next blogger, I'm actually impressed at how his kids, Ivanka and Donald Jr., have turned out.  First, you don't hear a lot about them, which suggests that they actually work, as opposed to make a living by being a pseudo-celebrity.  Second, when they were on "The Apprentice," they seemed to exhibit reasonably good business sense, unlike, say, Martha Stewart's daughter, who contributed virtually nothing to the show.  Third, when asked what it was like growing up, Donald Jr. had the capacity of self-evaluation to realize that you couldn't say it was tough growing up when you got to go on vacation to fancy places; but that he (and Ivanka) were glad that Trump still made them work.

Comments

[Keith]

In reference to Ann Coulter's quote " [w]e should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity"

Didn't we go and do 2 out of the 3 suggestions? Lighten up, Ann says most of her stuff tongue in cheek - it's just that her comedy is too close to the truth that it sometimes hurts. I find it interesting how everyone piles on Ann in light of what one can see on Comedy Central every night.

[leon]

If typical and easy to see this asshole is a Bush and Cheney kissass, they should be #1 and#2 on the list, this book is bullshit and biased to his politial ofiliations

[Matthew Lesko]

Well written article, and I agree entirely. Thank you for your fresh point of view. Keep up the good work.