General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMaureen Dowd just can't help herself.
she can't write a single fucking Op-Ed without some type of swipe at Obama.
I gotta ask---what planet does she fucking live on?
Today's piece:
"The billion-dollar Republican campaign should be sweeping the floor with the deflated President Obama after four years of 8 percent-plus unemployment".
"Even if voters are inclined to fire the incumbent, they need reassurance about what the replacement would do".
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/opinion/sunday/dowd-the-son-also-sets.html?_r=0
MichiganVote
(21,086 posts)lunatica
(53,410 posts)She's been regurgitating it for years.
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)She always has been. Her writing is stuffy and long-winded too.
BeyondGeography
(41,180 posts)Policy, governance, history...it's all off limits. Little Sulzberger will stick with her to the end. She is the poster child for the NYT's descent into comparative irrelevance.
Berlum
(7,044 posts)There you have it.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Remember all that crap she wrote about Gore, while essentially giving Junior a pass?
redqueen
(115,186 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)and only 40 words on Obama (which really just seem as if they were meant to set the expectations artificially higher for Romney), and you focus on the Obama bits?
how about these quotes on Romney:
Or
Or
Or
Or
It was an awesome article, not a swipe at Obama at all.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Mean Girl MoDo lost it many a year ago.
What she tries to pass off as keen political insight is no more than ninth-grade level sniping by someone desperate to still be considered a 'cool kid'.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)but I don't see anything wrong with that excerpt.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)We've got several here with the same affliction.
Julie
Are_grits_groceries
(17,139 posts)whacked the Catholic Patriarchy. She has also barreled over Mittens quite a few times.
Do I agree with or enjoy all her columns ? No. However, more than once, she has aimed her snark quite lethally on people and causes that deserve it IMHO.
President Obama can handle her snark.
I can too because I believe she is worth reading. She may make me madder than hell, but she also may make me shout 'Yes!'
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Are you living with your head in the sand that you don't KNOW that this will be the first time an incumbent will be elected with unemployment over 8%? She is just stating the obvious, something that EVERYONE is talking about. Were it not for that one statistic, there would be an even larger gap between Obama and Romney's numbers.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)trumad
(41,692 posts)You do know her history with Gore?
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)Dowd writes an op/ed damning Romney, his wife, and his campaign manager, yet because she has the gall to speak the truth(after all, the last time a president won reelection with unemployment over eight percent was 76 years ago), you go off on her.
Disgusting, just disgusting. You Obama purity people are becoming positively Orwellian in your insistence that nobody speaks ill of the President, even if it is the truth.
Face it, she is right, according to political wisdom and historical president, Romney should be mopping the floor with Obama. But we got lucky that it is Romney running, instead of somebody with more political and common sense. Count your blessings instead of complaining that every single word that Dowd writes doesn't reflect divine light upon Obama.
trumad
(41,692 posts)Is that how you feel?
So Romney should be cleaning Obama's clock?
Really---is that how you feel.
No you don't...
She's dead wrong on those comments.
Dead wrong.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)No president running for reelection with an unemployment rate over eight percent has won reelection for the past seventy six years. Why? Because as always, it's the economy stupid.
With the economy still sucking in this country(and please, don't try to blow smoke up my ass by saying otherwise), Obama was hugely vulnerable in this election. Hell, even Obama himself has alluded to this on more than one occasion. But the fact of the matter is that the Republicans tossed up a horrible candidate as Obama's opponent, a candidate who has badly managed his campaign and his image. Obama got lucky in that regard, that he got Lurch as his opponent, rather than somebody more along the lines of, oh, say, a Reagan. Don't believe me, ask Carter.
That is historical reality, and political reality as well. You may not like it, but it is reality still the same, deal with it.
And please, don't try to tell me how I feel. It's rude.
Response to MadHound (Reply #12)
Post removed
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Why does that not surprise me.
Oh, and speaking of Nader, since you brought him up, I thought you might like to read this piece by him.
""There was something missing from the release of a tape showing Mitt Romney pandering to fat cats in Boca Raton, Florida with these very inflammatory words: There are 47 percent who are with him, (Obama) who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. These are people who pay no income tax. Romney said his job is not to worry about those people.
Hey, Mitt, why start with the 47 percent? Fully 100 percent of the nations 500 biggest corporations are dependent on various kinds of corporate welfare subsidies, giveaways, bailouts, waivers, and other dazzling preferences while many pay no tax at all on very substantial profits"
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/09/20-7 ''
Ooo, I see the sparks flying now, as your neural circuits overload and start to short out.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Sort of like being the Maytag repairman, "the lonliest job in town".
MadHound
(34,179 posts)You assume that I'm a Nader fan, you assume that that I voted for Nader at some point. You know what they say about ass u me?
So, do you have any comment on Nader's piece that I linked to?
Better yet, do you have any comment on the OP, and the historical reality that no President who has had unemployment over eight percent has ever won reelection?
Or are you here simply to throw bombs and insult people?
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)But I don't think that's a swipe. A bad economy generally spells trouble for an incumbent.
jsr
(7,712 posts)sammytko
(2,480 posts)One day you love her, the next you hate her.
I prefer Gail Collins. She hates mitt 24/7/365. 366 on leap years!
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)I like Maureen McCormick better.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,968 posts)It would be like a loved one of a critically injured accident victim telling the ER physician he let his partner die.
madokie
(51,076 posts)I'm not sure if I changed or if she did or even maybe it was I was seeing more there than there was to see
aint_no_life_nowhere
(21,925 posts)doesn't allow Obama to be treated like a normal incumbent but she's oblivious to that.