Holy fucking shit!!! Maureen Dowd at the NYT has gone insane!!!

[DetlefK]

Last edited Sun Nov 29, 2020, 04:07 PM - Edit history (1)

EDIT: I misread the disclaimer. This wasn't written by Maureen Dowd but by her rightwing wingnut brother.

Still, I think the op-ed serves as a nice view into the selective perception of right-wingers, angrily ignoring everything that doesn't fit into their world-view.





https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/26/opinion/thanksgiving-dowd-2020.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Historians, 20 or 30 years hence, will be the impartial arbiters of his accomplishments, but for the nearly 74 million people who voted for him, he already has fulfilled their hopes and justified their trust.

What happened to draining the swamp? What happened to making the US respected again? What happened to building a wall and making Mexico pay for it? What happened to replacing Obamacare? What happened to reducing the national debt to zero? What happened to the record-braking multi-trillion-dollar infrastructure renovation?

Making a bunch of idiots think that you did something, DOES NOT COUNT AS ACTUALLY DOING IT!

The Democrats call now for unity, but four years ago, they screamed for resistance and upheaval. They encouraged confrontation of Trump officials at their homes and restaurants. They opposed the administration every step of the way. Their hypocrisy is laughable.

Those hypocritical Democrats! Refusing to oppose the best President ever!

Trump gave us a strong economy, achieved the lowest unemployment in 50 years, fortified the border and guaranteed the integrity of the judicial system by appointing over 200 judges, including three Supreme Court justices.

In historical comparison, Trump's economy is actually mediocre. His economic growth percentage-wise (excluding the COVID-recession) is no higher than the economic growth of the George W. Bush-era (excluding the 2008/2009 recession) or of the Clinton-era. Plus, if Obama's track-record has to include the 2009 recession, then Trump's track-record has to include the 2020 recession.

And Trump "guaranteed the integrity of the judicial system" after McConnell prevented Obama from doing so and then stacked the courts with unqualified partisan hacks. What an achievement!

He was labeled a racist but funded historically black colleges and created opportunity zones with Senator Tim Scott. He was able to sign meaningful prison reform legislation.

He labeled Africa as shithole-countries, he labeled mexican illegal immigrants as murderers and rapists, he separated toddlers from their parents and put them into cages, his administration has lost hundreds of underage latino-children and has made no effort to find them, his administration has illegally denied asylum-seekers the right to apply for asylum on US soil, he signed a supposedly anti-terrorist travel-ban for muslim ountries but somehow excluded muslim countries wheremost of the islamic terrorists come from, he called black people protesting police-brutality "sons of bitches", he has protected and supported actual streetfighting Neonazis at every opportunity, he tried to get the votes of majority-black precincts thrown out in the 2020 election. And he built that fucking expensive and fucking useless wall THAT YOU JUST COMMENDED HIM FOR and that won't actually make a dent in illegal immigration because most illegal immigrants come to the US legally and simply overstay their visas.

He had foreign policy successes as well, renegotiating NAFTA and abandoning the disastrous Iranian nuclear deal (which took a $400 million cash bribe to close). He aggressively confronted China for its egregious behavior, brokered Middle East peace deals and was the greatest friend in the White House that Israel ever had.[

He exited NAFTA just so he can negiotiate basically the same deal again but this time with his name on it. He BROKE the nuclear deal with Iran, setting the precedent that the US cannot be trusted to go through on its own deals. He has started a tarif-war with China that increased consumer-prices in the US and is driving small farms ever-faster to extinction. He has shamelessly taken Israels side and has destroyed for good any chance for the US to be a non-partisan broker in the Israel-Palestinian conflict ever again.

Donald Trump was not without his flaws, but he stood like a brick wall against an unfair and openly hostile press and, alarmingly, a deep state aligned against him.

Oh, the unfair and openly hostile press that dared to report on what Trump is saying and doing.
Oh, the deep state that somehow decided to not make it public that Trump is under investigation for russian collusion.
Oh, the deep state that somehow dared to put loyalty to the US over loyalty to him.

Trump made the Republican Party tougher, teaching it to counterpunch harder than its opponent.

Shameless lying is not counterpunching.

Mark down the levels of the Dow Jones and your 401(k)s. If Biden reimposes President Barack Obama’s regulations, the economy will shortly be back to where it was under Obama.

Sooooooooooooo, according to Maureen Dowd the COVD-recession DOESN'T count towards Trump's economic track-record.

The Democrats remain mystified by the loyalty of Trump’s base. It is rock solid because half the country was tired of being patronized and lied to and worse, taken for granted. Trump was unique because he was only interested in results.

No, it was rock-solid because Trump gave them what they wanted: A white strongman who gave them permission to shamelessly give in to their darkest desires.

And the notion that somehow white rural conservatives people are taken for granted is UTTER nonsense considering that the majority of lawmakers are white, christian males AND that rural states have outsized political power in the US Senate.

The Republican success down-ballot and in state legislatures shows the folly of this condescension and sends a clear message that a majority of Americans are not ready for the socialist agenda favored by the radical left.

Yay! Even more evidence that Americans don't know shit about what socialism actually is! They even think that socialism and social-democracy are the same thing!!!
(At this point I am seriously expecting Maureen Dowd to say that the Nazis were left-wingers because they were the National-Socialist Party.)

Trump was adored by his followers, who will remember him kindly.

Yeah, the rest of the civilized world hated him, but republican voters loved him, which can only mean that he was a good person, because the opinions of non-Republicans don't count.

A final word to the media: The open bar at the wedding is closed. Your ratings and circulation are about to tank. You may think you ran down the stag, but you will quickly realize that Joe Biden on a daily basis, speaking through his mask, will not generate the same ratings.

Good grief. Maureen Dowd thinks that having a boring and effective government that doesn't generate apocalyptic headlines is somehow a bad thing.

A word of caution to Fox News: Your not-so-subtle shift leftward is a mistake.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand here we have it:

Maureen Dowd thinks that reporting facts instead of bothsiderism is political bias.

And finally, a special congratulations to Senator Susan Collins, who cruised to re-election despite gloomy forecasts and a ton of dark money spent against her. The people of Maine place high value on integrity.

Nope. Not gonna comment on that.

[struggle4progress]

1. meh. that's maureen's predictable schtick

[cwydro]

39. She didn't write it.

Good lord.

[struggle4progress]

46. So what? She gave it her place on the WaPo page

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

54. Actually, it was the New York Times.

And maybe she did it to make her brother look like a fool with his own words. Who knows what kind of family issues are going on?

[struggle4progress]

61. Oops. So still -- so what? She gave her place in the NYT

Maybe she'll next offer her place to the people who believe we liver on the inside of a flat and hollow Earth and who warn us to beware of the shape-shifting body snatching illegal space alien lizard people, who live among us in disguise to suck out our precious bodily fluids?

[JHB]

66. There are no "family issues" that matter here. She put this under her byline.

If she wants to share a screed by her brother, she can read it at her next cocktail party, or whatever she's doing as a substitute these days. Then it can reach the vanishingly few people who are so exquisitely isolated they haven't heard all this before.

The rest of us have heard it before because "wingnutville" never shuts up about it. I've heard versions of this for forty years.

They resent what they feel are caricatures of them, but they caricature us with reckless abandon. They complain that we accuse all of them for the extreme words and actions of a few, while being completely oblivious to how they're doing that about us.

They marinate in such a RW media environment that FOX simply acknowledging reality is considered an unforgivable "turn to the left."

These people make the most stereotypical snowflakey liberal arts college activists look like veritable stoics. They've created "Alert!" notification networks so they can lose their shit about everything. This is an addiction to axe grinding costumed as righteous anger.

[Dem4Life1102]

2. Not insane, this sounds like typical Dowd.

Why the NY Times continues to employ such a hack is the real question.

[cwydro]

40. She DID NOT write it.

I love how people go off half-cocked around here just so they can be enraged.

[Dem4Life1102]

58. But she published

under her byline. Like it or not, she is responsible for it.

[Hortensis]

69. Dowd ANTI-admirer here, but she was quoting HER TRUMPIST BROTHER.

It's extremely disgusting and dishonest to not bother to read for oneself and then attack by mistake.

It's doubling down on BOTH to then insist they're also the demonized one's fault.

This Thanksgiving, I made myself a French 75 and toasted the end of a very bad, horrible, no-good year. I was the only one in our family following Dr Anthony Fauci’s advice to “bite the bullet” and skipped our large holiday gathering. No doubt, my Trump-loving family poured one out for the president. In that spirit, my brother, Kevin, offered the following threnody for Donald Trump.

Just perhaps a few people here owe Ms. Poison Pen Dowd an apology? That she owes many millions herself doesn't make it okay.

[Voltaire2]

73. Oh yeah we all owe her a big fat apology.

Also it was really mean to make fun of Trump at his tiny desk.

[Dem4Life1102]

75. So because she was just quoting someone

that absolves her of any responsibility for publishing that BS?

[Hortensis]

78. It's the reader's responsibility to understand, and NYT readers

don't need your censorship of what they read under the mistaken concern that they also don't understand the message and where it's coming from. I'd add a reader's responsibility NOT to refuse to understand for personal reasons and then spread that to others.

Don't we imagine ourselves the people who despise trumpist-level dishonesty and their eagerness to spray-gun it everywhere?

[Dem4Life1102]

79. She published it under her byline

She is responsible for it.

[Hortensis]

82. :) Responsibility means those who have it can't give it away.

[Dem4Life1102]

84. Yet she gave away her column space

[Progressive Jones]

111. Her Trumpflake brother wrote it.

[Cirque du So-What]

3. GONE insane? To be fair, it was a short trip anyway

She landed a prominent spot on my 'pay no mind' list a long time ago.

[Glorfindel]

4. It was written by her wingnut brother

See this DU entry from earlier today:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100214635853

I'm no fan of Ms Dowd, but she didn't write that particular crap.

[Hoyt]

22. Thanks. That seems to be an important point. Her brother pretty much sounds like every white winger

I know that is not out waving a confederate flag, going on maneuvers with the local militia, etc.

[Raftergirl]

5. Her brother Kevin wrote it.

“This Thanksgiving, I’m going to make myself a French 75 and toast the end of a very bad, horrible, no-good year. I’ll be the only one in our family following Dr. Fauci’s advice to “bite the bullet” and skip our large holiday gathering. No doubt, my Trump-loving family will pour one out for the president. In that spirit, my brother, Kevin, offers the following threnody for Donald Trump.”

[nolabear]

45. She's having a champagne cocktail while he bemoans Democrat elitism?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. Look at the intro. It's her right-wing brother's piece, not hers.

Not that Maureen herself is exactly a font of wisdom, but this isn't her opinion. It's always a good idea to read something thoroughly before posting about it.

[SharonClark]

7. Not Maureen, her brother Kevin, as it states in the set up...

This Thanksgiving, I’m going to make myself a French 75 and toast the end of a very bad, horrible, no-good year. I’ll be the only one in our family following Dr. Fauci’s advice to “bite the bullet” and skip our large holiday gathering. No doubt, my Trump-loving family will pour one out for the president. In that spirit, my brother, Kevin, offers the following threnody for Donald Trump.

Note: Several conversations about this article, one posted earlier today.

[mcar]

8. She turned the most valuable real estate in media over to her RWNJ brother

[struggle4progress]

48. +

[Meowmee]

112. Yes, it should not have been published by nyt...

[Ms. Toad]

9. It is her wingnut brother who wrote it. N/t

[standingtall]

62. If she let him write this knowing he is a wingnut

How is she not just as responsible for the content in it?

[Ms. Toad]

63. The OP didn't allege she was vicariously responsible

They argued she wrote it. Facts matter.

Maureen Dowd has decided to write a reality-free fluff-piece for Trump that basically calls him the best politician ever.

[BeyondGeography]

10. That piece is written by her Trumper brother Kevin

Consider self-deleting.

[standingtall]

64. Im not understanding how anybody thinks she should be defending

Saying her wingnut brother wrote it. Does nothing to soften it. If she allowed him to write this than she is just as responsible for it's content as he is.

[mahina]

11. Hot off the gasbag's own press sects desk. This

Should be the last article of hers published.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

23. It's not hers, it's her brother's.

Why she let him have her space is a fair question but she didn't write it.

[Biophilic]

34. Every Thanksgiving she does this.

I try to avoid her, but over the years I've noticed that every Thanksgiving she gives Kevin her spot to spew his garbage. I haven't read her since she was so hung up on bringing Hillary down. For the last 8 months or so I have hardly glanced at the Times which my sister gets every morning. I've learned that it's not good for my inner well being.

[spooky3]

12. Her brother Kevin wrote the column. See the intro. Nt

[NRaleighLiberal]

13. written by her brother. why she felt it was worth publishing is another matter

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

16. It's her Trumpazoid brother Kevin's piece, not hers.

It's always a good idea to actually read something before commenting on it.

[Eyeball_Kid]

20. Thanks for the correction. I deleted my post.

Nonetheless, that the NYT published this piece of trash is notable. Maureen Dowd should publicly disown the views of her brother.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

24. Maybe she let him have her space to make him look stupid.

Could be some family issues there.

[cwydro]

37. One would think the OP would edit, wouldn't one?

Pffft.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

43. One would think. And one would also think people would read the piece itself

before having hissy fits.

[kcr]

88. One would think this pointless defense of her column

would be a better fit elsewhere.

[cwydro]

91. No one is defending it, or at least I'm not.

But I despise fake news, especially here. Ymmv.

[Ms. Toad]

94. There is a difference between correcting factual misstatements

and defending on the merits.

[kcr]

96. It also matters how you correct

It can be very telling. For instance, ignoring the fact that it matters she gave her column over to her rightwing brother, as some are doing in this thread. Or insisting that fact is another matter entirely when it isn't.

[Ms. Toad]

101. The OP (to which these posts are responding)

Did not discuss whether it matters that she gave the column over to her rightwing brother - because the OP believed Dowd had written it.

Whether it matters that she gave her column to her rightwing brother is opinion, not fact, and not even an opinion expressed by the OP.

So to address the factual errors in the OP, there is no inherent need to address an opinion that wasn't even expressed in the OP that it matters that she gave the column over to her rightwing brother.

There are a lot of times I see factual errors, but don't feel like getting into a discussion on whatever correction of the facts might generate. In those instances the lack of preemptive commentary on whatever opinions might be generated by the factual correction means absolutely nothing, other than I didn't feel like having that discussion. What I cared about was, literally, correcting false news: that Dowd wrote the piece complained about.

[kcr]

106. Again, I'm not protesting correction.

I'm protesting the manner of the correction. I am wondering however, how it can be that thinking it matters she gave her column to her right wing brother is opinion, but thinking that it doesn't matter is not? That's a neat trick.

[Ms. Toad]

108. No trick at all.

Fact in the OP that is false.

Maureen Dowd has decided to write a reality-free fluff-piece for Trump that basically calls him the best politician ever.

Maureen Dowd didn't write it.

Searches the OP for any reference to Dowd giving the column to her brother . . . . finds none,
Searches the OP for opinions about Dowd giving the column to her brother . . . finds none.

The only fact to correct is the author of the piece.

It's not a "manner of correction." It is simply a factual correction. The OP said Dowd wrote the piece. The OP was wrong. I corrected it because I don't like fake news, I don't like watching people react to fake news as if it is the truth, and I don't like the reality that some of them will go post it on facebook as truth, tweet about it as truth, use it as the basis of conversations with friends and neighbors, etc.

Several posters brushed off the correction, suggesting it didn't matter that the OP got their facts wrong. While it is certainly a valid opinion that Dowd is as responsible for the piece as if she had written it, I care far less about that narrow question than I do about progressives adopting a phenomenon that has long been part of the right wing MO: that truth is subservient to political opinion - rather than being a foundation we use to support our political opinion.

Encouraging us to be more careful about facts goes to the core of who we are (or who we used to be, or who I hope we will return to being). I care more about that than about opinions on one small issue. I don't want to dilute the importance of speaking truth by engaging in side conversations that are founded on truth not being important (i.e. it doesn't matter that the OP got their facts wrong - all that matters is how bad Dowd is, so if our facts were wrong we'll just find alternate facts to support our condemnation. )

So at least 9 times out of 10 when I correct a factual error that's all I will do - and I will resist being dragged into a discussion
a "what if" discussion that I might even have engaged in, had the OP not gotten their facts wrong.

[Ms. Toad]

99. Unfortunately, too many people around here have a knee jerk reaction

to factual corrections, and impute motives to those making the factual corrections when the actual facts don't align with their political bias.

[kcr]

100. As if all these correctors

would give over their own columns willy nilly to anyone, if they had one. Give me a break. Pretending that it doesn't matter that she allowed that column under her own byline is disingenuous at best.

[Ms. Toad]

102. No one is pretending it doesn't matter - we are correcting a misstatement of fact by the OP

Some of us care about accuracy in the news, and find it particularly disturbing when progressives participate in spreading it. Period.

No one who corrects fake news is obligated to engage in a discussion on all of the political implications that might follow from the facts, had they been stated correctly by the OP in the first place.

[kcr]

104. It's been literally said in this thread. Multiple times.

It's not the correction of the fact. It's the correction of the fact as if it matters. I'm sorry, but if a columnist gives their space to a trump loving relative with their byline on it, then it doesn't matter that they didn't write it. Effectively, they wrote it.

[Ms. Toad]

110. That is a DIFFERENT discussion that those of us correcting the post are engaging in.

The OP got the facts wrong. Period.

If you want to talk about whether she should have given her space to her right wing brother - start a thread! Or invite discussion here. But make it an invitation, not a condemnation of the motives of those who entered the discussion solely to correct the factual representation in the OP.

Doing so diminishes the importance some of us attach to halting the spread of fake news by insisting that anyone who corrects facts is we ALSO obligated have to engage in a discussion that might have taken place had the OP not gotten their facts wrong.

[gay texan]

15. Is she the one Bartcop used to call Dragon-lady? n/t

[Gidney N Cloyd]

19. He used to say "Maureen Dowd hates everybody. Today it's _______."

[gay texan]

26. Yes!!!! n/t

[Gidney N Cloyd]

17. 1/2 the replies here are correcting the author's name. How about updating the OP?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

27. Once again, it's her brother's piece, not hers.

Doesn't anybody actually read the linked piece before posting?

[cwydro]

33. People jump to conclusions really quickly around here.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

38. People don't f&cking READ THE LINKED ITEM before opining!

[cwydro]

47. I know.

You’d think the OP would edit.

I won’t hold my breath.

[Dem4Life1102]

76. But she still published it

under her byline. In the end whether she wrote it or not, she is responsible for it.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

77. That's a different issue. The point is that the piece was represented as being BY her

and it wasn't. I don't like her; she's snarky for the sake of snark and she tends to snark at the wrong people. But she's not a Trumper and never has been. If we want to criticize her for posting it in her column space, fine. That's fair criticism. But it's not the same as saying she wrote it herself because she didn't, and I doubt very much that her brother's opinion is anywhere close to hers.

[Dem4Life1102]

80. Ok that's fair

But she still has a responsibility for publishing it under her name.

[kcr]

98. But it really isn't a different issue.

She isn't absolved simply because she let someone else have her space to write pro-Trump drivel. To point out that she herself didn't write it doesn't change what it is. You can point out that she didn't write it. But it doesn't matter.

[jimfields33]

29. Yieks! Since she didn't write it, you want the times to fire her?

Lawsuit proceed I’m sure.

[CanonRay]

21. Why does this woman still have a job?

[jimfields33]

30. Because she didn't write it. That's why!!!!!!!!!

[Dem4Life1102]

35. No but she published it

under her byline.

[Voltaire2]

72. when you put your name on it you own it.

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

25. eeeeeeew! A fascist! Make it go awaaaaay!

[W_HAMILTON]

28. Mask off!

[Autumn]

31. You mean she wasn't insane before this drivel?

She was. My bad. It must run in the family

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

50. She won't remember writing it because she didn't write it. Her brother did,

as the intro to the piece clearly states.

[CTyankee]

55. Thanks for reminding me. I shudda read the intro!

[cwydro]

51. Do you know her?

You have inside info that she’s an alcoholic?

And btw, she didn’t write it, dear.

[cwydro]

32. Calm down. It was written by her brother.

She makes that clear.

[BainsBane]

71. I'm trying to imagine

what would be okay about allowing my brother to do my job, and he's not even a lunatic.

[Martin Eden]

36. I didn't get past "justified their trust"

More than 20,000 LIES in less than four years justifies TRUST??!!!

Don't look for cheese on Maureen Dowd's cracker. It slipped off.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

41. *sigh* ONCE MORE: She didn't write it. Her brother wrote it.

I don't know why she let him have her space, unless it was to let him make an ass of himself, but she didn't write it. Read the damn thing!

[Martin Eden]

52. Thread title is a wee bit misleading, then

It needs to be corrected.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

53. Be that as it may, it's always a good idea to read the actual piece

that is the subject of a post before commenting on it, since posters sometimes get it wrong. As has happened here.

[Iggo]

59. He didn't get it, either.

[cwydro]

42. Read the rest of the thread if you can't be bothered to read her column more carefully.

She didn’t write it. It was her trumper brother; she was making a point.

Whoosh!

[radius777]

49. Dowd is the quintessential Karen.

Yes I know her brother wrote it, but she published it without critique. She's always written smarmy pieces that twist the knife in the backs of Dems, and seems to pine for the world of the 1950s where everybody knew their place and where a woman of her stature was well kept.

Her brother's worldview is absurd and bothsiderist. Dems and even some Repubs (Never-Trumpers) formed a resistance against a fascist strongman who was installed by Russia and who lost the popular vote by 3 million. He had no right being president, and any sane system would've weeded him out before he got that far. Trump's admin was a clown show and grift operation that did little to benefit anyone except his family, the one percent and racists.

Biden, otoh, is an institutionalist and bipartisan consensus seeker, and won despite the GOP voter suppression efforts aimed at the Dem base.

Hunting of the president (see Bill Clinton, Obama) has always been a Republican pasttime - so save it you racist little shitstain. You guys are cowards and sore losers whose time has come and gone.

[tavernier]

56. I'm curious as to why you report in the first paragraph

that Maureen Dowd wrote this, when you obviously know that its not true.

Why would you do this? Did you agree with the content?

[obnoxiousdrunk]

57. Fake news.

[snowybirdie]

60. I think her

Republican brother wrote it. She turns it over to him occasionally.

[MFM008]

65. Never read her

[MustLoveBeagles]

67. FYI

PLEASE update your post to indicate that it was her brother not her that wrote this. Now that that's out of the way, why on earth is she allowing her brother's diatribe to run without comment? It's not like wingnuts are underrepresented in newspaper columns. I'll say this though: she didn't write this but she's still a hack. Why the New York Times wastes valuable ink and paper on her useless column is a mystery to me.

[BGBD]

68. Newspaper opinion

Sections are trash. They should cut them everywhere.

[Voltaire2]

70. in all fairness, the fascist perspective gets very little media coverage.

So Dowd is just trying to correct that problem.













Do I really need that sarcasm thing?

[AmericanCanuck]

74. Maureen is still pissed because Bill Clinton rejected her.

[Vinca]

81. Maybe she's auditioning for wife #4 since it's time for a trade-in.

Sadly for Mo, I think she's a little long in the tooth for His Highness.

[Ms. Toad]

86. It would be her brother who is auditioning for that role.

She she is not the one who wrote it. It was written by her brother.

[frazzled]

83. So she didn't go to her Trump-loving family's Thanksgiving

Instead she poured a cocktail for herself and offered what was said by her Republican brother.

Do you guys not understand snark, or do you just like to be outraged?

Remedial reading comprehension courses required.

[cwydro]

87. Thank you. You said it best.

I’ve learned the OP apparently doesn’t care about correcting a false post.

Good to know.

You’re so right on the remedial reading. Kinda sad so many DUers seem in need of it.

[frazzled]

95. It's always kind of obvious that when

an OP posts something controversial (and misleading to boot), and then doesn’t reply at all to any of the dozens of countervailing responses, that they’re just in it to make trouble. Hope they’re enjoying getting so many fish to bite.

Yes, it saddens me that so many fail to read and consider, just going for the headline or for preconceived notions. But it worries me more that this so often coincides with an engagement in politics that gains its only pleasure from opposition and grievance. It’s dangerous.

[Blue_true]

85. She is not the only person that said or wrote head spinning

support for Trump. Governor Andrew Cuomo opined that reporters were being disrespectful to Trump. Imagine that, reporters calling on Trump to stop lying and concede an election that he has clearly lost are being “disrespectful”?

[kcr]

89. Well, you sure ruffled the Dowd fans on DU

[Paladin]

90. Is the NYT paying Dowd's drooling right-wing brother for this shit?

If so---why?

[kcr]

92. Well, as long as SHE didn't write it

Apparently, that's all that matters.

[Cameliano]

93. It is our fault that Maureen Dowd gets attention

After decades saying in same things, you all of a sudden say that she has "gone insane".

[Grasswire2]

97. NYT seems to be the sludgehole lately.

Every time I see Peter Baker or Ken Vogel, I cringe.

Something's off. Really.

[malaise]

103. You couldn't pay me to read her

She's the definition of a tool

[calimary]

105. Lapdog Extraordinaire.

[Crunchy Frog]

107. Trashing this thread due to inaccuracy of OP.

I thought our side was supposed to be based in reality.

[Ms. Toad]

109. Thanks for the correction! n/t

[smirkymonkey]

113. It was written by her mentally challenged RW brother.

And he got reamed in the comment section. Next time she chooses a guest to opine under her by-line, she might want to pick her dog instead.

[Poiuyt]

114. Change the damn headline!!

It's misleading