Since I try to maintain some level of decency here, I am not going to tell you what I realy think of Maureen Dowd. I can give you a hint, though.
The word I am thinking of rhymes with “Punt.”
The first letter of the word might be “C.”
Check out her latest bile:
At every opportunity, as the extraordinary procession solemnly wended its way from California to the Capitol, W. was peeping out from behind the majestic Reagan mantle, trying to claim the Gipper as his true political father.
Finally, there’s a flag-draped coffin and military funeral that President Bush wants to be associated with, and wants us to see. (It’s amazing they could find enough soldiers, given Rummy’s depletion of the military.)
Under 70 words, and she manages to:
A.) Lie about Bush’s presence. Bush was in Georgia at the G-8, and I watched wall to wall coverage. There was little or no mention of the current President, little or no attempt to compare Bush to Reagan.
B.) Lie about Bush and invoke the favorite DNC myth- “Bush doesn’t visit the wounded or dead soldiers.”
C.) Over-estimate the status of the military and fails to mention which political side was in favor of force reduction. Wanna take a wild guess which side of the issue MoDo was on in the past?
I bet there is more, but I quite reading.
Quick question- Has the NY Times ever had a more sustained attack on a sitting President than what we have listened to about Bush for the past 4 years?
JKC
John-
MoDo gets her rocks off mocking sitting Presidents. She did the same to Clinton, and will do the same to whoever eventually follows Bush 43.
She’s not worth taking seriously.
SHH
Straighten out the quote marks plz.
Lets see, one whiner Dowd begets Cole begets a chain of whiners and pukers.
Sounds positively old testament. Fewer quotes, more original thinking, more new testament. Do you hear me Jesus?
John Cole
JKC- I know. I have written about the way she treated Clinton in the past.
Mike
Has the NYT had such a sustained attack on a US president? Well, there was that Reagan chap back in the 1980’s. I wonder how that turned out?
Terry
John, I personally think that you are being excessively kind to the [rhymes with rich].
jesse
Yeah, they did have more than a small hand in that Whitewater thing back in the 90s…and let’s ask Wen Ho Lee about how kind the Times can be when they’ve set their sights on you.
I wouldn’t use Maureen Dowd (who honestly does hate everyone) as an example of the Times’ attitudes towards anyone.
Mike
A. Dowd never said Bush wasn’t in Georgia. She was speaking metaphorically. She was refering to the Reagan tribute on the Bush reelection site.
B. Again, what lie?
C. Maybe she didn’t feel the need to “mention which political side was in favor of force reduction” because we preemptively invaded a contained, oil-rich country that had nothing to do with 9-11, under “lies” Bush supporters themselves self-servingly fail to mention.
Fat Cracker
I don’t care if Iraq was or was not involved in the 9/11 attacks. Saddam drained the marshes resulting in less wetlands which ultimately would lead to higher greenhouse gases which in turn would add to global warming which as we all know after having seen “The Day After Tommorrow” will lead to a catastrophic America ending ice age. So as far as I am concerned that in itself warrants the total annihilation of the Saddam Hussein regime.
As far as Modo is concerned, she got where she is by putting four on the floor.
John Cole
Jesse- You and I agree on something.
Kimmitt
“Has the NY Times ever had a more sustained attack on a sitting President than what we have listened to about Bush for the past 4 years?”
Dude, you were alive for Clinton’s tenure. Seriously.
maureen dowd
If its the last thing I do, I’ll get that Catherine Zeta Jones! I WILL NOT….BE IGNORED
Rick
Kimmett,
Dood, who’d the NYT endorse for the Presidency? Twice.
Seriously…
bg
Dood, learn how a newsroom operates. NYT endorsments come from the editorial board. News coverage comes from the news desk.
It’s widely known that when Raines was in control of news coverage, he tried to burn Clinton regularly.
The editorial board controls 2 pages. The managing editor controlls the rest.
Rick
bq,
Clinton thought Raines was out to get him (some sort of Southern liberal penis envy sort of thing, or envy amongs Southern liberal penii), but the overall tone was neutral, if not favorable in re: the ’93 tax hike, Hillarycare, obscuring the economic growth in 1992).
oh, so much for “widely known”:
Mr. Raines, 60, became executive editor of The New York Times in 2001, after having served as editorial page editor of The Times since 1993. Previously he had been Washington bureau chief since 1988 and bureau chief in London since 1987.
http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ticker=NYT&script=411&layout=-6&item_id=419436
Better larn yoo sum about how a newsroom operates.
Cordially…
Dean
bq:
If that’s the case, why is the WSJ regularly held up as a “conservative” paper, when it’s only the editorial pages that are conservative?
Rick
Case of crickets here?
Cordially…
bg
OK Rick, you burned me on that one. But good too.
What I was trying to point out was that just because a newspaper endorses someone doesn’t mean the news coverage of that person will be favorable because they’re run by different departments.
And Dean, I never said NYT wasn’t liberal or that the editorial page isn’t liberal or anything like it. In fact, I think they usually are. I do think they harped the hell out of Whitewater though.
But more to your point, it’s often the case that a newspaper’s political identity is made by its editorials.
And I know you guys can’t really see it, but it’s bg, not bq.
Kimmitt
“If that’s the case, why is the WSJ regularly held up as a “conservative” paper, when it’s only the editorial pages that are conservative? ”
Because people are confused. The WSJ’s reporting is quite excellent, even outright contradicting the opinion pages occasionally.
Far North
Go visit the Bush/Cheney web site and tell me that Bush isn’t “peeping out from behind the Reagan mantle”. Sheesh
Slartibartfast
“The WSJ’s reporting is quite excellent, even outright contradicting the opinion pages occasionally.”
At least they’ve got that going for them. Other newspapers ought to consider following suit.
Lex
WSJ: Two papers for the price of one.
JC: The Times did whale away on Clinton — as much as, if not more so, than it did Reagan. And it’s not like the stakes in the two cases were in any way comparable.
Joe
Far North,
Imagine the nerve of Bush posting a tribute to a much-admired fellow Republican ! There has to be some mantle-peeping going on there somewhere !
“Sheesh” is right – are you liberals so far gone that you can’t abide a show of respect for a great American, even if you don’t like him ? Does it really chap your @ss that much that most of the nation admired and repected the man ? It’s kind of sad that your progressive “tolerance” has led you to this permanent state of hatred for anyone who doesn’t agree with you.
Brian
“A.) Lie about Bush’s presence. Bush was in Georgia at the G-8, and I watched wall to wall coverage. There was little or no mention of the current President, little or no attempt to compare Bush to Reagan.”
It doesn’t seem at all likely that she was speaking literally.
“B.) Lie about Bush and invoke the favorite DNC myth- ‘Bush doesn’t visit the wounded or dead soldiers.'”
I don’t see how you’re getting that from anything she said in the passage you cited.
“C.) Over-estimate the status of the military and fails to mention which political side was in favor of force reduction. Wanna take a wild guess which side of the issue MoDo was on in the past?”
This is undoubtedly your strongest point, but really, the way in which you address it is not impressive. You muddle several different things together and never actually offer any insights of your own.
“Quick question- Has the NY Times ever had a more sustained attack on a sitting President than what we have listened to about Bush for the past 4 years?”
You’re talking about opinion columnists expressing their opinions. What’s the problem? You don’t have to agree with what they’re saying. Do I agree with a lot of what is printed on The Wall Street Journal editorial page? Probably not. (By the way, the people there weren’t exactly nice to Clinton, but let’s not open up that can of worms.)
Duncan Young
“C.) Over-estimate the status of the military and fails to mention which political side was in favor of force reduction…”
Two words. Dick Cheney.
Far North
Joe,
I love Reagan. I got a day off.
Seriously, if Bush wants to acknowledge Reagan, he doesn’t need to turn over his entire web site to him. Hell, it looks like the site is designed to make you not think of Bush, but about Reagan. Bush can certainly acknowledge the passing of our 40th president on his site, but with this overboard approach, it sure looks like W. is peering out from behind the Reagan mantle.