Maureen Dowd has proved herself to be not much better than Shannyn Moore and the small clatch of Internet witches who surf and snip in Sarah Palin's wake in hopes of getting some residual attention.Dowd, yet again, attacked Sarah Palin in her Sunday column, a column that Dowd should just re-title - "Why Is Everyone Talking About Sarah Palin And Not Me." Down has become the Jan Brady of columnists - instead of "Marcia, Marcia Marcia," it's "Sarah, Sarah, Sarah."
Dowd got so carried away trying to look down her nose at everything Palin that she attacked a popular Social Internet Network because it was tooched by Sarah. A childish tactic that amounts to - "I'm not sitting there because she did and it has cooties."
Down wrote:
She took a forum, Facebook, more commonly used by kids hooking up and cyberstalking, and with one catchy phrase, several footnotes and a zesty disregard for facts, managed to hijack the health care debate from Mr. Obama.
Through her red-eyed, spittle laden rage, Maureen forgot that she too is on Facebook. Well, she is getting up there in years and as we get older we tend to forget these things.
Mark Finkelstein of NewsBusters wrote a wonderful retort to :
So Maureen, who are Barack Obama, Michelle Obama and Rahm Emanuel or . . . you yourself, hooking up with or stalking?
Well, Mark we know who Maureen is stalking.
To read the entire NewsBusters Post - click here.
If you must read the insipid and uninspiring Maureen Dowd piece - click here.
But I must thank The Nanny of The New York Times (she sounds like Fran Drescher)for giving me an idea. To the right of this post is a poll. Let's play Sara Palin Survivor. Which Palin Critic would you most like to see thrown of the Island. In this case, the island would be the planet earth.
Have fun.
(If the poll is not up right away - check back.)
29 comments:
The Wicked Witch of New York is Back.
The Witch writes:
‘her visceral talent for aerial-shooting her favorite human prey:
cerebral Ivy League Democrats.’
Yea! And our moose hunting, gun toting gal gets’em every time.
They say a picture is worth a thousand words, just look at the face in that picture.
Maureen Sweetheart; your botulinum toxin is not reducing your blepharospasm.
Your face looks like shit dear.
This is tiresome; responding to Dowd’s scurrilous utterances is an exercise in futility and renders us; as irrelevant as she is to the important issues.
William G. McAdoo’s quotation sums up Maureen Dowd accurately:
“It is impossible to defeat an ignorant person in argument.”
Palin 2012 Go! Sarah Go!
Dowd wrote: "managed to hijack the health care debate from Mr. Obama."
Well, Mr. Obama must be some sorry politician if a hockey mom, who holds no office, can derail his "signature" initiative.
How pathetic the Liberals are becoming. I guess being in charge is not as easy as they dreamed it would be while lynching Mr. Bush.
Maureen Dowd
Does anyone remember a picture of Maureen Dowd posing in an open mans white shirt and high heels sitting on the bottom step of a semi circular stairway with one leg up on the step. It was in a magazine if I remember correctly. The gist of the article was how Maureen climbed the business ladder to what they called her success.
This must be the tenth column Dowd has written about Palin in the last 3 months. That says more about her than it does about Palin. It would seem to me that people would be tiring of her tantrums, and obvious fits of jealousy. Dowd is about 60, never married, no kids, obviously unhappy. She knows that in the end she'll be shoveled into some forgotten hole somewhere, unnoticed, and unmourned. She also knows that Palin stands an excellent chance of being immortalized with a monument dedicated to her as the first woman president, and her family will continue on for generations to come. I think that is what is really eating at Dowd.
Dowd, Parker, and Noonan should form a support group. Perhaps they could look into the possibility of getting a group discount at the nearest Electro Convulsive Therapy clinic, it may help their Palin Derangement Syndrome.
Yes Maureen Dowd is a douche. So is Keith Oberman, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Anne Coulter,etc. This is how they make their living. They have nothing of substance to say, so they say the most outrageous thing that comes to their minds. Let's not stoop to their level and name call. We should not listen to any of them and force them to get real jobs doing something productive.
Micheal, I would argue that Hillary holds the undisputed title of "Wicked Witch of New York."
Overhauling health-care system tops agenda at annual meeting of Canada's doctors
By Jennifer Graham (CP)
SASKATOON — The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association says this country's health-care system is sick and doctors need to develop a plan to cure it.
Dr. Anne Doig says patients are getting less than optimal care and she adds that physicians from across the country - who will gather in Saskatoon on Sunday for their annual meeting - recognize that changes must be made.
"We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize," Doing said in an interview with The Canadian Press.
"We know that there must be change," she said. "We're all running flat out, we're all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands."
Let's hear it for Facebook. No nasty journalists fact checking ya. Pulling the wool over the eyes of Joe Sixpack just keeps getting easier. You betcha!
Greg writes:
"...Palin stands an excellent chance of being immortalized with a monument dedicated to her as the first woman president..."
Sounds like a nice story or a good
movie plot. However, this
is the real world and I'm
wearing my black hat.
Palin's numbers are not good at this point in time. Read below.
While NewsMax and Rasmussen, two GOP centric polls give Sarah Palin high numbers, a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll show 67% of Americans do not want her as President. How does she become
the President when 2/3 of Americans
Just Say No?
The polling data shows 43 percent of Republicans say the same; 65% of
independents (who decide elections btw) and 44% of polled voters who
voted for McCain in 2008.
A GWU Battleground Poll shows her favorable numbers at 42%; unfavorable at 47%.
An ABC/Washington Post poll places her numbers at 53% unfavorable, 40%
favorable. Within that same poll,51% of independents have an unfavorable view of her.
How does she reach independent,
swing voters? It is those voters that decide elections. 99% of time,
Democrats go to the Democratic church on Election Day and Republicans go to the Republican
church on Election Day. Partisans vote for their party no matter what; how does she reach for those non-partisan voters? Independents backed Obama 52% to 44%,
In 2008, 66% of voters 18-29 voted for Obama. Young voters were put off by her, are not vested in the culture wars and are put off by hardcore social conservatism and
evangelical Chrsitianity. The only Republicans young voters seem to like is Ron Paul.
How does she deal with rapidly changing demographics; increased Hispanic populations, an increase
in African-American voters, younger voters who have no stake in the culture wars and an increasingly secular voting population that has come of age in the Internet age? In sum, Caribou
Barbie will never be President. The numbers just are not there.
As for Dowd's piece, it was more
of a veiled indictment of the
Democrats: Sitting legislators and
the elected President are getting
bullied by a drama queen on Facebook; who deals in lies and smears that were widely debunked by various sources, particularly FactCheck (btw, do not use the old
talking point that FactCheck is
staffed by leftist academics. Unless someone comes up with actual
PROOF that the writers and researchers there have written
pieces saying Marx was a deity and
Lenin, Castro and Mao are the Prophets, save your breath. Also, reiterrating Annenberg Foundation had Ayers on it will not suffice, since he was on a specific board pertinent to Chicago and not the
same group or arm that supports
FactCheck. Also might want to
brush up on the fact Annenberg was
a personal friend and supporter of
both Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan).
Dowd has also been critical of Hillary Clinton at times in the
past. Did anyone say it was
because of jealousy? No! Dowd
simply believes Mrs. Palin to
be a poorly informed partisan who
is deliberately ignorant because she does not wish to be inconvenienced with the facts; she
has already made up her mind. We already had 8 years of mindless
jingoism and thinking with one's digestive tract. We do not need a repeat of that sorry episode in U.S. history, which should be held on par with slavery and Jim Crow as
a stain on our heritage. Mrs. Palin
would return the country to a
paradigm of smears, fears and queers; simplistic jingoism and
nutty neoconservatism.
Thanks but no thanks.
"Handsome" wrote: "Thanks but no thanks."
And yet, here you are again.
Funny how you just can't stay away. It's almost like someone threw a party to which you were not invited.
So you come anyway, and stand outside shouting insults and throwing rocks.
Get a life, dude!
BATS RIGHT, THROWS RIGHT
You may be right?
How’s this one:
New York’s - Queen of Hatred
"I love Sarah." "No,I love Sarah more" Grizzled, I think we can handle a little more disagreement than this. "I hate the left" "No, I hate the left more." Is this what you want this blog to be? Do you want to exclude people who don't agree with you? Why that sounds like censorship!
Grizzled,
To be blunt, bugger off! I read several people in here who dissent from the Palin Worship line. You gonna tell them the same?
I am simply citing FACTS (which to the far right are
like holy water and crosses to vampires) and my closing line
about Thanks but no thanks simply is pointing out that as a young voter who was under 30 on Election Day and an independent, we do not
believe Mrs. Palin is capabable of reaching beyond her core of fanatics and that she is never going to be president. You are
entitled to your opinions. You are NOT entitled to your own facts, FUCKSTICK!
Furthermore, she was caught in a lie again, regarding Death Panels.
All sources of any repute refuted that lie IMMEDIATELY. Yet, the
Dems in Congress, lacking any fortitude at all remove a provision based on a myth! They should have told her and her minions to literally FUCK THEIR OWN FACES and called her by name as the lying whore she is but chose not to. Dowd's piece was
a backhanded slap at Democrats for being pushed by a BITCH on Facebook and how some Arctic Trash drama queen on the internet, holding NO political office or policy post, can derail the process and change the paradigm (I hope words like paradigm are not too big I have to fucking download a Web version of Crayola to make this shit real simple for all the
mouth breathing Palinista simpletons).
There is NO BILL! There are several versions of a bill to reform health care in this country, which, btw Grizzledface is ranked fucking 37th in the world; spending more yet having worse outcomes. HSAs are too convoluted and the current system
is not working. Whether or not the
47 million uninsured is the actual number is not relevant;ccording to the Census Bureau in 2007, the
number of uninsured was 45.7 million. The only sources saying this stat is a myth are GOP/con
sources.
The right does not want a debate; they want to shout down and intimidate elected officials (often coming in from out of state to harangue senators and reps) until the Congress and Obama throw up their hands and water it down to
nothing.
That said, as usual, GO FUCK YOURSELF!
"Handsome"[sic]wrote:
"That said, as usual, GO FUCK YOURSELF!"
I think we have a winner!
Great to see you are back.
While it is obvious you are "under 30", you assume all independents think like you do. Not so.
Cite all the facts you like; no one told you to shut up, (although you may want to take a bar of soap to that nasty hole you call a mouth).
I simply wonder, since Sarah Palin is not your cup of tea, why you continue to imbibe?
As to your claims, while it is technically true that HR-3200 does not contain provisions for a "Death Panel", check out HR-1 (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act). There you will find legislation creating the "Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research", a unelected group, (funded to the tune of $1.1 billion), responsible for deciding which medical treatments and procedures are cost effective. This council, conceived by former minority leader Tom Daschle, is to "slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs."
"Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt."
Here are links to the articles quoted:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/death_panel_is_not_in_the_bill.html
Valuable info for those who choose to be informed.
So, it seems Sarah was right about an Obama Death Panel, which is now the law of the land.
Regarding your other assertions, I just remember the first thing we learned in Statistics 101: "Data and statistics can be arranged to support ANY argument".
While you initially posted here weeks ago asking questions and expressing concern about how Sarah would draw support from beyond her base, it has become clear from today's submission that you are really here simply to throw rocks.
"Handsome"[sic] wrote: "The right does not want a debate; they want to shout down and intimidate..."
Who is shouting and hurling expletives?
Take a look in the mirror, "Handsome"[sic].
for those interested:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/death_panel_is_not_in_the_bill.html
I did not say ALL independents. My fucking citations simply said that idnepdendents favored Obama in '08 by a 52% t0 44%, the rest most likely going to third party candidates like Nader or people writing None of the Above, as suggested by Jesse Ventura.
I also pointed out 2/3 of young voters were opposed to this media whore.
Now, your citations, great. The issue is, the dingbat Palin attached the term Death Panel to
the current healthcare proposal and
not to the legislation you cited. BTW, American Thinker is a right wing propaganda publication, but ok.
As for Dowd, she has also attacked
Hillary Clinton in the past. Guess what? Hillary just kept going forward and her supporters did not cry foul, saying Dowd was jealous.
I've heard the lines about Statistics. Blah, blah, fucking blah. The most credible sources say the only way that stupid bitch gets near the WH is with a tourist pass. Dowd is right. She took
some buzzwords, a few footnotes (meaning someone else likely posted the follow-up response because Caribou Barbie probably would not know the distinction between a footnote or endnote; tv journalists are TALKING HEADS; the only time I would want that whore's mouth moving is if my dick is in it) and hijacked a very important piece of legislation.
As far as why do I imbibe. It is like this: Lobbyists and health insurance industry coalitions send
out of towners to disrupt town halls and create chaos and the right constantly astroturfs. Paybacks are a motherfucking bitch, aren't they? I have decided to invade a right wing forum and see how people appreciate being attacked. After all, that is what these shills are doing to stifle the debate; shouting prepared taliking points: Socialism, death panels, etc. So, I have a few talking points of my own. Execpt mine are based on
credible and objective sources (see initial postings) and FactCheck, which broke the fact Palin as a lying c-u-n-t!
I close with this limmerick I read somewhere:
There once was a woman who was quite begat. She had three babies named Nat, Pat, and Tat. She said it was fun in the breeding, but found it was hell in the feeding when she saw there was no tit for Tat. You have caused me no end of trouble, but now I shall return the favor. Tit for Tat, right?
The only place Palin will be in 2012 is in MILF porn. It is what it is and that's that.
Handsome, I sympathize with you. I live in an area of the country where people are educated. My Conservative friends don't talk about "death panels", but bring up good points about budget concerns and the administering of agencies. It is hard, for me at least, to understand where all the stupidity comes from. Michael April said that Maureen Dowd face looks like shit. What does that have to do with anything? Next thing these Palin lovers will be calling us doo-doo heads. It's really pointless to try to discuss anything with them.
"Handsome"[sic] wrote:
"I have decided to invade a right wing forum and see how people appreciate being attacked."
I think that says it all.
Tanks for coming clean.
Bye bye.
Grizzled' Bloomberg article is by
former Republican Lt. Gove Betsy
McCaughey, a piece and opinion debunked by FactCheck: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/02/doctors-orders/
The panel she credits Obama with creating was in fact created by Bush, the National Coordinator of
Health Information Tehnology.
From the FactCheck article on claims of rationing:
"She claims that the new board’s goals are described in a book by former Sen. Tom Daschle, who was President Obama’s first choice to head HHS, and that it will be similar to the British board she mentioned. That’s wrong. What the stimulus legislation establishes is a Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research, which is a very different thing from the board described by Daschle in his book, "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis."
More important, this research council has no power to set standards or ration care. Its duties are limited to supporting and coordinating what is called comparative effectiveness research. What’s that? A 2007 Congressional Budget Office report describes it as "a rigorous evaluation of the impact of different options that are available for treating a given medical condition, for a particular set of patients." In other words, it’s nothing more than a scientific effort to identify which treatments work best and are most cost-effective. For example, such studies can compare competing drugs, or compare the effect of drugs versus surgery.
Furthermore, despite McCaughey’s sudden alarm, such research is nothing new. The federal government has funded comparative effectiveness research since the late 1970s, through Republican administrations as well as Democratic administrations. In 1989, under President George H.W. Bush, the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality was established. The CBO called it "the most prominent federal agency supporting various types of research on the comparative effectiveness of medical treatments." The Department of Veterans Affairs and the National Institutes of Health also fund such research."
So, a link to an article by a woman with a known ambiguous relationship with facts shows
how partisans think they can pull the wool over people's eyes.
Anonomous, I agree. There are reasonable conservatives-David Brooks (more of a neocon but reasonable), Kathleen Parker,
William Safire, Andrew Sullivan (at least on economic issues) and
Ron Paul.
However, people who argue from a POV of Dowd's physical features and try to play the jealousy card have already lost the argument because looks have nothing to do with the issue at hand. Unfortunately, whenever someone, particularly a woman, writes a piece or even a line critical of Sarah Palin, as Parker did recently, the fanatics come out in droves and call names like "hag" or
say that Parker or Dowd must be jealous. Let's get off the attractive quotient and discuss policy but they can't.
Dowd simply said Congressional and
Senate Democrats and the President have allowed themselves to be intimidated by a woman who walked out on her own constituents with 17
months left on her term, whose only forum or pulpit is Facebook, where she can write or claim anything with practical impunity.
It actually slams Dems as well as the Wicked Witch of Wasilla.
What did she say wrong again?
There are people whom I would distrust to provide me with correct time of day.
Andrew Sullivan.
Levi Johnson
.
.
.
.
Katy Couric
Maureen Dowd
Larry, "who", not "whom"
I grappled with the case of that sentence and started to re-write it rather tan sort it out.
The laziness took command.
Conservatives Now Outnumber Liberals in All 50 States, Says Gallup Poll
Monday, August 17, 2009
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief
Remember people! Gallup is a liberal democratic numbers racket, so things must be getting rough for our “Doo Doo Head” friends who ‘can understand’ to much of anything.
Michael April, "too" not "to".
It looks as if the rule is:
If you don't have anything useful to say, carp about typographical errors.
Anonymously.
As the world-famous philosopher said: What a maroon.
I'll try to do better, but cut me some slack--English is a second language for me--typo is my first.
I'm out.
I read the article in Bloomberg and it was by none other than
Betsy McCaughey and her claims were debunked by FactCheck.
Link:http://www.factcheck.org/2009/02/doctors-orders/.
Her claim about an independent board for comparative research was
prove to be wrong. From FactCheck:
"What the new law sets up is not an independent agency, for one thing. Instead, the coordinating council is to be made up of senior officers from various federal agencies, including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the National Institutes of Health. More important, this research council has no power to set standards or ration care..."
So, a Palinista cites American Thinker, a right wing publication and an article by another Republican diva who has been proven to have a less than faithful relationship with facts.
The problem with the Palinistas is that instead of arguing the issue or merits thereof, they want to argue peripheral personality issues e.g. Palin is more attractive than Dowd and therefore, Dowd must be jealous. How that fucking stupidity becomes
part of the argument eludes me.
If anyone with a brain larger than a fucking walnut actually read Dowd, it was an underhanded indictment of Democrats: How can
a woman who up and QUIT on her constituents, whose only forum is
the Web (where she does not have to be grilled or meet chain of liability rules) intimidate the
Congress and the President into
backing down to the point of no reform at all?
Read the current Marist Poll (btw, Marist is Bill O'Reilly's alma mater):http://www.examiner.com/x-20271-Fresno-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m8d18-Palin-vs-Obama--What-new-polling-suggests-if-they-were-to-face-each-other-in-2012
It looks like on Election Day in 2012, we will see another Obama
sweep should SP be the GOP
nominee.
In the meantime, I hope Palin takes a few moments from spreading lies on the web and gets busy with either Todd or her favorite toy and
gets enough of an O that she can put aside her sheer hatred and
sociopathy for a few minutes.
Howard Dean Says Senate Republicans Want Obama Dead
As Dean suggests: Senate Republicans want to "kill the bill and kill the president"
This is insanity, pure an simple.
It's totally cool how you guys suggest that anyone who criticizes Palin should be voted off the planet. After all, if you can't wipe out the dissenting voices and shut up anyone who disagrees with you, what kind of democracy IS this?!
"...what kind of democracy IS this?!"
Work out what the "D" in "GDR" stands for.
Post a Comment