Brutal. But honest and accurate. Thank you, Professor.
Nope, just peevish.
“Ms. Dowd is in the wrong line of work. She doesn’t understand American politics.”
She and fellow bellow Paul Krugman are perfect examples of why all Dems should be compelled to register as agents for foreign powers. They don’t understand America or Americans, they don’t like what they think they do know, and they are busy trying to undermine us and rebuild us in the images of foreign countries they like a whole lot more than America.
Loved “fellow bellow”!
Only in your twisted mind does Paul Krugman bear any resemblance with Maureen Dowd.
They both have huge vajayjays. Does that count?
I’m shocked, Shocked! to see that someone who gabs for a living thinks politics can be reduced to the proper application of gab! Of course, Obama himself is gab-addicted, and has been following Dowd’s “strategy” throughout his Presidency, which is why he’s not done much of anything since he lost part of Congress.
Glad there’s no obstruction from the cabal of McConnell/Boehner lackeys!
Is it only obstruction when done by Republicans? How about the obstruction by Reid/Pelosi lackeys when Bush was President? Kind of tough how “what goes around comes around.” “Reap what ye sow” and so on.
I do love the whining of Lefties when they lose, though.
I’m glad we obstruct garbage from garbage libs like yourself.
Because no other president in history had to deal with an opposition party. Poor little Barry, he’s the most powerful impotent in the world.
Was working in North Dakota fall 2012. Landlord was “extremely conservative”. He did not trust Rep. Rick Berg, Berg had a bad reputation. North Dakota has a population of 700,000, everybody knows you if you are a statewide office holder. Think small town. The seat was Berg’s to lose and he did. Heitkamp ran on a pro-gun, pro farmer subsidy, pro Obama care law(not really never mentioned she voted for as Rep.), fight Obama on everything else campaign platform and won despite North Dakota fighting the health care law. What I learned was North Dakotan’s want to be left the h*** alone unless we are talking farm welfare. Second thing I learned was I never have to apologize for Sen. Franken again. Third thing, North Dakotan’s do not forget, Heitkamp would have been done if she had voted for this bill, there is a gun on every coffee table, a nuclear missile in every back yard and B-52 bombers in the sky on a daily basis.
Working in Minot ND, State fair, looked up, B-52 bomber, biggest plane I have ever seen, 300 feet off the ground, cracked 8 jet engines wide open, ground shook, God bless America.
Politics are messy, 2nd amendment is not.
Would you explain the Franken reference?
In my opinion Sen. Franken is an embarrassment to humanity but no more so than many other politicians elected in the last 4 years. Short version, behind by 725 votes, ended up winning by 312 votes,1100 felons have been identified as voting illegally, 177 convicted so far. Odds are he did not win. Too late now.
You know there’s an air force base in Minot, right?
So B-52’s are to be expected. I doubt the guns on the coffee tables. North Dakota is a continuing target of military quotas as they never seem to have enough minorities entering the military.
Good people there. Wide open spaces. They know how to take care of themselves and their livestock.
In North Dakota guns, duh. Nobody cares about about that skin color crap. Work hard, that is all they ask.
747s are 90 feet longer and twice as heavy as B52s.
For me a lowly carpenter,(just doing the manual labor job Americans won’t do),whatever, looking up at that plane doing a flyby for the fair, thinking about the men and women braver than me, that was a big awesome machine. Men and women fighting so I can type comments. Pfft. I can’t even do punctuation and grammar correctly let alone spell. 747’s maybe bigger but not bigger on that day. God bless the American soldier.
There was clearly an unwritten “boy” in her column.
Please elaborate…and let your true “color” show.
You just did.
Without accusations [implicit or explicit] of racism they got nothing.
Heh. He’s referring to an infamous Dowd column in where she accused a Republican of speaking to Obama in a racist manner. Her evidence was the word “boy” said in a condescending manner… which the original speaker never actually said and Dowd admittedly added in her mind’s ear.
That’s Dowd for you: If you don’t actually say anything racist, she’ll add the racism for you and write a column about how you’re a racist anyway.
I love libs who don’t know jack crap about references. I thought you were the “smart” ones!
How’s this: You announce that you are opening the nuclear waste facility in Nevada. Then you call Harry Reid and ask about the filibuster.
A devastatingly funny and on-target essay by Professor Mead, but it missed one important aspect of Dowd’s (and the President’s) vapidity on this issue: both of them seem to assume – without any attempt to even make an argument as to the merits — that the background check bill that failed would have actually addressed the causes of the Newtown tragedy, when in fact it had no relationship whatever to those causes and would not, if passed, have prevented the next mass shooting. In other words, neither of them seem to have paid any attention whatsoever to the substance of the legislation, reducing their efforts to exploiting the victims’ families by enlisting them in a “we must do something” campaign to pass anything that could loosely be classified as “gun control”. Neither the Senate nor the public was (or should have been) galvanized to support enhanced background checks as an antidote to Newtown (notwithstanding the fact that the idea may have independent merit); perhaps if Obama had actually engaged on the substance and had backed a package that would appeal to a broader spectrum of Americans — mental health screening for gun purchases, efforts to reduce the searing violence served up by his Hollywood and VIdeogame-making supporters and better security at schools — a bill that 60 Senators would have supported could have emerged. It’s because, like Dowd, the President governs solely from the left — and has no ability to see, let alone challenge, the Liberal pieties of the Academy and the NY Times, and no ability to persuade voters of anything other than the evil motives of his opponents — that he’s unable to win legislative victories in a divided Congress. This, more than the style points focused on by Dowd, is the true reason for his ineffectiveness as a leader. Sad for the country.
Riiiiiiight! Are you related to Dowd? Your inane parroting of RW talking points was as laughable as Dowd’s baby gloves piece.
So, what did he say that was wrong?
Just because it wouldn’t have prevented Newtown doesn’t mean the legislation shouldn’t be passed. That’s not a very good argument against the expanded background checks. And he made assumptions about what he believed the POTUS and Ms. Dowd assumed.
That’s what he said that was wrong.
My comment is specifically addressing your question regarding Mark B.’s OP and nothing else.
I understand Rollo’s disagreement and appreciate his civility, so I’ll try to explain further: Mead criticizes Dowd for not understanding Politics in her critique of Obama (who likewise doesn’t understand), and for having no clue as to how the process actually works. My comment is that what Mead, Dowd and Obama are all missing is that the content of the legislation actually matters (and should); that if you want to enact gun control measures by leveraging Newtown you should at least respect the public’s intelligence sufficiently to be proposing things that would have actually made a difference. That far more Americans (and Senators) would have rallied behind the call to “do something” if the utilization of the Newtown parents as political props bore even the slightest connection to the specific legislation being advocated. With Obama, it’s a distinct pattern: his gun control bill bears no relationship to Newtown, the Keystone pipeline and Cap/trade would do nothing to impact climate change, his budget “cuts” increase the deficit and Obamacare will not, in fact, reduce healthcare costs or “let you keep your doctor if you like your doctor”. The complete disconnect between rhetoric and reality is, I believe, a far more important critique of the President’s leadership than whatever tactics he is/isn’t deploying in pursuit of his purported goals.
The legislation, like any other semi-serious attempt at gun control, had no chance of passage. The whole charade was cynical political posturing, a.k.a. Kabuki
I don’t think so. I know any number of 2nd Amendment supporters who would support a properly drafted and reasonable background check law. What was on offer had, what, 400 carve-outs. That alone shows that it’s a crappy bill,
If someone believes we need more than the some 25,000 gun laws already on the books, it’s hard to see how we can reasonably call them second amendment supporters.
The legislation was supposed to get through the Senate and be blocked in the House by the Republicans. These was the setup for the 2014 mid-terms. It backfired on the Dems/Obama.
So more failure is the cure for failure?
Liberals believe the only reason Gasoline can’t put out a fire is because we haven’t used enough of it yet. We should use more next time!
“Just because it wouldn’t have prevented Newtown doesn’t mean the legislation shouldn’t be passed.”
Your comment reminds me of the joke about the guy who was looking for a quarter he dropped two blocks from where he was looking. When asked why there and not where he dropped it, he replied “because the light is better here.”
Unfortunately many legislators take exactly that approach: let’s not bother to examine causes of situations or likely effects of legislation. Let’s just pass something that looks good and worry about ramifications later.
Obamacare, for example?
Criminals don’t follow laws, fuknutz. Pass as many guns laws as you want, and the bad guys still ignore them. Get guns into hands of law abiding citizens to protect themselves and level the playing field. Libs are so damn stupid I can’t take it.
“both of them seem to assume – without any attempt to even make an argument as to the merits — that the background check bill that failed would have actually addressed the causes of the Newtown tragedy”
I rather think they don’t care, Mark. Democrats have never been very canny about solutions they propose. They are indifferent to results. Anyone can see that from the way they cling to Head Start. It’s the sentiment behind the legislation that counts, you see, not the results. Any gun control is another step to confiscation, which is just fine with them.
No, they aren’t indifferent to results. They simply are looking at different results from the ones they talk about when proposing and passing a law.
Head Start does what it is intended to do, turn the screw another turn on making kids propertry of the State. Judged on that basis, Head Start is a success.
Gun Control isn’t intended to reduce crime and mayhem. Crime and mayhem are requirements of the fear and terror needed to pass further gun control. The goal is no arms in civilian possession, ‘scary’ knives included. Judge gun bills by that metric and they are all good bills.
Did I tell you that I like paragraphs?
How very mean. You can’t seriously tell the Dowds to abandon their natural habitat, La La Land?
If she and those like her don’t manage to breed, the species will die out. Evolution can be cruel.
MoDo the un-laid DoDo! The children’s book writes itself!
This is an almost incoherent ad hominem attack; I’m no huge fan of M Dowd’s, but this is just a rant. And Dowd’s right on this one. Obama won’t do his politico homework: have Boehner for lunch once a week, golf with both R and D, develop relationships based on spending time. He’s aloof, and Dowd’s right to criticize him for it.
Obama offers up the chained CPI that the GOP wanted and they still won’t make a deal with him. Yeah, he’s the problem.
As long as the GOP gets no blame for the obstruction and intransigence from people like you, the country will remain gridlocked and unable to accomplish anything.
Which is probably what they really want. The countries suffers so a political party can say: “Obama hasn’t done anything”.
Sadly, there are many American so ignorant and misinformed that they believe it. I’ll bet at least 25% of Americans think the President can pass laws. The GOP thrives because of this ignorance.
If chained CPI is such a wonderful idea it first should be implemented on public sector pensions, benefits and salaries.
Because actually implementing chained CPI would be SO awesome!
Hey, I know you don’t want to buy my Range Rover for $40,000, so I’ll throw in that car seat I know you like. You’re crazy not to do the deal, right?
The country is suffering from not passing a gun control law that would not control guns? And Obama does nothing in response except vilify gun owners and further divide us. Even Tokyo Rose wasn’t as good as Obama at this.
Finally, your greatest expression of ignorance is your claim that the GOP profits most from the ignorance of low-information voters. Wow! You make Dowd look like Aristotle.
So being a Patriot is having the government pass more laws, pass more regulations, pass more taxes, spend more money? THAT’S “accomplishment” to you? Quite frankly, they do enough damage while gridlocked, let’s not let them loose to create even more damage and misery. Obama is the problem because he’s a socialist, pea-brained lib whose polices suck as much as your comment.
It is only lefties who are complaining that “Obama hasn’t done anything.”
People on the right tend to complain that everything Obama does is wrong and damages the country and he should be obstructed whenever and wherever possible. People on the right have generally given up on the idea of accomplishing anything positive as long as Obama in in office. Most of the criticism of Congress from the right comes from them failing to block Obama’s agenda. Half of the country believes that gridlock is the best we can hope for until January 2017.
Dowd as per usual is wrong. The bill had a slim chance of passing in the senate and none in the house. It was a sham and was intended to rally the liberals for the 2014 election. Obama just squandered political capital which considering all of his proposals is a good thing.
Prof. Mead, this was not your finest essay. Of course Dowd is an ideologue, but the real issue here is the abandonment of any sense of propriety on the part of all concerned. As I’ve noted elsewhere, the chances of any serious gun control passing either the House or the Senate are precisely zero, which makes the whole thing nothing but Kabuki. Given what I have observed of the petulance of POTUS I found the spectacle of Dowd telling him how to rule quite delicious.
Uppity to arrogant to petulant. Sentiment is still the say.
Air of superiority. You and Dowd.
Pots and kettles confuse him, Be kind.
I think Professor Mead has blown his chance to be invited to one of Maureen’s famous parties. Doesn’t he know that she lives in the same Georgetown home that JFK and Jackie lived in when he was the Senator from Massachusetts?
Actually Mead and Dowd do agree on one thing; they both have a visceral dislike of Al Gore. A year or so ago Professor Mead wrote a few posts excoriating the former Vice President. Back when Gore was running against Bush, Dowd never missed a chance to ridicule Gore. In one famous column she explained that Gore was “so feminized that he is practically lactating.” She wrote column after column poking fun at Gore while praising the masculinity of the cowboy boot wearing candidate from Texas.
It’s too bad that Professor Mead will now surely end up on Dowd’s “do not call” list. Just think of all the fun they could have had reminiscing about what a dork the former Vice President is.
Professor Mead is engaging in a little bit of Dowd-like disingenuity when he claims that its Dowd’s status as a “gentry liberal” which motivated her criticism of Obama on gun control. Actually, Dowd has been a relentless critic of Obama’s. She’s an equal opportunity nut case and she’s praised plenty of Republicans and poked fun at plenty of Democrats.
For years she was one of John McCain’s biggest fans. She supported Bush’s invasion of Iraq and lambasted Gore for criticizing the War.
In 2008 during the Democratic Primaries she constantly made fun of Hillary Clinton (she was relentless while criticizing Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal). She didn’t treat Obama any better; on more than one occassion she compared him to Scarlet O’Hara. If Dowd is such a “gentry liberal, how does Professor Mead explain the fact that she constantly ridiculed the liberal’s favorite candidate, John Edwards?
In fact, Dowd couldn’t write a column without referring to Edwards perfectly coifed hair. Her nick name for him (repeated in several columns) was the “Breck Girl”. Once the race for the nomination came down to Clinton, Obama and Edwards, Dowd famously called Clinton “the only man left in the race.”
Mead is mistaken; yes Dowd is crazy but she’s no liberal.
Thank you, Prof. Mead, for reading Dowd so that we don’t have to.
Trash. I know a number of liberals and none of them are blaming Obama for this failure. First the BG Check bill that was voted on was not what Obama proposed and was in fact a bill that was introduced by a Republican and Democrat Senator. The bill also received the support of the majority of Senators but failed because of the unconstitutional filibuster. I say unconstitutional because the Constitution clearly says that each Senator SHALL have one vote. If a minority of Senators can defeat legislation then it gives that minority more than one vote. And yes I know Democrats have also used the filibuster but it was unconstitutional then too. The Constitution clearly says when more than a majority vote is required for the Senate to pass something and legislation like this isn’t included.
In short though I believe the vast majority of liberals will blame the failure of this legislation on conservatives, the GOP, a few conservative Democrats, and the NRA.
Please engage brain, or at least Google, before operating fingers: there was no filibuster, and even if there had been it wouldn’t have been illegal. It was a UC measure agreed to by both sides.
You clearly don’t understand how the Senate works. The GOP indicated in advance that they would filibuster the background check legislation. When this happened the Senate Majority Leader (Democrat) and the Senate Minority Leader (Republican) agreed in advance to bring the bill forward and subject it to the 60 votes required to end a filibuster. So while the vote was technically on the bill itsself and not to end a filibuster, the 60 vote requirement was in fact because the GOP filed notice of intent to filibuster. So don’t tell me to engage my brain or use google because I know exactly what I’m talking about its you that don’t seem to understand.
As far as it being illegal, it is clearly unconstitutional. The Constitution is very clear in what requires super majority votes and what doesn’t and this legislation did not require a super majority vote. The Constitution also is explicit in saying that each Senator SHALL only have one vote. If a minority of votes can defeat legislation that the Constitution says only requires a majority vote then it is Unconstitutional. Get a clue.
Perhaps you should get one, as the filibuster is not unconstitutional. it is a Senate RULE, you dolt. please refer to Section 1, Article 5 of the Constitution, and thank you for playing.
You clearly don’t understand the Constitution. Each House is in charge of its own rules. Reid agreed to bring the bill [and amendments] to a floor vote *without* the required unanimous consent that would allow it to pass by a majority vote.
Under Senate rules [totally Constitutional, according to, well, the Constitution, such an action then requires 60 votes to pass.
The purpose of the cloture vote was to establish DEBATE. The democrats, in particular Reid, wanted to do everything in its power to discourage debate. Otherwise, they’d have to face the obvious fact, and defend on the record, enacting laws that HAVE NO EFFECT. They’d have to explain that despite the fact that none of the points in the legislation would have prevented the mass shootings they claim they want to prevent they are still a good idea.
In light of the fact that dems will almost certainly lose some seats in 2014, why make those losses larger, particularly when the chances of the senate bill passing the house was zero.
NO. YOU DON’T.
Dowd and President Obama are just standard Liberals.
Conflicted and Confused…
You are assuming that Dowd herself believes what she wrote. A columnist like her develops a specific audience and she is telling them what they want to hear.
True, just like Krugman, a true wacko ranter and an embarrassment to economics — his audience knows little of economics but comes to be ranted to.
Dowd is cuter, much.
Nonetheless, there’s no reason to think these cosseted and cocooned Deep Thinkers don’t actually believe what they write.
In all fairness, Krugman was a highly-regarded economist … before he took the gig at the NYTimes.
A highly regarded economist–whose field of expertise was international trade patterns
Noted Enron Advisor Paul Krugman was an acclaimed columnist because he was able to tell leftists the lies they liked best. Never confuse celebrity with competence.
I’ll grant that he was a good economist in the 80s and 90s. But he was mixed up with Enron, and he did beat the drum in 2002-3 for another asset bubble to replace the tech collapse.
Word on the street is, he was supposed to have a Fed or CEA appointment in a Gore administration. As it transpired, he turned instead into an embarrassing ranter. Something happened to him around 1999-2000 to send him around the bend.
You have a point there, John. The purpose of many regular columnists/bloggers is to cultivate con-tro-versy. They have to be concerned about foot-traffic.
Let’s recap. According to the self-imagined superior insight of one Russell Mead, we should ignore Obama’s consistent and unambiguous track record of giving away the store before negotiations even ensue, and just suck up the party line that oh, my, even working within his own party to do the right thing is just too hard for the man in the White House. Poor, helpless, little trifle of a President! My heart just bleeds.
Further, according to Mead, anyone who refuses to buy into his wretched excuse-making for this consistent lack of leadership from Democrats (not only Obama, but in the Senate as well) is by association living in Liberal La La Land.
In the case of background checks, that’s 90 percent of the American people. That puts Romney’s 47% characterization to shame.
Of course, when the Keystone pipeline is approved based on environmental impact statements shaped by TransCanada lobbyists, when immunity for damages is conferred to Monsanto in the wake of Obama’s appointment of a Monsanto lobbyist to a key FDA position, when a series of Obama’s banking regulators who circulate in the revolving door with Wall Street insure that “too big to fail” is preserved, when Obama’s Justice Department under girds this by making that “too big to jail” as well, when Obama’s hand-picked Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction team revises their recommendations based on arithmetically flawed assumptions and pushes even more of the burden to those who can least afford it, I suppose we are to believe that all this too is beyond Obama’s control.
It’s getting increasingly embarrassing to defend the Democratic Party spin. It’s getting more absurd with each passing dismal failure. We need leadership that will take the opposition to the mat, not kiss their feet in the hopes they won’t kick us in the teeth for it. Contrary to the assertions of some, Americans are not looking for compromise for the sake of it; they’re looking for sound governance, and we’re not getting it because of the fecklessness of cowering Democrats.
I guess liberals and conservatives can at last agree on something – Obama is utterly incompetent. Now, conservatives said that when he ran for office in 2008, but liberals are…ahem…a bit slow on the uptake.
Oh come on. NOBODY in the Democrat Party actually listens to Maureen Dowd (Please God, let the Democrats start taking advice from Maureen Dowd.). They’ll chat with her at cocktail parties and give her, wink.wink., the inside scoop on things that don’t matter occasionally but they’re as amused by her as Conservatives are. Probably more so, since they’re exposed to her that much more.
“his incompetence, his political cowardice and his sloth.”
Well, there’s always plenty of those three also, just to be fair.
Weak cover for a weak President, by Third Way schmuck Walter Mead. Snore.
don’t think it is cover
pointing out how ugly the left will be to their golden boy when he turns out to be a useless idiot, not a tool for the commies
“Liberal La La Land” sends a message to Mr. Mead – Fuck You and your useless centrism.
Off your meds?
Journalists generally have a certain disdain for politicians, but at the same time they are always quite sure they would be better at politics than actual politicians are.
This is written by the same moron that penned this:
“I’ve written before that Walmart is doing more for the planet than Greenpeace; this is just more proof. A ruthless focus on price and efficiency is the best way to reduce humanity’s environmental footprint.”
Yup – Walmart is doing more for the planet than Greenpeace. Cuz falling prices!
Greenpeace? The greenie terroist aholes?
Perhaps the president was really against the bill and wished to sabotage its passing?
Thanks, for noticing, WRM, but, really, what else is new?
Maureen Dowd has been writing fantasies and nonsense for her devoted audience for years; visit any liberal salon and find it tittering over her verbal gymnastics. Oh, the cleverness! Insight and reasoned discussion, not so much.
And to think this … person was given a place of honor on the dust jacket of Michael Kelly’s posthumously published book of selected works, “Things Worth Fighting For,” because she was his friend. The blurb was perfectly in character with her feminist pretensions: “The *boy* could write,” [emphasis mine] she wrote. Yes, Ms. Dowd, he could, exceedingly well — far beyond your poor power to do so (or, for that matter, to judge) — and, what’s more, he could report and think. Pity his talent never rubbed off on you.
A world filled with Dowdians, the original and the wannabes — influential, fashionable, and utterly fatuous. “Pinch” Sulzberger has much to answer for, including her continued employment.
I’ve been waiting for this piece for a long time. Thank you so much.
she is sooooooo racist
Comments are back? When did this happen? Good. I think the Disqus format will work better.
Maureen is still upset that Michael Douglas chose Catherine Zeta Jones over her. Move on Mo.
Dowd was diverting and even trenchant in the mid-90’s. The Clinton era, with the blue dress and cigars and the “holiday from history,” was perfect for her. Now, when you need to actually know something about politics and policy, not so much.
She had probably just finished watching the movie Lincoln.
“I am the President of the United States of America, clothed in immense
power! You will procure me these votes.”
THIS is gonna leave a mark. ( and deservedly so.)
Walter, did you have to be so, so honest? And pointed. Very pointed.
I give this article 5 thumbs up!
Like the mark in my underwear when I don’t wipe? That kind mark?
No Hardy, like the mark your father should have left on the bed by performing coitus interreptus instead of producing you.
Questioning someone’s competence is hardly improper. In fact, sometimes ad hominem is logical. For example, it’s perfectly reasonable to ask whether someone is a fraudster before hiring them to run a bank. Also, see logician Peter Geach on the subject.
If you wanted me to read an outside source, you’d have linked to it in my first comment.
I’m not putting any time in to elevating this piece above a rant.
Most good material on logic is not available on some website. You’d know that if you had studied the subject in any formal manner.
Nizkor is a good introduction to logic. It’s not more than that, however.
Call it what you want. Those of us who have studied logic will understand that Mead’s piece wasn’t fallacious in terms of ad hominem.
If you think otherwise, demonstrate the relevant fallacy via formal propositions.
Casanova’s advice to seduce a woman was to praise an ugly woman’s intellect or a stupid woman’s beauty. What would you say to Maureen Dowd?
MoDo the un-laid DoDo. Now you know why they went extinct. Too bitchy to survive. Would make a good children’s book explaining natural selection.
“You work with us, we’ll work with you.”
Yeah- and the check is in the mail.