Showing posts with label Maureen Dowd. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Maureen Dowd. Show all posts

Monday, April 13, 2015

The Hillary Show Begins

SNL perfectly captures the spirit of the Hill and Bill show going forward as they imagine the "low key" announcement of her candidacy that did in fact happen Sunday:



(H/T Legal Insurrection)

Yes, there is the sense of entitlement, the reference to the e-mail scandals, the utter lack of sincerity, and much more. Hats off to SNL for a pitch perfect skit. And the moment at 1:12 when Hillary tries to "look natural" is quite good.

Of course, the Onion's take on the announcement was equally as good:

After several seconds spent sitting motionless and glaring directly into the camera, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reportedly began Sunday’s video announcing her 2016 presidential bid by warning the nation not to fuck this up for her. “Listen up, assholes, ’cause I’m only saying this once: I’ve worked way too goddamn hard to let you morons blow this thing for me,” said Clinton, repeatedly jabbing her index finger toward the viewers at home while adding that if they thought she was going to simply sit back and watch them dick her over like they did in 2008, they were out of their fucking minds. “Seriously, don’t you dare even think about it. If you shitheads can just get in line, we can breeze through this whole campaign in 19 months and be done with it. Or, if you really want, we can do this the hard way. Because make no mistake, I’m not fucking around. Got it?” Clinton then ended her announcement by vowing to fight for a better future for all working-class families like the one she grew up in.

Comedy, but not far off the mark, I think. Hillary, as I pointed out below, intends to stay as far away from real press as possible, preferably until the coronation. We can expect a campaign of buzz words - empowerment, families, middle class - and no substance.

This from Roger Simon's post, No Questions, Please: Hillary Announces on Twitter:

America rejoice! A multi-millionairess serial liar married to a multi-millionaire serial adulterer has just announced for the presidency of our country to save the middle class from impoverishment! (Or was it “income inequality”?) (Or was it “Chelsea Clinton in a Gucci dress, Mateo New York bracelet, Cartier bracelet, Garland Collection ring, Halleh ring,” as appears in this month’s Elle?)

Better tell Rosa Luxemburg, Lenin and Trotsky, not to mention Gil Scott-Heron. His song got it wrong. The Revolution is going to be televised (until we’re blue in the face) and it will start in tony Chappaqua on a posh gated estate with pool and tennis court, guarded by the Secret Service with its own (exceptionally) private email system, infinite closed-circuit video surveillance and who knows what else?

Is everyone throwing up yet? Not even Maureen Dowd is buying. Oh, well, American “liberalism” has been screwing the lower classes for the last fifty years. Why stop now?

But maybe we are reaching a new low. It couldn’t be more obvious why Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy on Twitter and a disingenuous video. She’ll do anything not to take questions. Her last encounter with the press, over her vanishing emails, made Richard Nixon seem like Diogenes. In fact, Nixon is Diogenes compared to Hillary. Imagine how the press would have reacted if Nixon had lied about being under fire in Bosnia… or anywhere. Or had claimed that “the great leftwing conspiracy” was the cause of “Pat’s affairs.” (Well, scratch that.)

Hillary is also probably the most immoral person to run for president. Anyone who could tell the father of Tyrone Woods, the Navy SEAL murdered in Benghazi, that they would “get the man who made that video” at his son’s own funeral is capable of just about anything. . . .

And from Maureen Dowd:

Her paranoia, secrecy, scandals and disappearing act with emails from her time as secretary of state have inspired a cascade of comparisons with Nixon. . . .

She wants to avoid the coronation vibe this time, a member of her orbit told Politico’s Glenn Thrush, even though Martin O’Malley, a potential rival, objected that “the presidency of the United States is not some crown to be passed between two families” and The Onion reported her campaign slogan is “I deserve this.”

Hillary’s team plans to schedule low-key events where she can mingle with actual voters. “I think it’s important, and Hillary does, too, that she go out there as if she’s never run for anything before and establish her connection with the voters,” Bill Clinton told Town & Country for a cover story.

The Big Dog, who got off his leash last time in South Carolina, said he will start small as well, noting: “My role should primarily be as a backstage adviser to her until we get much, much closer to the election.”

Democratic strategists and advisers told The Washington Post’s Anne Gearan and Dan Balz that “the go-slow, go-small strategy” plays to her strengths, “allowing her to meet voters in intimate settings where her humor, humility and policy expertise can show through.”

As the old maxim goes, if you can fake humility, you’ve got it made. . . .

Instead of a chilly, scripted, entitled policy wonk, as in 2008, Hillary plans to be a warm, spontaneous, scrappy fighter for average Americans. Instead of a woman campaigning like a man, as in 2008, she will try to stir crowds with the idea of being the first woman president. Instead of haughtily blowing off the press, as in 2008, she will make an effort to play nice.

It’s a do-or-die remodeling, like when you put a new stainless steel kitchen in a house that doesn’t sell. . . .

Now, after 25 years on the national stage, Hillary is still hitting the reset button on her image, this time projecting herself as a warm, loving grandmother.

Politico, for its part, has already started posting Hillary campaign releases as if they are actual article. From their latest, we learn that Hillary is on a "1,000 mile road trip" to Iowa, making "unplanned" stops along the way (read "no press waiting") and in Iowa, to participate in a "series of small, private events," (read "no press invited.") The campaign is careful to point out that this road trip "was her own idea." What a woman of the people.

Lastly, this from Instapundit: "My question for Hillary, shamelessly stolen from a tweet I can’t find now: Do the underage girls held as sex slaves on Jeffrey Epstein’s private island that Bill visited feel “empowered” by Hillary’s candidacy?"





Read More...

Monday, September 10, 2012

Whoa! NYT's Maureen Dowd's Primal Scream

NYT's columnist Maureen Dowd - master of the poison pen almost always aimed to the right side of the political spectrum - has ripped into Obama over his acceptance speech. It is a primal leftist scream over the One's failure to meet his 2008 campaign promises, and his attempt to point the finger of blame elsewhere - and more specifically, at the left. It does make for quite the enjoyable read:

. . . In his renomination acceptance speech here on Thursday night, [Obama] told us that America’s problems were tougher to solve than he had originally thought.

And that’s why he has kindly agreed to give us more time.

Because, after all, it’s our fault.

“So you see, the election four years ago wasn’t about me,” President Obama explained. “It was about you. My fellow citizens, you were the change.”

We were the change!

We were the change? Us?

How on earth could we have let so much of what we fought for slip away? How did we allow Mitch McConnell, Karl Rove, the super PACs, the Tea Party, the lobbyists and the special interests take away our voice?

“Only you can make sure that doesn’t happen,” the president chastised us. “Only you have the power to move us forward.”

We’re so lame. We were naïve, brimming with confidence that we could slow the rise of the oceans, heal the planet, fix the cracks in the Capitol dome.

We never should have let the Congressional Democrats run wild with their stimulus spending on pork that didn’t even create the right kinds of jobs. . . .

It’s depressing to look back and remember what soaring hopes we had for ourselves only four years ago. Did we overdo it with the Greek columns? Sheesh, a million people showed up for our inauguration. Now we brag when we break 10,000.

What a drag to realize that Hillary was right: big rallies and pretty words don’t always get you where you want to go. Who knew that Eric Cantor wouldn’t instantly swoon at the sound of our voice or the sight of our smile?

Our forbearing leader didn’t pander to us with that standard breakup line: “It’s not you, it’s me.”

He gave it to us straight: It’s not me, it’s you.

. . .

Maybe we relied too much on Valerie Jarrett, a k a the Night Stalker and Keeper of the Essence. She says people should woo us. But could it be that we need to woo them as well?

How could we have let the storybook president lose his narrative?

How could we keep failing to explain what changes we have gotten through? Why is salesmanship so beneath us? . . .

We are grateful to the president for deigning to point out our flaws and giving us another chance.

“I’m the president,” he intoned.

But We, the People, must do the work.

The buck stops with us.

To paraphrase Dracula, "the children of the left, what sweet music they make." Do read her whole column.







Read More...

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Why We Will Never Have An Honest Debate With The Left

Maureen Dowd is the poster girl for why its impossible to have an honest debate with the left.

I am not a big reader of the New York Times columnist, Maureen Dowd. I was reminded of why when I clicked onto her column today, Men In Black. According to Ms. Dowd, the right side of the Court, whom she describes as "hacks dressed up in black robes," are wholly partisan. Thus she not merely excuses Obama for his repugnant attack on the Court yesterday, but eggs him on.

Her column is one long ad hominem attack after another. But its the few arguments she makes that are what have me frosted. Her arguments are at best intellectually dishonest. The other options are that she is either intellectually lazy or, worse, not too intelligent. You can decide for yourself.

For instance, at one point, she takes Justice Scalia to task:

If he’s so brilliant, why is he drawing a risible parallel between buying health care and buying broccoli?

Now, she's not a lawyer, so she can be forgiven for not understanding the nuances of the law. But this is not nuance. The basic argument against the Obamacare mandate is so simple anyone can grasp it. It is that our government is one of enumerated powers, it does not have the power to force someone to buy something, and if it does, then there is no limit to government power. I hope for her sake that she is not so dumb that she is incapable of understanding why Scalia's question goes to the heart of the whole case against Obamacare. She is either being deliberately disingenuous or she is too lazy to bother making the tiniest effort to understand the arguments in the case.

But she doesn't end there. She later adds:

Just as Scalia voted to bypass that little thing called democracy and crown W. president, so he expressed ennui at the idea that, even if parts of the health care law are struck down, some provisions could be saved: “You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?” he asked, adding: “Is this not totally unrealistic?”

Poor girl, she still hasn't gotten over Bush v. Gore. That aside, I don't expect her to understand the legal nuances of severability and why the Supreme Court has no business trying to rewrite a law where Congress itself included no severability provision. That said, she should at least acknowledge that if the Court opts to only throw out the mandate to buy insurance, this bill will have no funding provision, and that would drive health insurance costs rocketing skyward. Is she so dumb that she is unable to fathom the consequences of what she is asking for?

And lastly, Dowd concludes:

But it isn’t conservative to overturn a major law passed by Congress in the middle of an election. The majority’s political motives are as naked as a strip-search.

Whoa. That is her closing argument for why Obamacare should be found constitutional? That constitutionality should turn on election year politics? What sheer idiocy. There can be no common ground with people this dumb, lazy, or dishonest. And Dowd is at least one of those, if not all three.







Read More...