Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Dowd is a cleaned-up version of Coulter

Expand Messages
  • Robert Sterling
    Please send as far and wide as possible. Thanks, Robert Sterling Editor, The Konformist http://www.konformist.com http://dailyhowler.com WIKIDOWDIA! Dowd is a
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 8, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Please send as far and wide as possible.

      Thanks,
      Robert Sterling
      Editor, The Konformist
      http://www.konformist.com

      http://dailyhowler.com

      WIKIDOWDIA! Dowd is a cleaned-up version of Coulter. Wikipedia
      offers some context:
      MONDAY, MARCH 5, 2007

      WHEN YOU READ DOWD, YOU'RE RIDING WITH COULTER: The nation's big
      papers and pundits have been exceptionally dainty about Ann
      Coulter's latest. On Friday, at a major conservative political
      gathering in DC, she called John Edwards a "f*ggot." This has
      produced little reporting or commentary in the mainstream press. For
      example, Coulter's comment has not been mentioned in any of the
      Washington Post's news reporting. (It was mentioned, very briefly,
      in passing, in Dana Milbank's Saturday "sketch.") If Nexis is to be
      believed, it hasn't been mentioned in the Boston Globe or the
      Chicago Tribune at all. This morning, USA Today skips it.

      But then, there's little new about Coulter's conduct—or about the
      press corps' silence. In July 2006, for example, Coulter called Al
      Gore a "total fag" on Hardball. Chris Matthews—an endless Gore-
      trasher himself—didn't utter a peep of protest. No, Matthews doesn't
      approve of Coulter. But he was too weak—too afraid—to speak up.

      Nor did the "press corps" offer a peep of complaint about Coulter's
      ludicrous best-seller, Slander. When it appeared in 2002, the book
      simply brimmed with factual "errors"—literally, from its first page
      to its last. But the New York Times knew the easy way out!
      Its "reviewer," Janet Maslin, took a talking-point straight from
      Coulter. In her "review," Maslin cited the number of foot-notes in
      Slander, and used the footnotes as a marker of the vast research its
      author had so clearly conducted. As we noted, if you simply checked
      out some of those footnotes, you would have quickly seen that
      Coulter's book was a fraud (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 7/22/02). But
      praising Coulter for her research makes life much simpler for
      Manhattan's swells. It exempts them from all those hateful e-mails.
      As such, it gets them to the Hamptons a bit earlier on Fridays. Or
      possibly, on Thursday nights.

      Yep! Our news orgs have long enabled Coulter. If your nation goes up
      in the smoke in the process, these loathsome Antoinettes just don't
      care.

      But then, why should pundits criticize Coulter when she describes
      Dem males as big "f*ggots?" It's very similar to the gender-
      based "analysis" their dauphine, the Comptesse Maureen Dowd, has
      long offered. In Dowd's work, John Edwards is routinely "the Breck
      Girl"(five times so far—and counting), and Gore is "so feminized
      that he's practically lactating." Indeed, two days before we voted
      in November 2000, Dowd devoted her entire column, for the sixth
      time, to an imaginary conversation between Gore and his bald
      spot. "I feel pretty," her headline said (pretending to quote Gore's
      inner thoughts).That was the image this idiot wanted you carrying
      off to the voting booth with you! Such is the state of Maureen
      Dowd's broken soul. And such is the state of her cohort.

      And now, in the spirit of fair play and brotherhood, she is
      extending this type of "analysis" to Barack Obama. In the past few
      weeks, she has described Obama as "legally blonde" (in her
      headline); as "Scarlett O'Hara" (in her next column); as
      a "Dreamboy," as "Obambi," and now, in her latest absurd piece, as
      a "schoolboy" (text below). Do you get the feeling that Dowd may
      have a few race-and-gender issues floating around in her inane,
      tortured mind? But this sort of thing is nothing new for the
      comptesse. Indeed, such imagery almost defines the work of this
      loathsome, inane Antoinette.

      Coulter has been visibly disturbed ever since hitting cable in the
      mid-90s. But Dowd is a borderline nutcase too—a slightly cleaned up
      version of Coulter. (Ah, we Irish! Yes, each had an Irish Catholic
      dad.) Coulter comes right out and calls Dem men "f*ggots"—but
      Maureen Dowd has always come close. Just as Chris Matthews is a
      slightly cleaned-up William Donohue, Dowd is a more presentable
      Coulter. For mainstream voters, Maureen is easier to take. For that
      reason, she has done us more harm.

      Coulter teaches contempt for gays, and tries to extend that contempt
      to Dem pols. But that's what Dowd has done all these years! And we
      liberals and Dems have been too weak to understand and address the
      problem.

      We scream about Coulter—and give Dowd a pass. But when you read
      Dowd, you're riding with Coulter! When will we get our heads out of
      our keisters and take ourselves where the harm is the greatest? It
      makes us feel good to savage vile Coulter. But what about simpering
      Dowd?

      HER LATEST INANITY: Has there ever been a more tortured soul than
      that of the hapless, inane Dowd? Dowd is the badly-maimed semi-
      survivor of our mid-century Irish-Catholic cultural wars. In her
      most recent column, on Saturday past, she pretty much begged us to
      see this.

      The destructive themes of Dowd's broken soul were on display in her
      first seven paragraphs.

      First, the thinly-veiled contempt she directs toward all Big Dem
      male pols. Here's the first paragraph of her column—a column in
      which she begs Obama to get in a big fight with Clinton:
      DOWD (3/3/07): As I sit across from Barack Obama in his Senate
      office, I feel like Ingrid Bergman in ''The Bells of St. Mary's,''
      when she plays a nun who teaches a schoolboy who's being bullied how
      to box.
      It's no surprise to see that the nuns are still haunting Maureen
      Dowd's dreams. But note the instant description of Obama. Let's say
      it again: In the past few weeks, Dowd has described Obama
      as "legally blonde;" as "Scarlett O'Hara;" as "Obambi," as
      a "Dreamboy," and now as a "schoolboy." But as we've noted, Dowd
      persistently mocks Dem males as a race of big girlie-men. They feel
      pretty—and they're the Breck Girl. Now, Obama is constantly some
      sort of "boy"—or an iconic white woman.

      Big Dem men are constantly girls. And big Dem women? Keep reading:
      DOWD (continuing directly—pgh 2): I'm just not certain, having
      watched the fresh-faced senator shy away from fighting with the
      feral Hillary over her Hollywood turf, that he understands that a
      campaign is inherently a conflict.
      Big Dem women are "feral!" Indeed, when we get to paragraph 4
      through 6, Dowd spells it out just as clear as a belle at a ball.
      Added warning! When Dowd refers to Obama as "Barry," it's one more
      snide diminution:
      DOWD (paragraph 4-6): After David Geffen made critical comments
      about Hillary, she seized the chance to play Godzilla stomping on
      Obambi.

      As a woman, she clearly feels she must be aggressive in showing she
      can ''deck'' opponents, as she put it—whether it's Saddam with her
      war resolution vote or Senator Obama when he encroaches on areas
      that she and Bill had presumed were wrapped up, like Hollywood and
      now the black vote.

      If Hillary is in touch with her masculine side, Barry is in touch
      with his feminine side.
      Leave aside the persistent infantilism involved in images
      like "Godzilla" and "Bambi." Here, Dowd states her endless—and
      vacuous—theme. Big Dem males (like "Barry") are girls. And big Dem
      women are men.

      Dowd has pimped these inane, tortured theme for more than a decade.
      For the record, though, one Dem male was not a girl in Saturday's
      column. That would be Clinton aide Howard Wolfson. In paragraph 7,
      Dowd called him as a "thug."

      So let's see. Obama ("Obambi") is just a boy. Clinton ("Godzilla")
      is a man—and she's feral. And what led Dowd to cast this strange
      drama? Simple! When David Geffen called Clinton every name in the
      book, Clinton called on Obama to denounce his statements! Was this a
      good tactical move by Clinton? We have no idea—but it's a very tame
      bit of political conduct. But it isn't tame in the mind of Dowd, or
      in the scripts of her well-scripted cohort! (More below.) In Dowd's
      mind, this unexceptional behavior made Clinton a thug—and, of
      course, it made her a man. And when Obama didn't punch back hard
      enough, that made him a weak boy—a "Barry."

      Dowd goes on and on, throughout this column, trying to start a
      (pointless) fight among Dems. But let's remember the basic theme:
      Every Democrat must be a loser! When Clinton makes a fairly trivial
      move, she has fought Obama too hard! When Obama doesn't name-call
      Clinton, he hasn't fought hard enough!

      It would be hard to get dumber than this. And it's hard to imagine
      why grown men and women at the Times (Andrew Rosenthal) still put
      this embarrassing schlock into print. But unfortunately, Maureen
      Dowd is an authority figure, writing at the top of
      our "journalistic" elite. She has offered this tormented dreck for
      years. During that time, Dems and liberals have suffered endlessly
      from her dumb, tortured conduct. We are in Iraq today because of the
      work of these losers.

      And oh by the way, it's never her fault! Go ahead! Treat yourselves
      to a dark, morbid chuckle as Dowd, in paragraph 3 of this column,
      states an all-important part of her inane cohort's script:
      DOWD (paragraph 3): The Democrats lost the last two excruciatingly
      close elections because Al Gore and John Kerry did not fight
      fiercely and cleverly enough.
      Of course! It can't be said often enough! Right in paragraph 3, Dowd
      re-schools us. It was all Gore's (and Kerry's) fault!
      So let's see: Dowd invented the punishing Love Story bull-roar. She
      lied about the Naomi Wolf business—savaging Gore every step of the
      way. She devoted six separate columns to the punishing image of
      crazy Gore holding conversations with his bald spot. And, of course,
      she invented that laughable Kerry "quotation"—the "quote" that Kerry
      never actually spoke. But always, Dowd returns to that key part of
      the script—what happened to them was all their own fault! Those Dems
      are just such big girlie-men! They didn't "fight fiercely enough!"

      Dowd is one of the dumbest figures in a pitiful age of
      celebrity "journalism." If you've ever heard her trademark simpering
      on TV, you've heard the soul of our modern "press" elite. But
      increasingly, her simpering style defines the state of American
      political "journalism." Question: Just how long do Democrats plan to
      put up with this absolute nonsense?

      WIKIDOWDIA: Inanity, thy name is Maureen Dowd! Could American
      discourse possibly get dumber? Al and John and "Barry" won't fight.
      But when Hillary offers a small peep of protest, that's it! She's
      denounced as a thug!

      Yes, it's hard to get dumber than Dowd. In a saner era, the Times
      would cart her off to a high-class "home" and pay the bills for some
      much-needed treatment. But then, the empty souls of people like Dowd
      have always worked their will among us, thwarting progress and
      worming their way into the highest regions of power. We thought of
      that story again last week—when we read Wikipedia's entry on Marie
      Antoinette.

      If you read the full entry, perhaps you'll be struck by the way
      French politics of the era was driven by invented tales—invented
      tales spread by "pamphleteers." (Insert "talk show hosts"
      and "columnists like Dowd," and you have a portrait of our own era.)
      But then, we also read the following passage—this time, about
      Antoinette herself. Omigod! Who wouldn't think of Dowd, simpering
      queen of belle lettrists?

      WIKIPEDIA: Fulfilling Marie Antoinette's determination to avoid
      boredom, conversation in her circle shied away from the mundane or
      intellectual. According to Madame Campan, one of the queen's ladies-
      in-waiting, "The newest songs from the Comédie, the most timely joke
      or pun or quip, the bon mot of the day, the latest and choicest
      titbit of scandal or gossip—these comprised the sole topics of
      conversation in the intimate group about the queen; discussion on a
      serious plane was banished from her court."

      The queen's circle of friends was very exclusive...
      Who wouldn't think of our own inane Dowd when reading that portrait
      of Antoinette? After all, Dowd's circle of friends is exclusive too;
      it includes an array of the jugglers and clowns who have done so
      much to degrade our discourse (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 2/23/07). And
      Dowd's court is determined to help their queen avoid the boredom
      which presses out from her soul. Once again, we recommend Gay
      Jervey's portrait of Dowd's social conscience, as presented long ago
      in Brill's Content:
      JERVEY (6/99): "Maureen is very talented," observes Joe Klein of The
      New Yorker. "But she is ground zero of what the press has come to be
      about in the nineties...I remember having a discussion with her in
      which I said, 'Maureen, why don't you go out and report about
      something significant, go out and see poor people, do something
      real?' And she said, 'You mean I should write about welfare
      reform?'"
      Let them eat Ring-Dings, Dowd told Klein. Heaven forbid that this
      fatuous loser should actually "report about something significant."
      Heaven forbid that our top Antoinette should care about real
      people's lives.

      Yep! In the 90s, Dowd was "ground zero" of a fatuous press corps—and
      things are only worse today. But then, the Dowds have always moved
      among us. In turn, the Madame Campans have bustled about, shielding
      such queens from their own inner boredom. And they themselves have
      done their best to visit their own inane, broken souls on a wider
      and suffering world.

      TOMORROW: The evil of the press corps' banality, Selma and slave-
      owner style.

      VINTAGE DOWD: One more part of Dowd's latest column defines the
      great dauphine's style:
      DOWD (3/3/07): When the Tiger Woods of politics goes to a civil
      rights commemoration in Selma, Ala., this weekend—just as the story
      breaks that his white ancestors had slaves—he will compete for
      attention with Hillary and the man billed as the first black
      president. How does he feel about the Clintons double-teaming him?

      Talking about the woman he described at the Beverly Hills fund-
      raiser as smarter, better-looking and meaner then he is, he
      grins: ''My wife's pretty tough.''
      Hiss! Spit! Hiss-spit! Mee-ow! Dowd, broken loser of silly cultural
      wars, has always written like a throwback survivor of mid-
      century "women's pages." And so—Hiss! Hiss-spit! Meow!—she couldn't
      wait to alert her readers to this latest bit of "biographical"
      inanity. More on this topic tomorrow.

      According to Madame Campan, "the latest and choicest titbit of
      scandal or gossip—these comprised the sole topics of conversation in
      the intimate group about the queen." And darlings! According to a
      genealogical researcher, one of Obama's great-great-great-great
      grandfathers may have owned two slaves at one time! For a brief
      moment, Dowd's boredom had lifted. So she rushed to transmit the new
      tidbit.
      THE ROLE THAT IS PLAYED BY ANN COULTER: Gore and Edwards are big
      girlie-men! Dowd delivers this message to the New York Times crowd—
      and Coulter sends the message to losers.

      Example: On Sunday morning's Washington Journal, C-SPAN devoted its
      first forty-five minutes to a discussion of Coulter's remark. And a
      string of Coulter-defenders called in to explain away her conduct.
      This gave us a chance to understand the role Coulter plays in our
      world. (Eventually, the clip will be posted here.)

      The "explanations" offered by Coulter's fans simply beggar
      description. About 35 minutes in, a broken soul from Vermont topped
      things off; he explained that his dictionary has two definitions
      of "f*aggot," and until someone asks Coulter which one she meant,
      it's unfair to criticize her comment. (And yes, he actually quoted
      the definition in which a "faggot" is a bundle of sticks.) Host
      Steve Scully isn't allowed to comment, but he questioned the caller
      as to which definition he thought Coulter had meant. But the caller
      kept explaining away Coulter's comment. There was no sign, of any
      kind, that his call was some sort of a put-on

      These calls help us grasp a key point—one that's almost never
      discussed. Many voters are breath-takingly stupid, and their
      tribalism will take them to the ends of the earth. These are the
      people the GOP has learned to address and marshal through Coulter
      (and through others like her). Speaking in her famous direct way,
      she tells these people that Dem males are just big girlie-men
      ("f*ggots"). Speaking in more mellifluous tones, Dowd sends this
      message to others.

      Repeat: Dowd and Coulter have the same message. They just send it to
      two different groups.

      But if you listen to this full segment, you will note that most of
      the callers are somewhat less stupid than this utterly hapless
      Vermonter. Most of Coulter's defenders say something like this:
      Since Coulter was speaking "in a comedic context," her statement was
      really A-OK. But then, this has been a controlling RNC narrative at
      least since the spring of 1999. At that time, the factually bogus
      attacks on Gore were explicitly defended as examples of humor. Ha ha
      ha ha ha ha ha, they explained. We're just enjoying some good solid
      satire.

      This is why we find it so maddening (but so typical) when Keith
      Olbermann endlessly refers to "the comedian Rush Limbaugh" on
      Countdown. Plainly, Olbermann thinks he's delivering a zinger, but
      this is the explanation the other side favors! Whenever Limbaugh
      gets into a factual jam, he says, But I'm just an entertainer! Since
      Olbermann wastes his afternoons talking sports, he apparently hasn't
      yet heard.

      She said it in "a comedic context!" The RNC has pimped this
      narrative since the first days of the War Against Gore. If you
      listen to Sunday's C-SPAN tape, you can hear Coulter's army spouting
      it NOW. Or you can just dial up Mr. O and hear us recite their tales
      for them.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.