October 27, 2005
Response to Dowd Disappoints
Maureen Dowd's op-ed piece today has something to do about Dick Cheney has his involvement with the Valerie Plame kerfuffle. I started to read it but quickly lost interest. I would link to it but you need to be a paid subscriber to gain access.
Once Slats sees that the article is critical of his beloved Bush and/or his cronies, Slats conviniently loses interest.
My good friend RightLeft likes to share Maureen's commentary with me as he believes she proves his argument that Bush is the worst President in the history of the United States.
I never said that Bush was the worse President in US History. However, it is something to consider.
Dowd is not taken seriously by the Right. Try to refute what she says by doing some research on the Internet. It's impossible. No one cares.
A more accurate statement would be that Slats does not take Dowd seriously. I have never accepted Slats as the spokesperson for everyone on the “Right.”
And as far as his critique that “no one cares,” that is not only untrue, it is insulting. Although I can’t speak for “everyone,” I certainly care. And I don’t think as myself as “no one.”
And as far as “research” is concerned, what a cop out! Slats won’t do it because he is afraid that if he did, it would support what Dowd has to say.
Do a Google search on Dowd and all you will find are cheerleader rah rah references from the far left wesbites like DailyKos, DemocraticUnderground, etc. You hardly ever find people trying to refute what she says. This tells me that she is a joke. If conservatives were really worried about her capacity to persuade public opinion, the bloggers on the Right would be all over her.
This is like the attack of Cheney, Libby and Rove on Wilson. If you can’t refute the facts or the conclusions drawn upon those facts, endeavor to discredit the messenger.
You want people refuting Rush Limbaugh? Try googling his name and see what you find. There are whole websites devoted to hating Rush Limbaugh. People have written books titled "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Liar". If Limbaugh was as intellectually impotent as Dowd, no one would care.
Slats does not consider that the disparity between the on-line criticisms between Limbaugh and Dowd is because what Limbaugh has to say is half truths which are the worst kind of lies while what Dowd has to say is the truth that can not be effectively refuted. Slats knows that Limbaugh is a dangerous demogog. His only retort to Dowd is to endeavor to falsely paint her with the same brush.
Dowd is popular because 48% of the country is Democratic. She has some utility because she is good at keeping the Democratic base pumped up. But as an opinion leader with the capability to change people's minds -- to convert conservatives to liberals and to win in the arena of ideas -- Maureen Dowd is not capable of this.
I am convinced that even if Bush were caught screwing goats in the Clinton alcove, it would make no difference to Slats or to his avid Republican Bush scincophant followers. What Slats fails to realize that neither Dowd nor I are interested in converting the likes of Slats conservatives to become Democrats. We are endeavoring to appeal to pratical Americans who are willing to put reason before a failed ideology.
In fact, much like Michael Moore and George Soros and Cindy Sheehan, you see mainstream Democrats trying to distance themselves from Maureen Dowd.
I like Michael Moore, George Soros and Cindy Sheehan. Slats, please name the specific Democrats that you are referring to?
Show me mainstream Republicans who distance themselves from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, and others. It just doesn't happen.
Hummm. I will have to research this. Seems like an over-the-top statement.
As for actual lies in Maureen's op-ed piece, I have two comments:(1) Regarding the lead sentence that W showed people where Clinton got his BJ's ... if this is true, I would like to see something to substantiate it. This is a classic Dowd sentence. I don't think it can be proven but I am not going to spend time trying to prove or disprove this. I'm with Sue, it simply is in poor taste to bring this point up. If Bush did show off Clinton's "den of depravity", I would condemn this as juvenile behavior and in poor taste for a POTUS.
I will email Dowd on this to get her source.
(2) Dowd brings up Wilkerson and as I have stated on our new blog, Wilkerson HAS GIVEN US NO FACTS. He is just whining about the fact that his ideas on how foreign policy should be conducted were not adopted by the President. So we have Dowd here trying to act like a know-it-all big shot dropping names like Wilkerson who himself is dropping names like Colin Powell -- but the sad fact is that Bush tried something different, something not very popular with the left, and something these people are irritated about because it wasn't what they wanted to do.
Wilkerson was there! He observed what he observed. How much more factual do you need than that?
Once Slats sees that the article is critical of his beloved Bush and/or his cronies, Slats conviniently loses interest.
My good friend RightLeft likes to share Maureen's commentary with me as he believes she proves his argument that Bush is the worst President in the history of the United States.
I never said that Bush was the worse President in US History. However, it is something to consider.
Dowd is not taken seriously by the Right. Try to refute what she says by doing some research on the Internet. It's impossible. No one cares.
A more accurate statement would be that Slats does not take Dowd seriously. I have never accepted Slats as the spokesperson for everyone on the “Right.”
And as far as his critique that “no one cares,” that is not only untrue, it is insulting. Although I can’t speak for “everyone,” I certainly care. And I don’t think as myself as “no one.”
And as far as “research” is concerned, what a cop out! Slats won’t do it because he is afraid that if he did, it would support what Dowd has to say.
Do a Google search on Dowd and all you will find are cheerleader rah rah references from the far left wesbites like DailyKos, DemocraticUnderground, etc. You hardly ever find people trying to refute what she says. This tells me that she is a joke. If conservatives were really worried about her capacity to persuade public opinion, the bloggers on the Right would be all over her.
This is like the attack of Cheney, Libby and Rove on Wilson. If you can’t refute the facts or the conclusions drawn upon those facts, endeavor to discredit the messenger.
You want people refuting Rush Limbaugh? Try googling his name and see what you find. There are whole websites devoted to hating Rush Limbaugh. People have written books titled "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Liar". If Limbaugh was as intellectually impotent as Dowd, no one would care.
Slats does not consider that the disparity between the on-line criticisms between Limbaugh and Dowd is because what Limbaugh has to say is half truths which are the worst kind of lies while what Dowd has to say is the truth that can not be effectively refuted. Slats knows that Limbaugh is a dangerous demogog. His only retort to Dowd is to endeavor to falsely paint her with the same brush.
Dowd is popular because 48% of the country is Democratic. She has some utility because she is good at keeping the Democratic base pumped up. But as an opinion leader with the capability to change people's minds -- to convert conservatives to liberals and to win in the arena of ideas -- Maureen Dowd is not capable of this.
I am convinced that even if Bush were caught screwing goats in the Clinton alcove, it would make no difference to Slats or to his avid Republican Bush scincophant followers. What Slats fails to realize that neither Dowd nor I are interested in converting the likes of Slats conservatives to become Democrats. We are endeavoring to appeal to pratical Americans who are willing to put reason before a failed ideology.
In fact, much like Michael Moore and George Soros and Cindy Sheehan, you see mainstream Democrats trying to distance themselves from Maureen Dowd.
I like Michael Moore, George Soros and Cindy Sheehan. Slats, please name the specific Democrats that you are referring to?
Show me mainstream Republicans who distance themselves from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, and others. It just doesn't happen.
Hummm. I will have to research this. Seems like an over-the-top statement.
As for actual lies in Maureen's op-ed piece, I have two comments:(1) Regarding the lead sentence that W showed people where Clinton got his BJ's ... if this is true, I would like to see something to substantiate it. This is a classic Dowd sentence. I don't think it can be proven but I am not going to spend time trying to prove or disprove this. I'm with Sue, it simply is in poor taste to bring this point up. If Bush did show off Clinton's "den of depravity", I would condemn this as juvenile behavior and in poor taste for a POTUS.
I will email Dowd on this to get her source.
(2) Dowd brings up Wilkerson and as I have stated on our new blog, Wilkerson HAS GIVEN US NO FACTS. He is just whining about the fact that his ideas on how foreign policy should be conducted were not adopted by the President. So we have Dowd here trying to act like a know-it-all big shot dropping names like Wilkerson who himself is dropping names like Colin Powell -- but the sad fact is that Bush tried something different, something not very popular with the left, and something these people are irritated about because it wasn't what they wanted to do.
Wilkerson was there! He observed what he observed. How much more factual do you need than that?
