Reply
Tue 30 Nov, 2004 03:44 pm
Dowd's latest is a great read.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/28/opinion/28dowd.html?ex=1259384400&en=09eff1d3213f083d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland
She seems to be put upon by relatives much as I am, in reverse.
My question to her would be, in repeating her brother's email did she intend to ridicule his beliefs, or does she actually understand that those simple points he makes are actually important to a majority of Americans? I wouldn't call myself a passionate supporter of Bush, but all those things mentioned, and the friends of the left described, detract me from the other side. He could well have mentioned his sister as an added shrill irritant, perhaps that part hit the cutting room floor.
I think her intent was to allow others to do the ridiculing. There were 4 or 5 "letters" on the Op-Ed page in today's NY Times where readers did just that.
I think that particular column, as typical of The Dowdy One's oeuvre, and that of her compatriot ideologists among the sneering, baffled-at-their-own-failure Left/Liberal/Democrat commentariat, clearly is indicative of their total lack of clue.
It seems she has a clue. I don't know how much more of a clue you could have than to be surrounded and raised by those of the other ideology. BTW, sneering and lack of understanding as to the motivations of those who voted other than you did is not restricted to those who came out on the losing end in this election.
Quote:BTW, sneering and lack of understanding as to the motivations of those who voted other than you did is not restricted to those who came out on the losing end in this election.
VERY true Duck, but as a connoisseur of sneer, I can assure you that the losers this time around are much better at it than the winners. Has to do with practice I think.
I have to disagree, MaryM. I think that it is at least 50/50. I would point out, though, that we are all tone deaf to our own sneering.
FreeDuck, I offer for your consideration the following factoid:
Regardless how many folks voted, or for whom those folks voted, less than a third of The Eligible Electorate saw fit to cast a vote to unseat The Incumbent.
Make of that what you will. What I make of it is that while it is true only a bit more than 1/3 of The Eligible Electorate took action to return The Incumbent to office, commensurately true is that more than 2/3 of The Eligible Electorate did not take action to unseat The Incumbent. That a third of the Eligible Electorate did not, for whatever reason, choose to participate in the election, and that but a 3-point advantage of votes from actual participants went to the victor are wholly irrelevant. The entire, and inescapable, point is that over 2/3 of The Eligible Electorate did not take action to unseat The Incumbent, period, end of argument. By a factor of better than two-to-one, those who actively sought and pressed the ouster of Bush the Greater are clearly in The Minority. By no stretch of the imagination can that be construed as defining "A nation deeply and nearly equally divided". Ms Dowd and her ilk speak for, and to, less than a third of The Nation.
Your logic is delightful, timber. Of course, one could also argue that slightly more than a third voted to keep the incumbent to office...
Hardly a vote of confidence! But don't tell it to George ("I earned political capital and I intend to spend it") Bush...
timberlandko wrote:FreeDuck, I offer for your consideration the following factoid:
Regardless how many folks voted, or for whom those folks voted, less than a third of The Eligible Electorate saw fit to cast a vote to unseat The Incumbent.
Make of that what you will. What I make of it is that while it is true only a bit more than 1/3 of The Eligible Electorate took action to return The Incumbent to office, commensurately true is that more than 2/3 of The Eligible Electorate did not take action to unseat The Incumbent. That a third of the Eligible Electorate did not, for whatever reason, choose to participate in the election, and that but a 3-point advantage of votes from actual participants went to the victor are wholly irrelevant. The entire, and inescapable, point is that over 2/3 of The Eligible Electorate did not take action to unseat The Incumbent, period, end of argument. By a factor of better than two-to-one, those who actively sought and pressed the ouster of Bush the Greater are clearly in The Minority. By no stretch of the imagination can that be construed as defining "A nation deeply and nearly equally divided". Ms Dowd and her ilk speak for, and to, less than a third of The Nation.
I've considered it, timber, but it really doesn't mean anything to me. I don't know why, other than that it must feel good, election results are brought into every discussion such as this. It just doesn't matter whether she's talking to 2 people or 2 million.
That's fair enough, FreeDuck - it works for you on a feel-good basis, and other than that you don't know why.
D'art, its not likely you'll accept, or even understand, my contention that a response such as that just offered by you not only goes to the point of, but makes the case for my"The Opposition hasn't a clue" argument.
You said
Quote:Of course, one could also argue that slightly more than a third voted to keep the incumbent to office... Hardly a vote of confidence!
a statement oblivious to the reality that The President justifiably can and rightfully does draw confidence - and great political capital - from the doucumented, incontravertable, accomplished fact that more than 2/3 of the Nation was not swayed to actively oppose his re-election. Apparently overlooked as well in your assumption is the fact that with this latest election, The Democratic Party has gained for itself the least representation it has held in the combined Houses of Congress for generations, while doing for itself the same as regards governors' mansions and the chambers of the various statehouses. Together, all that may be construed not else than but rather specifically as a hearty vote of "No Confidence" inflicted upon The Democratic Party.
timberlandko wrote:That's fair enough, FreeDuck - it works for you on a feel-good basis, and other than that you don't know why.
I don't know what you mean by this.
Timber, youve been listening to way too much Limbaaugh. The fact that 2/3 of the country was too damn lazy to get up offn they asses to vote fOR OR AGAINST ANYBODY is just lucky for Bush and unlucky for Kerry, it isnt an auttomatically induced vote of confidence for Gw. 'We didnt hate him enough to actually vote, " You do realize how silly Rush sounded when he said that. Like most tthings he speaks, there sttarts with an elementt of truth
The American Revolution was fought and supported by less tthan a 1/3 count of the population.
Not surprised, FreeDuck.
Farmerman, first, I don't listen to Limbaugh ... as far as I'm concerned, a self-centered, self-promoting, egotistical, hyperbolic, rabble-rousing pompous ass is a self-centred, self promoting, egotistical, hyperbolic, rabble-rousing pompous ass regardless of political bent. If He said something similar to what I said, so be it, but neither he nor I influence one another in the slightest. I could say exactly the same of Michael Moore or Michael Savage.
Next, your statement " ... The fact that 2/3 of the country was too damn lazy to get up offn they asses to vote fOR OR AGAINST ANYBODY is just lucky for Bush and unlucky for Kerry ... " is based on a critical factual error.
Finally, I will submit that while a relatively few thousand made up The Continental Army and its associated militias and assorted irregular forces, actively supported by another few thousand contributors of financial, material, political, and media support, by and large the greatest proportion of the populace resident in the nascent nation at the time did not actively oppose either the Revolution or its proponents and actors ... a circumstance enabling of and critical to the eventual success of the endeavor.
What Timber said.
(Edit: Except I like Limbaugh, and listen to him at least once a Blue Moon.)
Hey Timber, either you are tossing an insult my way or you are being deliberately cryptic. Either way, I don't think there's anything wrong with asking for you to clarify.
Quote: a critical factual error.
.
im sure youll get around to it , after youve finished all the introductions and historical revision.
As far as the Limbaogians
"by their words we shall know them"
So I get it now, Timber. You started this thread so that you could point out, once again, using Dowd as an example, how the entire left-leaning population still doesn't get it and how the majority in America thinks like her brother and when will the sore loser lefties get over it. And again with the election results. And again with how the left insults mainstream god-fearing Americans.
Your guy won. You get to have most things your way now. Enough already. I speak for myself and Maureen Dowd when I say, we get you "mainstream America". We're from you. We're your children grown up and moved on who made up our own minds when exposed to other ideas besides yours. We hear you loud and clear, we just don't agree with you. And the fact that your guy won the election isn't going to make us agree with you. In fact, if 98% of the population thought like you, whatever was left of us still wouldn't agree with you. So just be happy.
Actually, MaryM started the thread with a valid question. (IMO)
I actually enjoyed reading the brother's letter, but like Mary, I'm wondering what she (Dowd) edited out. Not meant in a sinister way. Just curious.
And so you're right. MaryM did start the thread. I stand by the rest though.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace