Maureen Dowd doesn't [HEART] Hillary Clinton!

MONDAY, AUGUST 15, 2016

Husband of the Goldwater Girl repealed Glass-Steagall, scribe says:
Maureen Dowd doesn't [HEART] Candidate Hillary Clinton.

In 2008, public editor Clark Hoyt said that was a problem. He said complaints about the Times' perceived misogyny had almost always turned out to be complaints about Maureen Dowd.

Given Dowd's status in the guild, this was a very unusual column:
HOYT (6/22/08): Dowd's columns about Clinton's campaign were so loaded with language painting her as a 50-foot woman with a suffocating embrace, a conniving film noir dame and a victim dependent on her husband that they could easily have been listed in that Times article on sexism, right along with the comments of Chris Matthews, Mike Barnicle, Tucker Carlson or, for that matter, Kristol, who made the Hall of Shame for a comment on Fox News, not for his Times work.

''I've been twisting gender stereotypes around for 24 years,'' Dowd responded. She said nobody had objected to her use of similar images about men over seven presidential campaigns. She often refers to Barack Obama as ''Obambi'' and has said he has a ''feminine'' management style. But the relentless nature of her gender-laden assault on Clinton—in 28 of 44 columns since Jan. 1—left many readers with the strong feeling that an impermissible line had been crossed, even though, as Dowd noted, she is a columnist who is paid not to be objective.

Over the course of the campaign, I received complaints that Times coverage of Clinton included too much emphasis on her appearance, too many stereotypical words that appeared to put her down and dismiss a woman's potential for leadership and too many snide references to her as cold or unlikable. When I pressed for details, the subject often boiled down to Dowd.

[...]

Politically correct is never a term one would apply to Dowd's commentary. Her columns this year said Clinton's ''message is unapologetically emasculating,'' and that she ''needed to prove her masculinity'' but in the end ''had to fend off calamity by playing the female victim.'' In one column Dowd wrote, ''She may want to take a cue from the Miss America contest: make a graceful, magnanimous exit and wait in the wings.''

[...]

Aulisio, the reader who wanted a review of Times coverage, asked if a man could have gotten away with writing what Dowd wrote. Rosenthal said that if the man had written everything Dowd had written over the years and established himself as a sardonic commentator on the sexes, ''I'd say the answer is yes.''

Of course, there is no such man, and I do not think another one could have used Dowd's language. Even she, I think, by assailing Clinton in gender-heavy terms in column after column, went over the top this election season.
Just for the record, many people had complained about Dowd's ill-advised language about "Obambi," the "diffident debutante." Also about her inevitable attacks on his big loud appalling wife.

Eight years later, Dowd's loathing of Candidate Clinton seems to be stronger than ever. It also tends toward blind rage, and toward the incoherence attendant to blindness and rage. Consider a pair of complaints in yesterday's sarcastic loathe-fest:
DOWD (8/14/16): The erstwhile Goldwater Girl and Goldman Sachs busker can be counted on to do the normal political things, not the abnormal haywire things. Trump’s propounding could drag us into war, plunge us into a recession and shatter Washington into a thousand tiny bits.

Hillary will keep the establishment safe. Who is more of an establishment figure, after all? Her husband was president, and he repealed Glass-Steagall, signed the Defense of Marriage Act and got rid of those pesky welfare queens.
Just so you'll know, Dowd doesn't care about welfare, or about welfare recipients, or about welfare practices. She doesn't have the slightest idea what Bill Clinton did, or didn't do, to change welfare procedures. It's just a useful ball of mud for her to use in these columns.

But how about those other complaints? Do they even make sense?

Hillary Clinton is a (former) Goldwater Girl? (That's what "erstwhile" means though helpfully nobody knows that.) Her husband repealed Glass-Steagall? Do those mud-balls even make sense?

Clinton was a Goldwater Girl when she was in high school. (She was 15 when Goldwater won the GOP nomination at the Cow Palace.) It takes a special kind of dimwit hater to go back so far in a candidate's life, back to their high school years, occasionally into their childhood, to come up with stinging complaints.

Dowd is that kind of hater. Regarding Glass-Steagall, might it be worth recalling the congressional vote on repeal?

Bill Clinton didn't exactly strong-arm repeal through the Congress. For whatever reason, the vote in favor of repeal was 90-8 in the Senate. Among Senate Democrats, the vote was 38-7 in favor of repeal.

Up in Massachusetts, Senator Kerry voted for repeal—and so did Senator Kennedy. So did Senator Biden, who functions, in Dowd's twisted mind, as her favorite East Coast Irish Catholic uncle.

Dowd loves lurves loaves her Uncle Joe. She simply can't stand the appalling Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall!

Biden voted for repeal. So did Senator Durbin, Obambi's top Senate supporter. In the House, so did four future Democratic senators, including flaming liberal Sherrod Brown. Last month, Clinton's failure to pick him for the VP spot proved that she's still that same old Goldwater Girl.

For whatever reason or reasons, House Democrats supported repeal, 155-51. We're not saying that they were right or wrong in their votes. We're just saying that, however the measure was understood at the time, Dictator Bill Clinton-Peron didn't ram it through the Congress, supported by Evita.

The vote for 38-7 in the Senate. Seventeen years later, Dowd is cramming Glass-Steagall up her ascot as she screams about the evil of you-know-who.

Whatever you think of Candidate Clinton, Columnist Dowd has been crazy for years. Only Hoyt has ever been willing to say this.

Her craziness fits in at the Times, an amazingly subcompetent newspaper. Yesterday, her cries reached back to 1999, and on to the sins of high school.

Starting tomorrow: The houses of Chozick County

Past thoughts on welfare reform: Back in 1999, Gay Jervey wrote a profile of Dowd for the soon-to-be-defunct Brill's Content. She included this wonderful anecdote from Joe Klein:
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?’ ”
No one had to wonder what Klein's anecdote meant. Dowd had rolled her eyes at his suggestion that she consider the lives of Those People.

Today, she feels differently, of course. She hates what Bill Clinton did!

85 comments:

  1. Bob Somerby doesn't (HEART) Maureen Dowd.

    Eight years after Hoyt's column the best Bob Somerby can do once again is repeat quotes from it as he does at least once a year when incensed by Mureen Dowd.

    You know what is pathetic about this piece?

    The best Bob Somerby otherwise seems able to do in mounting a defense of this vicious attack on Hillary Clinton is sputter out several paragraphs justifying one of the things Bill Clinton did by blaming other Democrats as well.

    Pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. trolls don't do context, we know, but...

      "repeat quotes" -- troll, ignoring the *new* quotes...

      "blaming other Democrats" -- troll, pretending ignorance or actually ignorant that the point is not blaming Dems ("We're not saying that they were right or wrong in their votes"), but showing ONCE AGAIN the CONTINUING cravenness of one Maureen Dowd

      But I guess when you're as devoted as some trolls are to slurping up everything that falls out of Dowd's ass, all the while pretending it's misogyny to notice that it's shit they're eating, everything's about *Somerby's* obsessions!

      Delete
    2. "Bill Clinton didn't exactly strong-arm repeal through the Congress. For whatever reason, the vote in favor of repeal was 90-8 in the Senate. Among Senate Democrats, the vote was 38-7 in favor of repeal.

      Up in Massachusetts, Senator Kerry voted for repeal—and so did Senator Kennedy. So did Senator Biden, who functions, in Dowd's twisted mind, as her favorite East Coast Irish Catholic uncle."

      Delete









































    3. In our view, given this was the only charge Dowd made Somerby even remotely refuted, he seems to think the others are true.


      Delete
  2. May be the only thing that makes her relevant is Hillary. Poor girl.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tina Fey got away with writing a movie like Mean Girls because she isn't actually mean and that showed through in her movie. Maureen Dowd is really mean. Whatever talent she has cannot disguise that. It ruins whatever point she might have to make. If she had a valid criticism against Clinton, people might care, but she is too mean to clearly express whatever bothers her.

      Delete
    2. Dowd's column is like reading a mean girl's slam book.

      Delete
  3. "She hates what Bill Clinton did!"

    I think the cigar in the ex-intern's privates irked Ms. Dowd. But I could be wrong. Somerby has never ventured an opinion about fooling around with staff.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Too many people got her age wrong. Troll. And all of it is consensual.

      Delete
    2. Wasn't Monica that formerly 5-year-old intern?

      Delete
  4. To hell with Dowd.

    And with Clinton. If I wanted a neocon warmonger for President, I'd be a Republican.
    ~

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK you're OK with Trump as President.

      Delete
    2. What do you expect? This is America! Killing people overseas who aren't white is what we do. Obama's been doing it with drones for years. If Clinton doesn't do it she'll be called "weak." We're a violent nation and culture, and shaking your bony little fists in the air isn't going to change anything.

      Delete
  5. Just so you'll know, Dowd doesn't care about welfare, or about welfare recipients, or about welfare practices.

    Nor do Hillary and most Democratic pols care about poor blacks.

    If they truly cared, they would be eager to more widely spread the benefit of KIPP (Knowledge IS Power Program) schools and the Success Academy schools. (See https://www.creators.com/read/thomas-sowell/08/16/does-black-success-matter )

    If they truly cared, they would be concerned about how job opportunities for poor blacks are reduced by immigration and by high minimum wage.

    If they truly cared, they would focus on the plight of black victims rather than the plight of black criminals.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "... job opportunities for poor blacks are reduced by high minimum wage."

      I'll probably regret this, but okay, DinC, show me the facts (or should I write schtick?) on this whopper.

      Delete
    2. I think DinC meant job opportunities are reduced without patent reform.

      Delete
    3. Facts:

      1. " 'real unemployment' rate for African American youth is 51 percent" - source Bernie Sanders, verified by a fact check column.

      2. Many black youths can only qualify for entry-level jobs, which often pay at or close to minimum wage.

      3. A higher minimum wage will discourage businesses from hiring entry-level workers. Source: The law of supply and demand. A rise in the price of something will lead to people purchasing less of that thing. So a rise in the price of low-skill labor will lead to employers purchasing less of low-skill labor. This theoretical argument was supported by a study comparing job gains in Seattle (where a high minimum wage was introduced) vs. neighboring communities.

      "In a region where all low-wage workers, including those in Seattle, have enjoyed access to more jobs and more hours, Seattle’s low-wage workers show some preliminary signs of lagging behind similar workers in comparison regions.

      "The minimum wage appears to have slightly reduced the employment rate of low-wage workers by about one percentage point. It appears that the Minimum Wage Ordinance modestly held back Seattle’s employment of low-wage workers relative to the level we could have expected.

      "Hours worked among low-wage Seattle workers have lagged behind regional trends, by roughly four hours per quarter, on average.*

      Low-wage individuals working in Seattle when the ordinance passed transitioned to jobs outside Seattle at an elevated rate compared to historical patterns."
      http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/07/26/seattles-minimum-wage-rise-is-reducing-employment-in-seattle-i-was-right-in-predicting-this/#3500d0024e6c

      Delete
    4. Another fact: Los Angeles Times reported that low wage paying apparel manufacturers were leaving Los Angeles, because of the rise in minimum wage.

      Now, Los Angeles firms are facing another big hurdle — California's minimum wage hitting $15 an hour by 2022 — which could spur more garment makers to exit the state.

      Last week American Apparel, the biggest clothing maker in Los Angeles, said it might outsource the making of some garments to another manufacturer in the U.S., and wiped out about 500 local jobs.

      http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-garment-manufacturing-la-20160416-story.html

      Delete
    5. From your link DinC:

      "Many apparel companies say Los Angeles is a difficult place to do business. Commercial real estate is expensive and limited, the cost of raw materials continues to rise and it can be difficult to find skilled workers who can afford to live in the city. They expect things will become even more challenging after the minimum-wage hike further raises their expenses."

      Delete
    6. Yes, indeed. As the last sentence says, "They expect things will become even more challenging after the minimum-wage hike further raises their expenses."

      Delete
    7. I "expect" more lying from you. But it has not happened yet. That is not "another fact."

      "Could" and "expect" are future tense modifiers. A little lying weasel wrote they "were" leaving, which is past tense to describe events which have not happened.

      You were truthful. You were once alive.

      Sorry to hear you could be dead. We expect your funeral will be well attended.

      Delete
    8. Then we better train black youths so they can apply for more than just entry-level positions.
      BTW, how will the minimum-wage hike further increase their expenses?* Won't it actually much further increase their revenues?

      *People don't really still believe that a minimum-wage hike will increase costs, do they? Because that is not how pricing works in real life.

      Delete
    9. 2. Many black youths can only qualify for entry-level jobs, which often pay at or close to minimum wage.


      DavidinCals crocodile tears for blacks is keeping him from seeing the problem at a deeper level.
      An example would be the ability to see that funding public education by property taxes of the surrounding neighborhoods is a failure, leaving the disadvantaged desperate for any wage at all.

      Delete
    10. Then we better train black youths so they can apply for more than just entry-level positions.

      That training generally occurs on the job. Most of us start in entry level positions. The vital thing is to get young people into the job market in the first place.

      P.S. Can you expand your idea that a minimum wage hike doesn't increase costs?

      Delete
    11. Sure, but my point is pricing isn't "based on costs".
      Follow along: Your business manufactures widgets, and sells them to my business for $5/ each. You also currently pay your employees minimum wage.
      With the leap in minimum wage to $15/ hour, you want to charge me $7 for each widget to cover the increase in your labor costs.
      Oops. You can raise your prices all you want, but what makes you think I'll pay the new price?
      You can argue that I need the widgets for my products, so I have to pay $7/ each.
      But then, I'll wonder why you are only charging me $5 per widget today, when you could get $7 per widget, because I have to have them. That doesn't seem like smart business.
      Point being, pricing is based on supply and demand, not your labor costs.

      Delete
    12. "The vital thing is to get young people into the job market in the first place."

      If your business can't even afford to pay minimum wage to entry-level employees, your business probably isn't viable to begin with.

      Delete
    13. You have a good point, AnonymousAugust 17, 2016 at 8:57 PM, as far as it goes. The manufacturer can't raise his price, even though his costs went up.

      But, now let's expand your example to include costs. Suppose the manufacturer's cost/widget was $6.50. By selling at $7.00, he's been making a $0.50 profit on each widget. But, suppose that due the the rise in minimum wage, his costs go up to $7.50/widget. As you point out, he's already charging what the market will bear, so he can't raise his price. Now, he's running a loss of $0.50 per widget. He can't continue at a loss, so he has to shut down the whole business (or move it to some other state or country.) Thus a bunch of minimum wage widget-makers lose their jobs.

      Delete
    14. 11;22 PM,
      The story from Capitalists is that when the factory shuts down, some other more enterprising individual will innovate and create a viable business to meet widget demand, and put those people back to work.
      You're not saying the Capitalists are wrong, are you?

      Delete
    15. What a crock of shit.

      The costs of retraining and rehiring goes down because job retention is higher, the administrative costs remain approximately the same, and the widget market is broadened since more people can afford to buy widgets.

      And you can take your patronizing "as far as it goes" and stick it where the sun don't shine.

      Delete
    16. The story from Capitalists is that when the factory shuts down, some other more enterprising individual will innovate and create a viable business to meet widget demand, and put those people back to work.

      Not quite. New businesses will arise to meet the widget demand, but not necessarily in the same place or with the same employees.

      AnonymousAugust 18, 2016 at 1:53 AM -- Yes, some businesses do well paying higher than legal minimum salaries in order to get greater employee retention, better employees, etc. I had the privilege of working for one such business. But, those businesses are probably already paying higher salaries, in order to obtain those advantages.

      The businesses paying low wages, by and large, havae figured out that they do best at the low wages they're paying. Owners of successful businesses understand the needs of their business far better than some politician.

      Delete
    17. "I had the privilege of working for ...."

      Is that all you got?

      Delete
    18. So DinC is calling for separation of business and government. Nice.
      Who is going to retrain all those out of work lobbyists, DinC?

      Delete
    19. Dave the Guitar PlayerAugust 18, 2016 at 12:36 PM

      Economics is not quite a science and I'm sure everyone has theories about what might happen that would fit their own world view. However, logically, it makes no sense to pay workers less than is required for them in order to sustain themselves, regardless. Unless, of course, the workers themselves are expendable.

      Delete
    20. Dave the Guitar Player -- a lot of low wage earners don't have to sustain themselves.

      "A large majority of minimum-wage workers are in low- to moderate-income families, and a significant minority are flat-out poor. These are the people who could use a raise.

      "A substantial number of minimum-wage workers come from better-off families. Close to half a million minimum-wage earners are in households with six-figure incomes, and a million more are in those that earn at least $60,000."

      For more details, see http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/typical-minimum-wage-earners-arent-poor-but-theyre-not-quite-middle-class/

      Delete
    21. "Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In 2014, about 1.3 million U.S. workers age 16 and over earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. Another 1.7 million had wages below the federal minimum."

      So of 3 million minimum-wage workers, more than half are in households that earn less than $60,000.
      I remember conservatives making the argument that those earning $250K/ year are part of the struggling middle class.

      Delete
    22. Dave the Guitar Player - what David in Cal doesn't say is that "a lot" of low-wage earners do have to sustain themselves.

      Same article (538): "The data shows a large majority of minimum-wage workers are in low- to moderate-income families, and a significant minority are flat-out poor. These are the people who could use a raise."



      Delete
    23. Anon 2:41 PM -you've shifted the goal post. The Guitar Player was discussing people not earning enough to sustain themselves. That chart shows that most minimum wage earners are in families with sufficient income to sustain the family. And, BTW, minimum wage earners may qualify for Earned Income Tax Credit, rent aid, food stamps, and many other welfare programs. So, someone earning $7 an hour might well be able to sustain himself/herself with the help of these programs.

      Anon 4:42 -- yes a lot of poor minimum wage earners could use a raise. But, will an increase in the minimum wage give them a raise? Maybe. But, maybe their work hours will be cut back or maybe they'll be let go entirely.

      Personal experience. I was fired from a summer job when the minimum wage was raised from $1.00 to $1.10 and hour. The head of this small costume jewelry factory said I wasn't worth $1.10. He was right. It was really a make-work job arranged by a family friend.

      Delete
    24. Try it David. Try living on $7 an hour, and of course, taking advantage of all those wonderful government programs that you yourself would be glad to get rid of.

      Why, it's the Life of Riley, isn't it?

      Delete
    25. AnonymousAugust 18, 2016 at 5:33 PM -- I have tried it. As a graduate student, my wife, daughter and I lived on an Assistantship of around $200 a month. That's less than $70 a month per person. Adjusting for inflation, that would be $505 in today's dollars.

      For full time work today, $7 an hour would be $1166 a month. That's more than twice as much per person as my family lived on. And, our life was OK.

      Delete
    26. More unverifiable anecdotal evidence from someone with zero credibility.

      Delete
    27. DinC -

      Either you're really bad at math, or you're asking a comparable family today to have all three people work full time. Including an infant.

      You, like many Republicans, try to present economic rationales for mean-spirited kicking down. It's always in simple-minded examples of a single company, or household, and how you would project out consequences in that small instance. That's not how macroeconomics work.

      With your world view, you would never understand how Henry Ford did not succeed until he paid his employees enough to afford one of the cars that they themselves were making. You would say Ford is stupid to pay more than he needed to for his own operation. But when you understand that demand actually comes from what ownership distributes, economics becomes more than simplistic arithmetic.

      Delete
    28. Dave the Guitar PlayerAugust 19, 2016 at 12:46 PM

      If DinC appears to argue that it is better to subsidize minimum wage earners with taxpayer money. This, of course, is actually a back-door subsidy of the businesses that hire minimum wage earners. I would prefer to put that money directly into the hands of workers, even if we (taxpayers) have to pay a little more for hamburgers.

      Delete
  6. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and the rest of the deregulation or refusal to regulate the banking and financial industries which took place during the Bill Clinton Administrations were obviously short-sighted and wrong. Moreover, a number of Clinton advisers who promoted these changes in the law, like the legendary Robert Rubin, promptly entered the private sector and made millions on the changes in the law which they wrought. These changes were pretty clearly the result of legal bribery and self-dealing.

    ReplyDelete
  7. In spite of some dim posters here, everything Bob says here is quite relevant. Glass-Steagall being dumped at the feet of Clinton, when Congress is supposed to control the nation's purse strings, has become an annoying cliche. Here, of course, Dowd is hardly alone in beating the dead horse, it's an off the shelf talking point from every Clinton detractor from Reich to the far right. On the other hand, for Bob, this is pretty watered down detraction of Dowd.

    Two moments should live in Dowdian infamy: in Dec of 97 there was one of many Faux Clinton scandals concerning Clinton allegedly
    selling plots in Arlington National Cemetery. Dozens of them, Republicans in Congress claimed on the house floor. Dowd wrote a smarmy column about how Clinton the draft dodger was desecrating the place of our honored warriors. (Ariana Huffington was in on this action as well.) Opps, it turned out to be total bullshit. ONE guy had lied his way into a plot and Bill Clinton had nothing to do with it. Dowd, rather than apologizing, criticized Clinton for not making the exculpatory evidence available sooner, but also said Clinton is kind of guilty because She could believe it WAS true of him. If you can't draw a line to Trump from that, somebody needs to give you a sharpie.
    Then there is the strange matter of Mo's idiot pal, Michael Kelly Kelly, a Clinton hater, was, along with Hitchens, the most vocal drum beater for the Invasion of Iraq. Unlike Hitchens, he went over and got himself killed, despite having the protection of the embedded. Make no mistake, Kelly was living the dream, and he had ruthlessly berated Al Gore for speaking out against the Invasion. Dowd, one of Kelly's six to seven figure bullshit writing pals, blamed Hillary Clinton for Kelly's death, because She "authorized the war," Kelly had relentlessly beat the drum in support of.
    Well, She's had other great moments, but if you can get past these you are probably too far gone to worry over.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Greg, the light bulb, to pierce the darkness.

      Delete
  8. There are plenty of good reasons to criticize the Clintons, but you'll never learn what they are listening to Conservatives.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yes Bill Clinton recklessly signed the bill to repeal parts of Glass-Steagall. A bill that was sent to him with veto-proof majorities. That obviously makes it all Hillary's fault.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That obviously was the major thrust of the column. According to you and Bob.

      Delete
  10. Anybody worried that Bob has gone missing and charged with trespassing at a house in Chozick County? Heck, he might even have been shot since most such shootings involve white guys as victims. According to the Pulitzer Prize winning jihadists at the WaPo.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Horseshit Bob!

    "Today I am pleased to sign into law S. 900, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. This historic legislation will modernize our financial services laws, stimulating greater innovation and competition in the financial services industry. America's consumers, our communities, and the economy will reap the benefits of this Act.

    Beginning with the introduction of an Administration-sponsored bill in 1997, my Administration has worked vigorously to produce financial services legislation that would not only spur greater competition, but also protect the rights of consumers and guarantee that expanded financial services firms would meet the needs of America's underserved communities. Passage of this legislation by an overwhelming, bipartisan majority of the Congress suggests that we have met that goal."

    Bill Clinton
    Statement on Signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
    November 12, 1999

    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=56922#axzz1aV0pqgub

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm worried about Bob, who usually puts up his Gone Fishin' sign when he takes a day off. I hope he wasn't actually John McGlaughlin in real life!

    ReplyDelete
  13. This making believe that Bill Clinton didn't support the repeal of Glass-Steagall schtick, is one of the silliest on the internet today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not considering Clinton himself has said he didn't support it.

      Delete
    2. I see little such pretending, if any. Putting it in context robs it of it's status as a simplistic talking point, which is what I imagine bugs you.

      Delete
    3. Nice try.
      Read Clinton's signing statement for the bill and realize what bugs me is, I'm not inclined to clap louder just to make the truth go away.

      Delete
  14. Whether or not Bill could have done anything to stop the repeal of Glass-Steagull even if he wanted to, which he likley did not,the more important point is that Bill, Hillary and Barney Frank continue to defend the mess arguing that a more sophistacted type of ban is what is necessary rather than bringing back the real rule. This was reitierated by Hillary in the debates with Sanders and by Bill on the campaigne trail, not to mention ad nauseum by Frank during the primaries. But do not expect Bob to give a darn about the details, he only wants to compare everything to the false claim by the press that Al Gore claimed that he invented the internet.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Bob, here's hoping you've gone fishin'. . . .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm concerned. Bob doesn't normally disappear like this.

      Delete
    2. I'm praying it's just computer issues but I am concerned as well.

      Delete
  16. Over at the tea-party websites, they seem to think that when Clinton holds an event for a hundred people, it means she cannot attract larger crowds. They think this is evidence that the polls are rigged -- since Clinton cannot attract people to her events how can she possibly have many supporters -- the press and polls must be lying.

    Trump seems to think the same thing. As long as lots of people come to his rallies, he thinks he is ahead.

    ReplyDelete
  17. As Bob has pointed out, the media has helped Trump by not reporting on his ridiculous tax cut proposal. Today, they hurt Trump by not reporting the policies he laid down in an important speech last night. I know that the PBS Newshour ignored the speech. According to the PowerLine blog, other mainstream media ignored it, too. You can read highlights of the speech or watch the whole thing at http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/08/the-trump-speech-that-will-win-him-the-presidency.php

    You probably ought to take a look at the link, because it seems the most of the media isn't going to tell you what Trump is actually saying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I watched his speech live on CNN.

      Delete
    2. Where thoughts like DinC's come from:

      "According to reports on Wednesday, Trump hired Breitbart News Chairman Stephen Bannon as the campaign CEO and promoted Kellyanne Conway to the role of campaign manager. The move was seen as a demotion for embattled campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

      CNN's Carol Costello hosted a panel of guests on Wednesday to discuss the changes, which was derailed when Pierson lashed out at the media for calling the move a "shake-up."

      "The media and many on the right who have always been vocal against Mr. Trump have been writing this campaign's obituary for over 400 days and it hasn't worked yet," Pierson told the group. "The thing is, when we are talking about campaign additions -- and I know CNN is focusing on [Breitbart's] Bannon for whatever reason. He's not in charge of communications, he's just the CEO."

      Delete
    3. AnonymousAugust 18, 2016 at 12:24 AM -- what you did is what the New York Times and many of the mainstream media did. You discussed the speech without addressing what Trump actually said. Presumably that's because what Trump actually said would be popular with a majority of Americans and is pretty hard to refute. Consider these excerpts, for example:

      The war on our police is a war on all peaceful citizens who want to be able to work and live and send their kids to school in safety.

      Our job is not to make life more comfortable for the rioter, the looter, the violent disruptor. Our job is to make life more comfortable for the African-American parent who wants their kids to be able to safely walk the streets. Or the senior citizen waiting for a bus. Or the young child walking home from school.
      ***
      The Hillary Clinton agenda hurts poor people the most.

      There is no compassion in allowing drug dealers, gang members, and felons to prey on innocent people. It is the first duty of government to keep the innocent safe, and when I am President I will fight for the safety of every American – and especially those Americans who have not known safety for a very, very long time.

      I am asking for the vote of every African-American citizen struggling in our country today who wants a different future.

      It is time for our society to address some honest and very difficult truths.

      The Democratic Party has failed and betrayed the African-American community. Democratic crime policies, education policies, and economic policies have produced only more crime, more broken homes, and more poverty.

      Let us look at the situation right here in Milwaukee, a city run by Democrats for decade after decade. Last year, killings in this city increased by 69 percent, plus another 634 victims of non-fatal shootings. 18-29-year-olds accounted for nearly half of the homicide victims. The poverty rate here is nearly double the national average. Almost 4 in 10 African-American men in Milwaukee between the ages of 25-54 do not have a job. Nearly four in 10 single mother households are living in poverty. 55 public schools in this city have been rated as failing to meet expectations, despite ten thousand dollars in funding per-pupil. There is only a 60% graduation rate, and it’s one of the worst public school systems in the country.

      To every voter in Milwaukee, to every voter living in every inner city, or every forgotten stretch of our society, I am running to offer you a better future.

      The Democratic Party has taken the votes of African-Americans for granted. They’ve just assumed they’ll get your support and done nothing in return for it.

      http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/08/the-trump-speech-that-will-win-him-the-presidency.php

      Actually I agree with all but the next to last paragraph. I have no confidence that Trump can offer a better future to people in the inner city. However, I do think that the Democrats offer them a worse future.

      Delete
    4. Read Trump's quotes again.
      Now, quick, which party is the party of "Daddy Government"?

      Delete
    5. Shorter David: let me show you my fine collection of dog whistles.

      His concern trolling is noted.

      Delete
    6. And what a fine collection of dog whistles it was. In fact, I was hoping someone would run it against Nixon's 1968 "Law & Order" stump speeches to see how much of Trump's speech was lifted.

      And of course, we all got a big guffaw when Trump told blacks that he's the candidate they really should be voting for. Why that speech alone might drive his standing among blacks to two or even three percent.

      And it doesn't take a political genius to realize he wasn't pandering to blacks. Instead, he was pandering to the white, suburban voters that he's been hemorrhaging. Gotta shore that up even to have the proverbial snowball's chance.

      As for: "Presumably that's because what Trump actually said would be popular with a majority of Americans and is pretty hard to refute."

      I'll just let one of your examples of such stand on its own merits: "To every voter in Milwaukee, to every voter living in every inner city, or every forgotten stretch of our society, I am running to offer you a better future."

      Typical Trump word salad. No policy proposals. No plans. Just vote for me and I'll Make America Great Again!


      Delete
    7. Typical Trump word salad. No policy proposals. No plans. Just vote for me and I'll Make America Great Again!

      I agree. Trump won the nomination with stands like this. He espoused things the electorate wanted, but without realistic plans to achieve his stated goals.

      Delete
    8. Trump won the nomination because Republican voters love bigotry and need to blame their loser lives on somebody else.
      The GOP used to call themselves "The Party of Accountability"? It was never true, unless you add "for the poor and minorities" at the end.

      Delete
    9. No, Trump won the nomination, David, by appealing to the imaginary fears and the anger of non-college educated whites.

      Which is exactly what he was doing in his Milwaukee "Law & Order" speech -- right after a riot there.

      You know. The speech you think was so brilliant that a "majority of America" would agree with.

      Delete
    10. AnonymousAugust 18, 2016 at 4:00 PM -- I invite you to read Trump's speech, or at least read the key points mentioned in the link I provided, and say which ones you think are wrong and why.

      One Trump point I particularly like is the Democratic responsibility for most inner city black problems. Liberals are quick to talk about the problems, which are quite real IMHO: high crime, mistreatment by police, high unemployment, inadequate education, etc. Virtually all of the cities with these problems have been governed by Democrats for many decades. Yet, Democrats have somehow eluded responsibility for their foulups, and managed to blame some anonymous racists. instead.

      Delete
    11. David in Cal, last night:

      "Today, they [the media] hurt Trump by not reporting the policies he laid down in an important speech last night."

      David in Cal, this morning:

      "He [Trump] espoused things the electorate wanted, but without realistic plans to achieve his stated goals."

      Policies without plans. Trump doesn't need the help of the media to hurt himself. He's got nothing except fear and hate mongering. In short, he's actually the perfect GOP candidate.

      Delete
    12. Please spare us more of your concern trolling. As long as the wealth distribution continues upward in this country, you could care less about "the inner city black problems" except to blame inner city blacks and liberals .

      Delete
    13. Dave the Guitar PlayerAugust 19, 2016 at 1:03 PM

      DinC @4:50 - The problems that cities have are not easily solved, and like the poor, these problems may always be with us. Democrats tend to govern cities because they offer to work to solve, or at least mitigate, the problems. Republican candidates, like Mr. Trump, can only appeal to your fears and emotions (safe!), because they have no idea of how to actually make things better for the people (all the people) who actually live in cities.

      Delete
    14. DinC: Exhibit A proof that Trump's stupid WI speech wasn't even aimed at the black voter. It was aimed at morons like himself, who can now feel a little better about themselves voting for the racist lunatic cause they can tell themselves that they're not really voting for a racist pig. Good job, David, thanks for that excellent demonstration of the art of persuasion of weak minded morons.

      Delete
    15. x 1 million, mm.

      Delete
  18. So where is Somerby? Did he decide to do one more Maureen Down piece and call it a blogging career?

    ReplyDelete
  19. It's called a summer hiatus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It would be if Somerby actually called a summer hiatus. You know, out of courtesy to the 20 or so readers he has left.

      Delete
    2. You're right. I'm just trying to cover for him.

      Delete
  20. According to the latest USC Dornsife / LA Times Presidential Election Poll, Trump's support among blacks has suddenly jumped up from about 5% to 14.6%. (See http://cesrusc.org/election/ and scroll down.) Trump's speech evidently resonated with some blacks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your repeated demonstrations of phoniness is as obvious as it is tiring.

      But trolls gotta troll.

      Delete
    2. DinC, do you want to see black support for your maniacal unhinged lunatic GOP standard bearer improve?

      Tell your fucking republican friends to stop systematically working to suppress their votes. You're welcome.

      Delete
  21. Best Online Spell Caster Reviwes
    Dont let relationship problem cause you heart break, Life is all about good and bad experience...i was hurting REAL bad when my husband left me but now i can't really believe that i am with my Ex-Husband again and With this little short time and just want to use it in thanking the great man that brought joy back to my life within 48 hours by bringing back my lover. Yes it was true that i had some difficulties with my lover but today i am back here to tell the world that Dr.goodluck brought my lover back to me. I have always heard of love spell but i never had an idea of how effective it can be. Well my time is up just contact Dr.goodluck at his email goodluck05spellcaster@gmail.com and you can also whatapp him or call with his mobile +2349059610309. To enable you have a taste of his great work.

    goodluck05spellcaster@gmail.com
    http://goodluck05spellcaster.yolasite.com

    ReplyDelete