No. of Recommendations: 47
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/opinion/sunday/dowd-two-pr...

Great stuff! And I wouldn't write off the possibilty that Sasha said she likes a boy who has a tattoo. ;o)

Jack
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Indeed, if Snark could save the world, Mo Dowd could provide all of it.

But snark is not going to save the world, in fact, it is doing the opposite.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Dowd is almost as much fun as the Nationals beating the Cardinals.

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Dowd is almost as much fun as the Nationals beating the Cardinals.


Dowd is almost as much fun as the reader comments following her online column.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Back in 2008 Mr. Obama also needed some counsel from from Mr. Bartlet:

OBAMA They pivoted off the argument that I was inexperienced to the criticism that I’m — wait for it — the Messiah, who, by the way, was a community organizer. When I speak I try to lead with inspiration and aptitude. How is that a liability?

BARTLET Because the idea of American exceptionalism doesn’t extend to Americans being exceptional. If you excelled academically and are able to casually use 690 SAT words then you might as well have the press shoot video of you giving the finger to the Statue of Liberty while the Dixie Chicks sing the University of the Taliban fight song. The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/opinion/21dowd-sorkin.html...

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Indeed, if Snark could save the world, Mo Dowd could provide all of it.

I guess if you can't find anything wrong with the facts of what she wrote, calling Dowd a name is a good strategy.

Jack
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Hey, Jack.

Saying someone is snarky isn't calling them a name.

Read some of the posts on this board - especially the ones from liberals in response to conservatives - if you want to see what name calling is.

Someone who writes and is said to be 'snarky' simply indicates, Jack, that they are (especially in Ms. Dowd's case) petty or snippy, or sometimes simply waspish. All terms that are pretty descriptive of her writings.

Snarky is just a good ol' descriptive adjective - not a name, Jack.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Saying someone is snarky isn't calling them a name.

Thanks for the information, Spikie. Maybe you should go and correct these people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snark

Jack
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I guess if you can't find anything wrong with the facts of what she wrote, calling Dowd a name is a good strategy.

Jack


She is a talented writer who has given up on humanity and has settled in as being the "Queen of Snark" - she is, at her core, a nasty woman who is waste of incredible writing talent.

When snark can save the world, Mo Dowd will be important, which means she never will be.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I think this is a better reference for "snark".

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=snark

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
She is a talented writer who has given up on humanity and has settled in as being the "Queen of Snark" - she is, at her core, a nasty woman who is waste of incredible writing talent.

When snark can save the world, Mo Dowd will be important, which means she never will be.


Well put! I disagree totally, but you write almost as well as she does.

Now....after I let you distract me.....could we please get back to the substance of Maureen Dowd's piece? Aside from trying to psychoanalyze her, would you care to point out anything that was not accurate?

Perhaps you thought that Mr Romney was 100% truthful and accurate in the debate?

Jack
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I think this is a better reference for "snark".

Thanks, Peter.

Frankly, I don't care whether Maureen Dowd is a snark, a beach, a ho, etc.

What I care about is what she wrote. And I thought it was brilliant. She addressed President Obama's inexplicable performance. And Mr Romney's, ahem, 'inaccuracies.' And Mr Lehrer's poor performance (he made Obama look good, IMO) All garnished with more than a little humor.

I don't think that the President did this intentionally, but the outcome is GREAT. People who paid attention realize that Romney got away with murder. What better setup for the 2nd and 3rd debates?

Of course, President Obama could fail to show up for those too. What do you think the odds are of that?

Jack
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
JEB What I care about is what she wrote. And I thought it was brilliant.

It is brilliant, but Sorkin wrote it.

I asked Aaron if he knew how the conversation between the two presidents had gone and, as it happened, he did. This is his account.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/opinion/sunday/dowd-two-pr...

Sorkin has had a lot of practice with putting words into a President's mouth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Sorkin

Of course, President Obama could fail to show up for those too. What do you think the odds are of that?

I'm afraid to guess.

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
above Jon E Good....................complained about the "PERFORMANCE" of Jim Lehrer..........that's not his function..he is a mere moderator or time keeper....not the third leg of a TRIOKA...tho I'm sure the next two moderators won't get that............take a look at Oxbridge debates(Oxford and Cambridge debates)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

above Jon E Good....................complained about the "PERFORMANCE" of Jim Lehrer..........that's not his function..he is a mere moderator or time keeper....not the third leg of a TRIOKA...tho I'm sure the next two moderators won't get that............take a look at Oxbridge debates(Oxford and Cambridge debates)


Not to these guys, which was the exact Irony in Dowd's piece. To these guys their job is to NOT just report the news, but to extend Moral Judgement. Lehrer is a journalist in the liberal tradition of watchdog and arbiter which is oh so "not getting it" - to use the disgusting upper to middle-management term.

The new journalistic ethic demands more than that and there has been a big push to replace the liberal tradition with a view that upholds the morals of the community, as defined by people like Mo Dowd and her leash holders.

To the press with this rather new ethic, it makes perfect sense that Arron Sorkin should be writing the debate rather than have Obama and Romney do it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Theo to extend Moral Judgement.

Do you believe it is possible to judge facts independently of morals?

For instance if I make the statement:

Marijuana is a mildly intoxicating drug with few health risks.

Can you judge this to be true even if you detest the idea of human beings intoxicating themselves?

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Damnit Jack, it gets tiring having to constantly correct liberals.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/snarky

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/snarky
(notes the root of the word is "sarcastic + nasty" - totally appropriate)

As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to words Merriam-Webster is far more of an authority than wikipedia, where anyone with a little time can enter essentially whatever they want.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Do you believe it is possible to judge facts independently of morals?

Sure. In fact I believe it is essential to do so. Fact finding is the first part of a moral analysis but it is not the analysis itself.

I don't agree with your example on a factual basis. I think Marijuana has significant health risks, ask one of my dear friends who just (lucky for her) beat throat cancer, due to a rather intense pot habit.

But your point is taken. Had you said:

Alcohol is a seriously intoxicating drug with significant health risks.

I would agree that this is true even if I agree that alcohol should remain legal.

My point is that the job of the journalist is to get step 1 right - get the facts. The reason the profession is so broken is that they have extended their mandate far past that.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Theo Alcohol is a seriously intoxicating drug with significant health risks.

Well, I certainly agree with that. Based on the people I have known in my life, alcohol is MUCH riskier than marijuana.

The reason I raised the comparison between facts and moral judgement was this statement:

To these guys their job is to NOT just report the news, but to extend Moral Judgement.

But the subject is the first debate, and the only moral judgements I have noticed in the aftermath is an objection to Mitt lying.

Which I am hopeful you also object to.

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
But the subject is the first debate, and the only moral judgements I have noticed in the aftermath is an objection to Mitt lying.

Nonsense, the moral judgement centers around Lehrer, who seemingly broke some unspoken code that his duty was to shield Mr. Obama and do a fact check on the fly on one side, but not the other. In short, the expectation was for Mr. Lehrer to be as biased as the intellectual pygmies on this board.

What I am telling you is that for a large amount of the press (and almost all of the members of this board), support for a Republican, even a moderate like Romney is a profoundly immoral act.

There are two modes of Journalism right now, Lehrer is mostly in the "liberal" tradition of the press where the major goal is a watchdog function and reporting the facts. Moral and policy judgements are left to the editorial page. The second mode, in rapid ascendancy since the advent of cable is the "moral/communitarian" mode of journalism. This means that the reporting is not an inductive process of finding the facts and letting citizens decide but a deductive one of finding moral fault (as defined by the press itself) and driving the journalistic process to correct that fault.

The problem with the second mode is that it turns all reporting into editorial reporting. What Lehrer fell into was a very deep gap between old school and new school journalistic ethics. He didn't take sides up front, and he was not biased enough, which to much of the media, and guys like you was the moral failing. Not some fact check on Romney.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Theo He didn't take sides up front, and he was not biased enough, which to much of the media, and guys like you was the moral failing. Not some fact check on Romney.

I didn't pay any attention to Lehrer at all, so don't say "guys like you".

I repeat: does it bother you that Romney lied?

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I repeat: does it bother you that Romney lied?

What, specifically, did he lie about? Be very careful in answering this question.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 30
Theo What, specifically, did he lie about?


MR. LEHRER: Let's let the governor explain what you would do if "Obamacare" is repealed. How would you replace it? What do you have in mind?

MR. ROMNEY: Let — well, actually — actually it's — it's — it's a lengthy description, but number one, pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan.

http://www.npr.org/2012/10/03/162258551/transcript-first-oba...


Romney’s Pre-Existing Conditions Vow Puts 36M at Risk

By Brian Faler on October 08, 2012

Mitt Romney vows he’ll extend health insurance to people with pre-existing medical conditions, a pledge that comes with few details and strings attached.

The Republican presidential nominee says he would shield workers with coverage from being dropped if they change jobs. Romney’s plan doesn’t explain what it would do for many others, such as those with ailments seeking health coverage for the first time. Without specifics, he would leave it to the states to find solutions for everyone not covered under his proposal.

Health-policy specialists say Romney’s plan echoes such protection already in a 1996 U.S. law and doesn’t show how it would help at least 36 million sick people at risk of being denied coverage.

“It’s a complete mystery what he’s talking about,” said Joe Antos, a health-care economist at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington policy group. “He’s clearly asserting that he’s got a new policy, but he hasn’t said what it is.”

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-08/romney-s-preexis...


Let's make this more graphic. You know you have a pre-existing condition but you need health insurance. You see an ad that says:

ROMNEY HEALTH ASSURANCE
** Pre-existing conditions are covered **


So you sign up for the plan. When you have your first need for coverage your insurance claim is denied. The insurance rep explains "You didn't have continuous coverage so you are not covered for a pre-existing condition."

Would you be po'd?

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Let's make this more graphic. You know you have a pre-existing condition but you need health insurance. You see an ad that says:

ROMNEY HEALTH ASSURANCE
** Pre-existing conditions are covered **

So you sign up for the plan. When you have your first need for coverage your insurance claim is denied. The insurance rep explains "You didn't have continuous coverage so you are not covered for a pre-existing condition."

Would you be po'd?

Peter


That's it?

It's not a lie. He is talking about a future action. You can't confim a lie about a future action.

It is ambiguous as hell but ambiguity is not a lie either.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
ROMNEY HEALTH ASSURANCE
** Pre-existing conditions are covered **

So you sign up for the plan. When you have your first need for coverage your insurance claim is denied. The insurance rep explains "You didn't have continuous coverage so you are not covered for a pre-existing condition."



Do you have a link showing that Romney is planning what you have posted?

Bears
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Do you have a link showing that Romney is planning what you have posted?

Bears


* Prevent discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions who maintain continuous coverage
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care

I assume this makes no difference to you.

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement