1.20.09 -- At Last!!

Maureen Dowd, who is to literacy what phone sex is to oratory, should have appealed to Barack Obama for the position of Inaugural Poet. In "Let Me Tell You AGAIN How Much I Hate George W. Bush," (originally printed under the title, "It's All About Meeee!") Ms. Dowd ingratiates herself -- again -- to her fellow patients in the Bush Derangement Syndrome psych ward (at the New York Times, with branches in nearly every newsroom in America); in her always imitable way (see?), Ms. Dowd concludes her vexatious review of President Bush's flight out of Washington during the Feast of the Immaculate Election† from her seat in the Day Room, and hardly a more poetic review could be made (permit me to structure Ms. Dowd's fine work in a less prosaic form):

...the cram of people
sparked warmth rather than antsiness.

Strollers laughed
as a peddler in a Rasta hat
hawked his “Barack Obama incense.”
And revelers stepped up to a spot
where you could pick out a
colored
magic marker
and complete posters that began,
“Mr. President, I hope for ...”
Entries ranged from “burning less oil”
to “healthcare for all”
to “a cure for cancer”
to this lofty
and entirely understandable
sentiment:
“a sick inauguration party.”

Exactly, Ms. Dowd. A sick party indeed.

(I do love those laughing strollers.)

See how easy this is, Ms. Dowd?


Peace through dissent.

BG

PS. If you love to have fun with Ms. Dowd, then you'll love this.

†Unfortunately, I cannot take credit for the "Feast of the Immaculate Election." Boston talk-radio host Jay Severin used it on Monday; apparently it originates from an episode of the very funny but short-lived TV show, "Arrested Development."

©Contratimes/2009. All rights reserved.

Progressive Press Peeved Palin Prays?

File this under incredible.

Opinion Journal's James Taranto brings more clarity to Charlie Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin (see transcript). Recall that Mr. Gibson construed Sarah Palin's words in such a way as to imply she believed America's troops were just bellicose Blues Brothers on a "mission from God." Here's an excerpt of Taranto's post from Friday, Sept. 12, 2008:

Although she had spoken the words Gibson attributed to her, his rendition of the quote was a dowdification.[†] He took the words out of context to make a prayer that "the task is from God" appear to be an assertion that it is.

This misleading quotation might have been an error rather than a deliberate deception, and it did not originate with Gibson. Our Tuesday item noted that CNN had misrepresented Palin's words on Monday, and on Sept. 4 "AllahPundit" pointed to an Associated Press dispatch from the previous day that might have been the origin of the falsehood.

Yesterday the Associated Press, in reporting on the interview, relied on its own inaccurate reporting of a week earlier in claiming that Palin had "contradicted an assertion she made at her former church that 'our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.' " This claim disappeared from later versions of the AP dispatch, although we haven't found any evidence that the wire service issued a correction.

ABC seems to have realized its mistake as well. The version of the interview that aired on ABC's "World News" last night (video here) edited out the lines in which Palin disputes the accuracy of Gibson's quote and Gibson replies, "Exact words." In their place is a YouTube clip of Palin speaking at the church. Again, as far as we know, ABC has not expressly acknowledged the error.

The journalists at AP, CNN and ABC who took liberties with Palin's quote might or might not have intended to deceive. But there can be little doubt that they intended to further a stereotype of Palin as some sort of religious nut. What's interesting is that in the course of doing so, they ended up disparaging her for praying.

As we noted yesterday, some of the less well-grounded members of the political media have been harshly attacking Palin for having a baby. Egads! Can we really have a heartbeat away a Christian who prays, or a woman who has borne children?

I do like Taranto's last line: "With friends like these, who needs Karl Rove?" My thoughts exactly.

†A dowdification is a fabrication or corruption of a quote, epitomized by the putative style of Maureen Dowd, the New York Times columnist who is to literacy what phone sex is to oratory.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

Abusing Sarah Palin With Metaphor

Twice this week I've warned the Democratic Party about the dangers of overplaying the Sarah Palin attack strategy. I even invoked a sports metaphor, the very same (and rather lame) metaphor I invoked on the eve of Democratic Party victories in 2006. I warned them of the "offsides trap," a defensive play in soccer (or European football). Not that anyone is listening, but I at least try to sound the alarm.

I find it interesting that tonight on the "The Factor" with Bill O'Reilly, Dick Morris used a metaphor of similar import drawn from military history: he warned Democrats that Sarah Palin could end up being the Democratic Party's Battle of Kursk; that battle was a trap for Germany, used to great success by the Soviet Union in World War 2. I like Morris' metaphor only to a point, as it is hard for me to even remotely hint at sympathy towards the repugnant Hitler (or the Soviet Union's Stalin, for that matter).

My warning, of course, was aimed at Democrats and all those in the media who support the Democratic Party. It was intended to point out the perils of crossing a particular line, albeit a moving one. A quick survey of the media largely confirms my suspicion that Democrats have already crossed that line with a series of abusive metaphors (in bold):

• The ever-imitable New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd opined Sunday that Sarah Palin is essentially a real-life "chic flick." In all fairness to Ms. Dowd, who is to literature what phone sex is to oratory, a direct quote should be offered: Sarah Palin's story is a "hokey chick flick [that] came out on the trail, a Cinderella story so preposterous it’s hard to believe it’s not premiering on Lifetime." (My wife perfectly sums up what is wrong with Ms. Dowd: Ms. Dowd's words are born solely of envy.)
• Ersatz comedian Bill Maher essentially referred to Sarah Palin as John McCain's stewardess. (That's some pretty heady humor there, Bill. Great writing.)
  
• Washington Post columnist Sally Quinn believes "that a woman with five children, including one with special needs, and a daughter who is a 17-year-old child who is pregnant and about to have a baby, probably has got to rethink her priorities. It seems to me that there is a tipping point, and I think that she's crossed the tipping point." (Ms. Quinn might want to quietly meditate on her tipping point for a while.)
• Democratic strategist and linguist/philosopher George Lakoff said of the Sarah Palin story, "It's conceivable a 17-year-old girl just screwed the GOP." (Of course, it should behoove any decent linguist to properly ask himself what he intends by "conceivable" and "screwed." Nice metaphors, Mr. Lakoff. I can see why you are a Democratic strategist.)

What is just thrilling good fun is to watch closely whether Gov. Palin can sufficiently tap into her own poetic muse to find the apt metaphor that both perfectly fits the expectations of the American psyche (at least a majority share of it), and also gives Mr. Lakoff fits of apoplexy (figuratively speaking, of course). Tonight, right now in fact, is her time to be particularly inspired. That is if she's not too tired from breast-feeding. (Sorry. See how easy it is to be a buffoon?)

©Contratimes/2008. All Rights Reserved.

She Finally Turned The Corner, Diving Into Home, One Rung At A Time

In Maureen Dowd's recent column in the New York Times, posted after Barack Obama ostensibly clinched the Democratic Party nomination, we find a set of metaphors so mixed it would be nothing short of a miracle to learn that emergency rooms have not reported a sudden increase in fits of epilepsy.

What follows is some obscene blend of Viagra-laced canine cannibalism during a basketball game played by reluctant sprinters on a track combating a hostile takeover, all with a touch of sacred unction:

Barry [Ms. Dowd's appellative of Barack Obama falls short of witty] has been trying to shake off Hillary and pivot for quite a long time now, but she has managed to keep her teeth in his ankle and raise serious doubts about his potency. Getting dragged across the finish line Tuesday night by Democrats who had had enough of the rapacious Clintons, who had decided, if it came to it, that they would rather lose with Obama than win with Hillary, the Illinois senator tried to celebrate at the St. Paul arena where Republicans will anoint John McCain in September.

But even as Obama was trying to savor, Hillary was refusing to sever.

Lest readers think that "Barry" has dragged Mrs. Clinton across the finish line, her bitchy teeth sunk deep into his malleolus (or so illustrates Ms. Dowd), it's helpful to note that Ms. Dowd opines that it's Mr. Obama who's been dragged across the finish line, dragged by Democrats who would "rather lose with [him] than win with Hillary." (I should add that the canine imagery is to this writer suggestive of racism, with a white person setting the dogs on a black man, and is indicative of Dowd's deft touch.)

I am sure Mr. Obama loves reading that he's been dragged across the nomination finish line by Democrats who don't care about winning; or that he's been helped along because he's apparently incapable of winning a race on his own. I am sure he's also glad to learn from Ms. Dowd that he's quite dependent on Democrats' very affirmative actions.

And how could I fail to comment on Ms. Dowd's last sentence quoted above? Context only amplifies the problem, for contextually the sentence is just about one of the worst things I've ever read (it even fails the most saccharine cutesy tests). After all, it's Hillary, is it not, who has her mouth full of "Barry's" flesh; is she not the one savoring? And if Hillary is as rapacious as described by Ms. Dowd, wouldn't she love to sever "Barry's" Achilles tendon with her jaws?

Clarity, be damned!

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

"She Is To Literacy What Phone Sex Is To Oratory"

The ever-brilliant and transcendent Maureen Dowd, that Gorgon-loving scribbler from the New York Times, blesses us again with her pellucid commentary on all things political, this time on the erstwhile White House press secretary Scott McClellan's recently released tell-all, What Happened. Watch her work her magic:

So now comes Scott McClellan, once the most loyal of the Texas Bushies, to reveal “What Happened,” as the title of his book promises, to turn W. from a genial, humble, bipartisan good ol’ boy to a delusional, disconnected, arrogant, ideological flop.

Although his analytical skills are extremely limited, the former White House press secretary — Secret Service code name Matrix — takes a stab at illuminating Junior’s bumpy and improbable boomerang journey from family black sheep and famous screw-up back to family black sheep and famous screw-up. [emphasis mine]

At the risk of majoring in a minor, I have to make one astute point: no "boomerang journey" can ever be "bumpy." Of course, I now confess to the sin of averring I've made an astute point. Surely I've overextended myself. But surely I have not overstated my case when it comes to Ms. Dowd's literary abilities. Her capacious wits have been sufficiently examined by this writer (a link to the essay from whence I culled this post's title), and I've successfully shown that her capacities are not exactly what one might call expansive. Expensive perhaps, especially to correct, but expansive? Hardly.

Ms. Dowd, at least to this writer, has a preternatural view of her own abilities. Note that she includes herself in the pantheon of gifted analysts by comparison: she posits the diagnosis that Mr. McClellan's "analytical skills are extremely limited." Ms. Dowd's penchant for pointing out her neighbors' inadequacies is less a habit of insight than it is a habit of self-disclosure: she's certain she is not one of them. (And we nod, smiling, giving her gentle reassurances.)

Ironically, she is unable to see that she is one of them, her (lame) references to Shakespeare notwithstanding. Moreover, she is blind to the irony, as blind to it as she is to the glaring contradiction she commits in her indubitably trenchant analysis. Surely she could be more circumspect, no?

An astute reader would note that if Mr. McClellan's "analytical skills are severely limited," a description that places him perilously close to the brain injured or "retarded," then said reader could only conclude that Mr. McClellan's analysis of the Bush White House is plainly retarded to everyone but Ms. Dowd. But no, no. She finds his analysis compelling, even worthy. She gleans some true gems from McClellan's severely limited analysis, like McClellan's apparently flawless recollection of what triggered his doubts about President Bush's integrity: he overheard the then-nominee Bush in 2000 tell a supporter he couldn't recall having used cocaine. Such fine analysis proves one thing to Ms. Dowd: What Happened is quite the exposé! Riveting stuff.

That Ms. Dowd would conclude her essay with further disclosures of her limited grasp of the genesis of the War on Terror leaves this writer buckled over in laughter (though not without some sympathy). Ms. Dowd has an audience after all, less prone to laughter and far more sympathetic than I; that faithful audience is quite enamored of her brand of revisionism. And she is compensated and affirmed for her inadequacies by that audience, which is what even the severely limited deserve -- at least twice a week.

(See how easy this is, Ms. Dowd?)

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.