Posted on 10/17/2010 5:39:16 PM PDT by WebFocus
I used to enjoy reading Maureen Dowd. I think she has a way with words and at times she even promotes thinking outside of conventional wisdom. Unfortunately, those columns are few and far between. Reading her column in the Sunday New York Times irritated me. I guess that’s her specialty — irritation.
I remember once after I’d left the White House I mentioned one of her columns to a friend and the friend said, “You know, you don’t have to read that stuff any more . . . you graduated.” But I’m a news junkie; I can’t help myself. Kind of like some women and chocolate. Whoops! Sorry — did I say something stereotypical and uncalled for?
That’s exactly what her column about mean Republican and conservative women is — stereotypical and uncalled for. She lists the usual suspects — as in, those expected to win. Yet reading her piece I keep thinking, has she met any of those women? Does she still feel that way after walking away? I’m fortunate to meet a lot of women from both sides of the aisle — and with few exceptions I like them all. I certainly don’t think any of them are mean. Can women have moments they aren’t proud of? Sure. But to write all conservative and Republican women off as mean is . . . mean.
One night her name came up at a dinner attended by members of both parties. Someone told a story about how at a past dinner she’d been a guest and had been droning on and on in a catty way and that one of the men at the table wrote on a cocktail napkin and passed it to another. It said, “What happened to her?” Sigh. Who the heck knows?
Perhaps she was a mean girl. Or maybe mean girls picked on her. Not in high school, but in adulthood — and now she can think how powerful she is by writing catty columns on America’s most liberal editorial page. A column like today’s keeps those cocktail-party invitations coming.
After the mid-term election, you can guarantee that she’ll write about how the Republicans are standing in the way of progress and so pig-headed they just won’t compromise and support the liberal agenda. And she wonders why conservatives increasingly believe that liberal elites can’t relate to America?
Usually I’d ignore her. But most conservative women running for office don’t have time to stop and be petty. I can do that for them.
As I’ve said about Maureen: It must be hard to be that angry all the time. That’s why I stay cheerful — just to irritate her. Two can play at that game, sister.
Getting ugly fast...she’s Frank Rich wearing a wig.
lol
She’s well on her way to Helen Thomas looks. What a bitter little prune she is.
The only thing “enjoyable” about Maureen Dowd’s column is throwing it in the trash can when you’re done!
DIBS!!!
When Michael Douglas boots it I have dibs on consoling the lovely widow.
(for those who are offended, I’m just kidding.)
And this is where Dana lost me.
Why on earth would anyone enjoy reading Maureen Dowd? She is a bitter, nasty, obnoxious woman who hasn't penned anything worth looking at...well...ever.
What was this guy smoking? She's not only stupid and nasty, and never does any research or interviews, but she's one of the crummiest writers around.
A smart 5th grader can write better than she does.
A bitter prune who realized too late she had traded all the most important things in life for a handful of magic beans.
Thank you
Dowd better stock up on antidepressants for November 3rd.
Okay, I have to ask: What’s the deal with your tag line??? I’m sure there’s a cool story there, yes?
;)
Dana is a very pretty woman. Beyond that, she is a very pretty woman. And when you really think about what she says and evaluate her analysis (like her savaging of Christine O’Donnell, you realize that Dana is extremely well qualified to be ... a very pretty woman
Idiocracy
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.