Hyperventilating never has a day off at the New York Times.
I’d been wondering how long it would take Republicans to realize that Paul Ryan is their guy.
He’s the cutest package that cruelty ever came in. He has a winning air of sad cheerfulness. He’s affable, clean cut and really cut, with the Irish altar-boy widow’s peak and droopy, winsome blue eyes and unashamed sentimentality.
Who better to rain misery upon the heads of millions of Americans?
Ms. Dowd then continues with one of her signature “woke up on the wrong side of the whiskey bottle” convolutions of point-making, wherein she manages to say a lot without ever saying anything at all.
To establish some “scare the independents” cred, she begins with attempts to yoke Ryan to both Ronald Reagan and Rush Limbaugh, even trotting out the old “ketchup as a vegetable” nonsense that liberals seem to think was more important than winning the Cold War.
Apparently, Paul Ryan’s hair is an integral part of this campaign of cruelty that he seeks to inflict upon America as both his widow’s peak and cowlick get mentions from that always calm and collected Ms. Dowd. She also makes sure to let us know that he’s white because, you know, racism.
To the left, Paul Ryan’s greatest sin is that he refuses to hop the trolley to the Land of Make Believe when it comes to dealing with debt, spending and the pesky mathematically realities associated with the futures Medicare, Social Security and almost every other buck timid politicians on both sides have been passing along for decades. Ryan’s fierce devotion to economic reality makes him, in Dowd’s opinion, a monster who wants to hurt you, albeit one she obviously has a little crush on:
Ryan should stop being so lovable. People who intend to hurt other people should wipe the smile off their faces.
The real pain being felt by liberals, of course, is the fact that Paul Ryan is telling them for the first time that there is no Santa Claus.
And the credit card bills for the presents are past due.
Ms. Dowd is another Leftist with Leftists Derangement Syndrome. And I like the part where she writes: “People who intend to hurt other people should wipe the smile off their faces.” Where exactly is the money coming from that ‘helps’ the people she says will be hurt? Isn’t that coming from all of us, and doesn’t such involuntary gift giving (i.e., taxes) hurt us? After all, we’re all being taxed to subsidize those in poverty (purportedly the recipients of our involuntary largess). But in this kind of game, the results are bad for both parties: the involuntary giver and the voluntary recipient. The giver is denied the ability to invest in worthwhile things and the recipient seems to simply get more and more impoverished (the War on Poverty has been a war for poverty) and there seems to be more of them. As we economists are wont to say, this whole transfer system is a negative sum game. It is time we tried something different, like simply reducing drastically any assistance to the ‘needy.’ No one can escape the iron law of economics: Subdizie something (poverty) and you get more of it; tax something (wealth production) and you get less of it.
– darling Mauz, sweet Redbush: Ryan is the man of your dreams, but you have long since ceased being of interest to any man.
If Ms. Dowd wishes it so that her nation never again elects someone who will not make non-stop entitlements the first priority of domestic government, there is a solution.
Attention PJ Media Readers: It’s time to take the fight to the enemy.
As these articles are deconstructed at PJM, we owe it to our children to go to the linked sites and post truth. I have seen so many well-constructed discussions here, and we need to replicate those on the enemy’s turf. It won’t work individually, but if we know there are other PJM posters waiting in the wings, we can each do our part.
It won’t convince the die-hards, but we will provide truth to some of those who are fooled by the propaganda. It’s more work of course, but not as much as putting together a failed republic.
NYT has already turned off comments to this article. Not sure why, since over 2/3 were in favor of her opinion. Nevertheless you can scroll through and provide a “thumbs up” on the posts that you like.
A good guess is that many that were opposed to her opinion were deleted. They may have also had nasty personal comments about Dowd. She almost invites that. So they cut it off.
She’s old enough to be his mother, but I do believe MoDo’s quite aroused by Mr. Ryan and not just in the political sense. That’s quite a description of him she’s got going there…
Dowd constantly injects her sexual frustration into her political opinions. This phenomenon will likely continue as she gets older and even more frustrated.
This is silly. Maureen Dowd is a well-respected journalist, whether her views are popular or not. Her family are close friends of the Bush’s. That’s how she was able to spend personal time with them to write “Bushworld.” I also believe journalists can be any age to write an opinion piece about anyone they choose, including Ryan. Just because she writes about a male does not automatically mean she “wants him.” If that were the yardstick, your logic applied to both Bachman and Palin would amount to them really, really “wanting” Obama. See how silly that sounds? It is what it is. This article, however, gives me pause. Being an independent is a luxury these days, but the more I check out the GOP as an option, the less I like what I hear. Cruel or adolescent remarks from people who know better, adds very little to a well-needed discourse. How will you attract my vote this way, or don’t you care?
I was going to say all the ladies love Paul Ryan, but there alwasy has to be one cranky old lady to spoil it!