But Nancy Pelosi decides not to be completely brow beaten, like many other Democrats, by absurd threats of “filibuster” and helps pass an overly controlling health care bill that tells Americans what they must do, at a time when with health care costs spiraling out of control and some type of reform sorely needed, is the “biggest political victory for a woman ever achieved in America.”

That’s Bill Maher. The same Bill Maher who thought he was being chic when he called John Kerry a flip flopper, helping to validate over a year and close to hundreds millions of dollars of far right wing propaganda

At least he’s somewhat funny:

Two months ago, conservative Fred Barnes wrote, ”The health care bill is dead with not the slightest prospect of resurrection.” Well, if it’s dead, you just got your ass kicked by a zombie named Nancy Pelosi. Seriously, the last time a Democrat showed balls like that John Edwards’ girlfriend was filming it. Make all the botox jokes and she-shops-too-much jokes you want, but this is the biggest political victory a woman has ever achieved in America. Yes, Nancy Pelosi likes nice clothes. So does Sarah Palin. The difference is Nancy Pelosi pays for hers.

He also makes a separate good point: “You can’t use the statement ‘there will be no cooperation for the rest of the year’ as a threat if there was no cooperation in the first half of the year.”

Maybe at least Pelosi and a few others finally figured that out.

There are a few reasons for this, that seem transparent, and perhaps, others, more veiled.  We don’t know.

First, as documented frequently, this website is not a fan of the one time Pulitzer prize winning and now seemingly vacuous, vague, stereotpying, false balancing Dowd. Nor is this rather well researched, and written site here (by a former college roommate of Tommy Lee Jones, Eric Siegel, and Al Gore).  Although that is a decidedly liberal site, whereas Donkasaurus Post is decidedly neutral (with due note that in today’s world’s, the facts themselves, are decidedly not) a snapshot look as to the reasons why that site is also not a fan of Dowd’s, is illuminating.

And we know — or at least it seems — that Dowd’s site carefully monitors to protect her from overly critical assessments of her work.

And third, we imagine that despite the inanity, and borderline sexual indulgence of some of Dowd’s columns, the Times does not want to encourage links to what it must surely (and somewhat ironically), view as puerile meanderings.

Today, Dowd wrote yet another somewhat inane, fanciful column.  In it, she tried to make the point about extreme Cheney was. At the same time, she also played into some of Cheney’s arguments, and seemed to make the questionable assertion that Cheney had no right to criticize Obama’s approach to our “counter terrorism” efforts. (We refuse to use the idiotic “war on terror,” “war” “enemy combatants” or “battlefield,” all of which play right into these psychotic terrorist criminals recruitment and proselytizing efforts as something other than the simple, lowly, depraved common murderers that they are, and which they absolutely do not want to think of themselves as, or be perceived as.  Newt Gingrich doesn’t get this point either.)  And of course she played into the pure spin argument, while seemingly trying (ineffectively) to mock it, that Obama is “weak” on terrorism because he does not use five time military deferrer Cheney’s constant drumbeat of war rhetoric.

Thus, it was, that in response, the following comment was of course blocked from all fair readers potential considerations.  As submitted in comment form to the Dowd’s column today, unedited, unabridged, and unaltered from it’s original puerile fulsomeness:

Well, you hit a lot of stereotypes Maureen, and played into a lot of misleading framing, but did so in a ‘balanced’ way.

But were you just afraid it was going too far?

Or was there some other reason that you left out that in addition to being weak — and afraid to use the manly words “war” and “enemy combatants” even though this plays right into our lowly, common murderous psychotic enemy criminals’ hands (and recruitment) that they are in some sort of grander “war” and are instead the more noble “combatants” in a war — how in addition to being weak, Obama is also prejudiced?

How’d you miss this clearly also relevant nugget. Weak and prejudiced. What kind of leader is that?

If Obama won’t frequently and constantly use “architect against terrorism” Dick Cheney’s manly war words and make our enemies all goose bumply thereby, couldn’t he at least cease from being prejudiced against homosexual fish, also?

It seems fair to ask.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSrtMPIqoaY&feature=related

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/15/obama-calls-kanye-west-jackass/

http://donkasauruspost.com/2009/09/15/beck-half-correct-president-obama-is-prejudiced-after-all-hates-gay-fish/

Dick could have pointed that out too, in the above fireside chat, don’t you think?

I’m just askin.’

What a pity that the Times readers could not revel in the sophomoric-ness and juvenile-ness of it all, while reading about how Obama is “weak” on terrorism because he relies less upon grandiose sweeping battlefield phrasing, and how Obama should tell Cheney to be quiet because THAT emboldens our enemy. (When it seems to us that both are likely wrong. The only thing that emboldens our enemy is their irrational hatred of the U.S., and culturally psychotic approach to visualizing it, along with our turning them into something they are not. That is, combatants, rather than lowly murderous criminals, and playing up to them publicly in some big game of rhetoric, rather than quietly and powerfully framing the effort so as to lessen recruitment appeal, and finding, minimizing, and where applicable, wiping them out.)

Not exactly:

Does Brown’s Senate Win Mean End of Health Reform?

This was the actual title.

And it’s not like Time pulled this out of the blue. Many Democrats and other sources before the election, had been wondering the same thing. Maloney: Health Care Dies if Coakley Loses.  Here are a few more examples of this. And our favorite of them all “If Coakley loses, I don’t see how we can get this done.”

We thought this was all a big gag played simultaneously by both google’s search engines and all the major publications and spokespeople, since, obviously one random person’s vote is pretty much inconsequential.

And then it dawned on us. If they lose this election, they lose their “majority”!

Of course, in the world of Democratic politics, majority for them means 60 percent of the votes, not, as one would quite sensibly imagine, 51%; while for their opponents, a majority means only 41%, once again, instead of the 51% that one would expect.

Of course, here’s a commenter on the hot political insider blog “The Note” at ABC who obviously must be smoking crack, or has received their math training at the George Bush School of math and deficit reduction.  Because, while we don’t know that a better bill has to be more “progressive,” they make the seemingly insane suggestion that “maybe if Coakley loses, the Dems will decide that 51 votes are a winning number.”

Yes, of course, in a world where 51 is larger than 49.  But in Democrat Politics world, 51 is smaller than 49, and 59 is smaller than 41, when those 41 are the big, bad, huff and puff and blow your house down Republicans, who will “keep the bill from passing,” mainly, because, well, they want to.

We’re not saying that the ability of the minority to sometimes serve as a check upon the will of the majority in our Congress is not a critical part of our basic system of government.  It is.  We are saying, however, that this new millennium, it only seems to go one way, as Democrats repeatedly both allow, and play right into, their opponent’s framing, and often control, of the issues.

Also consider, throughout most of this decade, when Democrats had an actual minority in the Senate and faced an opposition party president (much like the situation is now for Republicans), how many times did the Democrats nevertheless control the Senate?

Zero.

Yet Democrats are allowing Republicans to do it to them, now.

Why is that?

Here’s the worst part. Instead of getting the point of this rhetorical question, Democrats will actually provide what are, to them, “answers” to it. That’s apparently what makes them Democrats.

As for the health care bill itself, if it does get waylaid –and we don’t buy passionately made, but we think incredibly lame and defeatist, arguments that waylaying it means the issue is done, and suggest instead that the issue be covered and sold more accurately, along with writing a much better bill — we’re not sure this is the negative that Democrats seem to think that it is.

That is, this bill seems to do more for health insurance companies — the source of most of the problem (and source of the incredible amounts wasted on health care in this country) — than it does to address the problem itself.

Let’s put the core of the problem in blockquotes here to emphasize it:

We’re spending almost one fifth of our total GDP on health care in this country.  While at the same time, many people don’t have access to good health care, many others experience poor care, and insurance companies are routinely coming between patients and their doctors. And we’re spending well over half a trillion dollars a year in government funds on health care as part of that total spending. Democrats changed this bill to make it more “passable” and in so doing gave some of the very few legitimate right wing complaints against it more meaning while of course serving as yet another example of the influence of big industry lobbying power on capitol hill, to the detriment of taxpayers. And Democrats can’t get one single Republican on board by simply making it a better bill? Or, with a solid majority in both houses without Martha Coakley and the support of the White House, pass a decent bill that a majority of Americans would understand and appreciate?

Heck, even if Democrats took off that last clause (because they have decided that unlike their opponents, they can’t sell or explain anything other than to their “base,” which keeps telling them how brilliant their explanations are, and how “obvious” it all is) do they really think a majority of Americans understand and appreciate the current bill?

Here’s the bottom line:  Instead of focusing on random Senator, write a better bill that addresses the root problems, lowers costs, and does not mandate or dictate to people what to do, and stop allowing Republicans to control them, for once.

As their presence would risk giving Lincoln a raging freedom boner. Who dares awaken the great Emancipenis

Seriously (see minute 2:00), who is this guy?

Oh, that’s right. He’s the guy who the liberal Leaning American Prospect blog expected would “school” constitutional scholar and Berkeley Law Professor John Yoo, on a subject on which Yoo wrote the definitive brief.

And he can make raging boner jokes at the same time.

Opponents of Beck have made a big deal out of this. Why is beyond  us. Sure, it’s far from the greatest statement. But the fact is, it’s subjective.   It seems preposterous, but still, it’s an opinion. And a lot of people are racist.  Maybe the President is a little bit. We don’t see it at all.  But had President Bush been called a racist who hates Black people, would this same uproar of protest have occurred?

But what makes this so troubling,  is really two things.

The first thing is that it does not crack the top 100 ridiculous, inflammatory, misleading, blatantly erroneous, wildly hypocritical, dangerously deceptive, and profoundly ignorant things that Beck has asserted in recent years; and which the media, and his opponents, continue to allow him to assert without thoroughly undermining any credibility whatsoever even with his own viewers.  These are things that those who oppose Beck would be right to make a bigger issue –and national story – out of, than this mildly out of control ”racist remark.”

The second thing, is a bit funnier. It turns out (as per usual) Beck was wrong.   It’s not Whites the President is prejudiced against, or hates. It’s Gay Fish.   Which just seems, well, wrong.   [For those who don't know the Southpark episode in question, it centered on how the Kanye West character did not get the "fish sticks" joke because he was, well, a gay fish, which in the minimal interests of good taste that can be salvaged after this column, we will not repeat, um, here, either.]

If the President is prejudiced against anybody (and we don’t think he is), it is, clearly, gay fish.  Not White people as the insane, Obama hating, venom spewing, Glenn Beck asserts.