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.)

Today, Dowd wrote a column in the NY Times very space limited op ed pages, essentially saying that 3d movies are cool, or might be cool, or that people like them, or some such. In response to the column, one of our 82,000 or so Deputy Editors happened to witness the posting of the following comment to Dowd’s post. In full:

Times’ op-eds have nothing better to cover than 3d movies??

Why don’t you write about this — good update to a NY times comment on the issue, too.

Or this.

Nah. Bring us movie talk on the oped page. Maybe Entertainment magazine’s editorial pages can cover the substantive stuff.

Who knows who monitors these, but the comment was blocked from readers’ gentle thought considerations. Unlike the one just below that makes a small fraction of the same point, while taking two ridiculous shots at President Obama for using a teleprompter (similar to essentially every other president ever since teleprompters have been in existence), and more. Or perhaps it was double reverse sophisticated satire, that few readers would ever get. We don’t know:

I wondered what compelling issues you would write about with the departure of the Bush administration. Movies, how fascinating! There is plenty of farce to be found in the Obama administration and the Democrat lead Congress. Tell us what you think about the teleprompter President please. No sarcasm needed, just the facts, and we can weep or laugh as prompted by his deeds.

The links from the blocked comment — the one that was too thoughtful to actually allow in examples by way of contrast — go to substantive pieces regarding critical issues that go to what our country is all about. Yawn, snooze, ready?:

One on a subject that has been occasionally covered; the undue influence of corporations now, in addition to everything else, upon our election process in the wake of the abysmal decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. (Some more analysis on Citizens that misses the point and paints a false paradox, with good commentary following).

The other on something that has not been very well covered; clandestine government infiltration into non governmental speech, influence and information activities, and its parallels to the anti Constitutional theories upon some of the Bush Administration’s unchecked and clandestine actions to set aside Congressional Statutes — and even potentially set aside provisions of the Bill of Rights — were based.

Maybe this stuff is too highfalutin for Dowd. Fair enough. But entertainment merging as news is not what Thomas Jefferson had in mind when he said the given the choice between newspapers and government itself, he should take newspapers. And it was not because of their official op ed page opinions on 3d movies.

But then again, this is the NY Times. It’s not like it’s a leading newspaper or anything. How could it be with op ed pieces like this?

Of course, Martha Coakley, the Democrat who lost in a state where only 13 percent of voters identified as Republicans, ran a campaign that should be a mandatory lesson for all her supporters in Cambridge.

Among other great sins, she belittled the retail politics of her opponent, who stood in the cold of a Bruins hockey game at Fenway Park, thus disparaging three great New England institutions a single two-second sound bite. It follows, then, that she didn’t know that Curt Schilling, the Boston pitcher who bled through his sox, was a Red Sox fan. Stealing a page from Mike Dukakis when he decided to spend August mowing his lawn while the 1988 presidential contest slipped away from him, her campaign essentially went dark with a double-digit lead. And she did what no Kennedy had ever done — she took the voter for granted.

…Democrats are good at bleeding, kvetching and woe-is-me-ing.

Democrats taking voters for granted.

Democrats belittling opponents in ways that don’t speak out to those beyond their own base, but that invariably impugn the very voters that they need to reach. (We won’t add “Democrats mocking these suggestions as irrelevant, or worse, because, well “we told the truth,” “If we got the message, then doesn’t that prove it was effective?” See here, for a classic example.)

Democrats then spending a whole lot of time, complaining about the very things that shouldn’t have happened, because it was all “so obvious.”

Yeah, we’ve heard this before.

It also ties in with a post here yesterday that asked “Just how bad are Democrats at Controlling the Debate,” and which made the same point which Egan ascribes to Jon Stewart, whom he calls the most astute political commentator in America. (Maybe he’s just the best known.)

This huge majority, as America’s most astute political observer, Jon Stewart, pointed out, is far more than George W. Bush ever had, and he used it to do whatever he wanted to with the country.

You don’t say. Our point, exactly. And we ask, why?