
Sometimes, you read a column that is so catty, you just shake your head and wonder what in the hell the writer was thinking. But when it is Maureen Dowd, you generally just shrug it off, because that's her schtick in trade.
Yesterday, though, Dowd crossed a line for me -- and needs to be called out for it. No link, because it's behind the subscriber wall, but this is some appallingly catty, vapid and stereotypically sexist prose from a woman who styles herself as the Queen Bee of the Big Fat Cocktail Weenie set.
It's one thing to read something like this from some old geezer who thinks anyone with ovaries ought to be fixing him another martini...but Dowd really ought to know better. Except I think she does, and she writes this crap anyway for either some weird attempt at appearing "balanced" (whatever the hell that means these days) or because she has some desperate need to hang out with the Kool Kidz in the dreary confines of the National Press Club Bar. (You know, Jeff Gannon doesn't suck down the booze with just anyone...)
Here's a taste:
Ted Olson, the former solicitor general and eloquent Republican lawyer who argued the Bush v. Gore case before the Supreme Court, was warming up the rabidly conservative Federalist Society crowd for John McCain with a few sexist cracks about Botox.The new Congress could amuse itself, he said, by "searching for any sign of movement in Speaker Pelosi's forehead." The Senate, he added, would be entertained by "the expressionless, Pelosi-like forehead of Senator Clinton."
It reminded you of just how idiotic Republicans can act sometimes. The only thing worse than hearing the first female speaker of the House filleted in such a lame way was seeing the first female speaker of the House flail around in her first big week in such a lame way. It reminded you of just how idiotic Democrats can act sometimes.
Nancy Pelosi's first move, after the Democratic triumph, was to throw like a girl. Women get criticized in the office for acting on relationships and past slights rather than strategy, so Madame Speaker wasted no time making her first move based on relationships and past slights rather than strategy.
Oh....hahahahaha...Botox jokes disguised as making fun of Botox jokes. How droll. See how Dowd managed to get in a smack at Pelosi's forehead, all the while blaming it on Ted Olson? Petty. But then it gets worse:
Instead of counting votes behind closed doors or even just choosing the best person for majority leader, Ms. Pelosi offered an argument along the lines of: John Murtha's my friend. He's been nice to me. I don't like Steny. He did something a long time ago that was really, really bad that I'm never, ever going to tell you. And I'm the boss of you. So vote for John.As the adage goes, if you shoot at the king, you'd better kill him. And if you're the queen and you shoot at your knight, you'd better kill him too, or you end up looking like a weak sister.
Democratic lawmakers, who should have been basking, were left baffled as Nancy, spanked by her flock, strained to make nice with Steny.
You know, I wasn't all that hot for either Majority Leader candidate, frankly, but let's be honest: Steny's crowd was doing a lot of behind-the-scenes oppo pushing on Murtha, including in a hit piece planted in the NYTimes, and Dowd, Queen Bee of the Big Fat Cocktail Weenie set knows that full well. Is there a comment about that? Nope, doesn't fit into her snark at the new female leader on the block narrative, now does it?
Here's a crazy thought: what if Pelosi genuinely thought that Murtha's leadership on the Iraq issue was just what the Democratic caucus needed in the leadership to send a signal to the military brass that their concerns were being taken very seriously? What if Nancy knew all along that it was probably a losing cause, but, say, loyalty to Murtha and by extension loyalty to the military was very, very important at a time when their concerns have been shoved aside for too long by the Bush Administration? What if this was an intentional move on Speaker-to-be Pelosi's part to send that signal -- up front -- that we had their backs, and that they should be candid about the situation in any upcoming oversight hearings so that the Democrats could push for desperately needed reforms and for redeployments in an intelligent and necessary way from Iraq?
I mean, just for kicks, let's assume that a woman who has risen to the top position in the House of Representatives for the first time in the history of this nation of ours has a little more sense than Dowd portrays her as having. Not exactly a stretch, is it?
Of course, reading analysis from a woman who is more interested in scoring the latest Louboutin peep-toe platform from the Barney's mark-down rack than she is in digging out the honest truth of the matter is really a waste of my time. The fact that Tom DeLay used to hold votes open on the floor for hours, threatening to ruin the political careers of people's children? Well, that's just politics, it is what strong men do in times of trial. Boo yah, and all of that.
Nancy Pelosi standing up for someone on principle and loyalty? Apparently, that's girlie, according to Dowd.
Look, I'm not always going to agree with things that Nancy Pelosi does. If, rumor has it, she's thinking about appointing Alcee Hastings to head up the Intel committee, I think that would be a mistake -- because a judge who has been removed from the bench on perjury issues is not likely to be able to get high level clearance, for one thing, no matter how good a public speaker he may be, and that could interfere with his job performance.
But you know what? No decision has been made as yet, and I don't have all the facts, and I'm not going to sit here and be catty and say "Oh, that Nancy, she's being such a girl."
News flash: she is a girl. So am I. And just because she has boobs -- or me, or anyone else for that matter -- it doesn't mean that anyone, including some other fashionista posing as the Long Island Snark Queen, gets to criticize her based on some asinine criteria involving the same idiotic criticisms that women have always heard: take a Midol, she must have PMS, she can't hack it -- it's her hormones, etcetera, etcetera. Well, I'm calling bullshit on Maureen right now.
Criticize the Speaker-elect on substance -- but don't resort to sexist blather. It's pathetic, whiny, and beneath any thinking woman, and Dowd ought to be ashamed of herself. I know I am ashamed of her.
UPDATE: Howie has a fantastic take on this as well. Read. Enjoy.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
{{{{{{Christie}}}}}}
(Hugs)
!!!!!!ReddHedd!!!!!!
(Hands clapping loudly)
Dowd can be a gloried Cindy Adams.. she really needs to get laid more often methinks
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{Christy}}}}}}}}}}}}
And the rest of the family!
I heard some similar blather from Gloria Borger yesterday. I’m thinking we’ll just have to get used to it. Everything Pelosi does or says for the duration of her tenure as Speaker will be couched in terms of her gender.
The blogosphere should always call it, but it isn’t going to change.
Lina at 4 — I have no patience for this sort fo sexist crap coming out of the mouths of other women who ought to know better. No patience at all.
Plus, you don’t think MoDo has had her screws turned? She’s 53 for gawd’s sake. The only reason she started doing TV was she got an upgrade on her face.
I had my close encounter with Ms Dowd at Yearlykos. It was a very interesting event. Part of it was my lack of expecting anyone there except those of us who hung out at the blogs.
First day, first session at 8 am, I am in the session on training and tips for TeeVee interviews so that I can help my local candidates. The session was going through the intros of who was attending & why, the chair next to me was empty, catch that someone has slipped into that chair. I peak over and realize who it is, hey I would do the same if it was Christy or Jane but I made that startled intake breath sounds huhhhhaaa sound which caused others to turn around and reconize her. She was there fresh scrubbed(sans makeup), hair in pony tail, older jeans and T-shirt. My impression was that she was trying to “fit in”. She shook hands all around and as soon as there was an interval that she could sneak out, she did.
lina at 6 — I saw her in person at YKos, and her haircolorist ought to be fired. She really ought not be tossing stones, with a glass house like that.
When Dowd gets her claws into another woman, its really disgusting — its like there are one set of rules for HER as a woman in a “man’s world,” and another set of rules for other women. I lost a lot of respect for her after she went after Judy Steinberg Dean — a professional woman who does quite well in her chosen field, thank you nicely, and who doesn’t particularly like “things” — and went on the whole rant about how a real woman like Judy Dean would never play in Iowa or the “real” world. What world does Dowd live in? What does she know about the real world? Apparently Judy Dean was too subversive for Dowd. So I’m disappointed but not surprised to see her pulling out her claws for Pelosi: has she ever approved of any woman with any power? She bashes Hillary regularly using the same “girlie” schtick she uses against Pelosi: quite frankly, she writes about women in a demeaning way that she doesn’t use against men, no matter how snarky she gets against males in power. I think its one thing to have substantial differences with Hillary and Nancy, but write about them — not with this “oh dear, another woman in power behaving like a woman” crap.
That’s Modo expressing her need for approval from the kewl kidz klub. “like me boys, I can make fun of the girl just like you…”
Christy -
From the sublime to the “who the hell let that thing out of the bag?” = swan to cat ;-)
Did Margaret Thatcher have to endure this from the Brit. press?
Or did she fit the mold of the matronly grandmama, therefore, she got a pass?
It’s pathetic, whiny, and beneath any thinking woman
Which is why it came from dowd. It must be galling for someone like her to see that Pelosi is everything she isn’t; A woman who was able to balance family and work to reach the highest levels of power and success in this country.
I read MoDo about once every other month and she just pisses me off. My wife hasn’t read her stuff since her Pulitzer prize-winning work on Flytrap.
There’s three ways to deal with her:
1. The Michelle Malkin/Atlas Shrugs approach where someone (like Sadly No or tbogg) reads her and points out her BS without everyone having to bother to read her.
2. The Mickey Kaus approach where we just ignore him.
3. The Adam Naqourney approach: the parody site.
I’m going to take approach 2.
Turnabout’s fair play, don’t you think? Shouldn’t we use the same lens to examine MoDo_DoDo’s work?
How much of Dowd’s maliciousness and airheaded tripery is hormonal drivel?
I personally can’t read her any more. Her weird lack of professionalism when interacting with men while on camera, exhibited in subtle flirtation, is disgusting. Any man doing that should be called on it and generally is; she needs a comeuppance, too.
Give me Arianna any day. But only after Christy, Jane and Marcy…
Here’s the linky from behind the firewall:
http://select.nytimes.com/2006.....amp;emc=th
You know, a whole lot of people (including Dowd) apparently don’t understand log-rolling.
Like how the national capital came to be situated where it is.
It is fairly obvious to me that Nancy, daughter of a Bal’mur machine pol, knows exactly how to play inside the legislative process.
Look, she said “friendship” with Murtha but she meant something else: she obviously had made a commitment to support him. Maybe you can’t trust politicians to be straight and consistent (McCain now wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, for example), but legislators can trust other legislators to keep their commitments. Their word, inside the process, is their bond.
To break a commitment that was given to a fellow legislator is called “going south on me.” It just isn’t done.
As the news indicated, Nancy did not come out in public support until Murtha wrote her a letter a week ago, gently reminding her (though not in so many words) that she had promised to support him for Majority Leader, presumably a long time ago — maybe even as part of getting him to come out against the Iraq War — who knows when? She replied with a letter that, bereft of palpable enthusiasm, cited his letter as the reason for her giving her public support.
Duh-h-h-h-h. Watch the slow-moving walnut shells being moved around in front of your eyes, folks.
An article at the time explained that her support was pro forma. I am practically certain that she did not want Murtha (or realized that Steny already had the vote count locked up), but she had a commitment that she could not break.
So Maureen Dowd and 99.9% of the media missed what was going on, and missed the fact that Nancy played it like a pro. Nancy ain’t crying about the final vote; only Murtha is.
Nancy’s power is diminished only in the eyes of the blind (most of the CM).
And frankly, I’m happy to have a Speaker who both keeps her commitments and keeps her eye on the vote count, and knows how to play the game.
Nancy Pelosi does.
lina @
12
Margaret Thatcher was the “Iron Lady.” There was no grandmama about her.
She’s a lonely bitter lady who can’t play and can write so it comes off as bitter jealousie…
But she can be funny is a odd way at timmes. She needs to be spanked… hard.
Go Christy!
Dowd has disappointed.
The cat pix at the top looks like the way I feel toward Hillary. If the Senator will call for pulling the troops out of Iraq and call to account the Israeli government’s out of control actions in the Middle East, I will overlook her connections to the DLC and support this woman for president in a heartbeat. I am not going to hold my breath.
The new Speaker is OK.
Clark or Gore in 2008. Gore/Clark: possible dream ticket.
The corporate press is going to keep this up for the next two years.
Christy…you should have had a 707 warning before this text. FUNNY and TRUE
Can you hear an “Amen, Sister” in the house?
She’s doing the anti-feminist “crabs in a barrel” shit. If anyone gets a claw up and out of the barrel, there she is to pull her back down.
This is her schtick to make a buck. The more outrage, the bigger the payday. Ignore her. I have not read her since her hit pieces on Al Gore.
Newt Gingrich also publicly supported someone who lost. I’m sure MoDo said nothing about it at the time.
The Clinton Battle Plan
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15...../newsweek/
Remember how nasty Dowd was to Gore? Well, this is just history revisiting itself. For Dowd, being non partisan means tearing down the Ds w/ equal gusto even if it is not justified.
Rob at 26 — I started to list off all the things that I could remember just off the top of my head from the Gingrich years forward…and then stopped, because it would have been a four-volume set. The deliberately obtuse tone of this particular op-ed, along with its catty anti-female aspirsions really set me off…
Hmmm, Pelosi sure is catching a lot of flack for wanting Murtha in the House leader role. Perish the thought that there might be dissent in the “people’s house”, that she endorse the man that she believes almost single-handedly changed the national direction on what she claims is an issue of tantamount importance to her vision of where this country needs to be” out of Iraq! Hard for the cocktail weenie set to understand that adults can disagree, oppose, and still function amicably as a democratically elected body.
Besides, George Bush threw Harriet Miers up on the podium and my recollection was that they simply called for his reconsideration, not his scalp.
Dowd’s TeenBeat columns are a waste of a pefectly good 5 minutes.
Maybe a soupcon of Frank Rich will take the bad taste out of our mouths:
http://select.nytimes.com/2006.....amp;emc=th
“It’s Not the Democrats Who Are Divided.”
It’s bizarre. There are still lots of folks out there that think Newtie is the cat’s pajamas.
How do we like McCain/Newtie in 2008? Could happen?
(You know, Jeff Gannon doesn’t suck down the booze with just anyone…)
That’s just wrong on so many levels…
I like it a lot.
Melissa @ 18
Same with Babs Bush, (Georgies mom)
If we want to get involved with this process, it looks like we can. This is from the government’s Thomas site:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/law.....ocomm.html
I think it extremely healthy and a quiet refreshing change to see some debate and dissent among the leadership, even if Pelosi didn’t get her guy in the seat. Lock-step agreement wears a very brown shirt and has the stench of the last 6 years all over it.
jayt at 33 — thanks, I’m particularly proud of that line myself. *g*
Poor MoDo, she just wants to sit at the grownup’s table.
Oklahoma kiddo @
34
Oh no, Babs was “America’s Grandmother” for the entire time she was First Lady. It was only after they left office that stories about how nasty she really is started getting out.
Lina at 4:
The blogosphere should always call it, but it isn’t going to change.
I disagree. What will happen is that people will simply turn away from this, because it isn’t substantive, and it isn’t informative, and that kind of crap is no longer relevant. Remember the “Takers and the Leavers” from Ishmael? There will be an increasing numbers of “leavers” from this kind of useless information.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 27
From the article:
Jonathan Alter is presuming that the successful Democratic hopeful has to hew to the centrist line, I’m thinking that the “anyone but Hillary” candidate will emerge to the left of that well trod rut. Here’s hoping.
i stopped needing a modo fix when jane and christie came on the scene.
modo, go to where ever judy miller went and stay there.
Looks like a good time to link (again) to the Orcinus post that Digby pointed out yesterday:
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2.....-bees.html
Sara Robinson has a great list of points to combat this behaviour.
(((Christy!)))
(((Peanut!)))
Hope you both are feeling better and there is plenty of time for your nap today.
And I hope intelligent articulate women keep pounding MoDo on her internalized sexism until she’s embarrassed into silence (on this, at least).
I’ve never been or wished to be part of the Eastern Establishment - blergh. Junior high bored me the first time.
Why repeat the experience, much less choose a lifetime of thirteen year-olds’ emotional dynamics?
But I still can’t figure out what rock MoDo’s been under for thirty years. Talking her sort of trash wouldn’t have gone over at UCSB in the seventies…..
Are the Beltway pundits so damn insular that they’ve missed feminism? And if they’ve missed - or are paid to ignore - that basic social advance, what other basic social advances are they paid to ignore?
What - other than their obsession with social pecking orders - have they actually noticed over the last third of a century?
These people make W look intellectually curious.
Quick - can somemone tell MoDo the news?
The Wall fell.
Saddam is no longer an ally.
And - for the rest of us - life is what we did after graduation, not what the Queen Bees said to the uncool kids in 8th grade.
Oh - and MoDo - with the money you make, you can certainly afford long-term therapy.
Give it a try, MoDo - you may actually find you like life as adults live it. Thirty years as a fourteen year old is more than even you should have to endure.
Nobody seems to have picked up on what could be quite a Machiavellian move on Pelosi’s part. From all indications she’s quite skilled when it comes to palace intrigue.
We know Murtha is one of the few go-to guys in Congress for active military. When the military wants to get information out they can’t just hold a press conference, so they rely on sympathetic and trusted conduits like Murtha. It’s because of what Murtha was hearing from the military that he changed his stance on the Iraq Occupation, and Murtha then provided the backbone necessary to stand against the Bush government. Murtha did stick his neck way out months ago when all the other Democrats were trying hard to wish Iraq away before the election.
So here we are with a stunning Democratic victory in the election, and Pelosi has to be smart enough to know that Murtha’s bold move to take a stand on Iraq helped provide that victory. She’s now Speaker in large part because of the risks Murtha took.
I’d think Pelosi sees that Murtha gave the Democrats credibility on Iraq, which in a larger sense means credibility on national security issues. Pushing for Murtha to be majority leader would help to string along that credibility and move it past the election.
Maybe Pelosi supported Murtha because she owed him for past things. Or maybe she knew Murtha was a long shot for majority leader, but backed him to send a message to the active military that she respects them and Murtha and that she intends to look out for their interests.
Sometimes it’s not the obvious things that are the objectives. As any chess player knows, some moves intentionally sacrifice lesser pieces to give the player better position in the game. It could be Pelosi’s support of Murtha wasn’t really about beating Hoyer but was about setting up a stronger board position down the road.
In my dubious metaphor the lesser piece sacrificed would be Pelosi’s “credibility” of backing a losing candidate. But really, how important was this majority leader skirmish? By the time the new Congress meets in a couple of months nobody will care who Pelosi backed. It’s DC insider cocktail weenie babble.
DefJef @
2
She doesn’t like guys who don’t make eight figures or more.
Twisted Martini @ 10
bingo!
Hoyer said on MTP that, even after knowing he had the votes, Nancy voted for Murtha out of loyalty, a trait that he thoroughly respects.
And he said he understood that.
In other words, as I said up in #17, she had made a commitment and she wasn’t about to break it.
That’s what the Murtha support was about.
Smart politicians don’t switch their votes or support just because they know they are going to lose if they have made a commitment to another legislator.
Despite Dowd’s drivel and failure to understand the legislative process, Nancy has strengthened herself among all legislators with her support of Murtha.
They know that her word is her bond.
And that’s how a Speaker (or any legislator) gets things done. Nothing — nothing — is more important in the legislative process than being able to trust what a fellow legislator says.
(Sorry to carry on about this. I used to work for a US Senator and was up to my elbows in political horse-trading from the time I was 19 in college.)
Humm. I appear to be in moderation, but I don’t know why.
I could never figure out the media blitz on Pelosi’s BAD WEEK. Let’s see- she is unanimously chosen to be the Dem’s house leader. She supports Murtha for majority leader and lets it be known. The Dems have a vote and they choose somebody else. I didn’t hear any reports of keeping the Senators in a rom until they voted for Murtha. Nobodys arm was twisted. I din’t hear about anyone threatened with loosing Dem support or of Pelosi making sure that so-and-so would have an opponent in the primary if the vote didn’t go her way. Nobody had to hide out in another room and say that their voting card didn’t work.
Actually, Pelosi’s week sounds like a great week for democracy.
OK- maybe accepting that some people have a different opinion or a different choice for leadership is womanly. But that GOP
manlybully approach has taken us to hell in a handbasket.puppethead — Believe Prof already pointed out that potential strategy.
Personally, I think she danced with the guy who gave her a lift to the dance, but she doesn’t owe him any more than that since she’s not in complete control of her dance card.
None of us are, if you think about it.
Christy Hardin Smith @
29
{pimp}Speaking of four-volume sets, did you check out the Vinnie Gill set yet? You can hear clips at the iTunes store. :-){/pimp}
OT (sorry, I’m not trying to hijack), Henry the K rates almost half a page in this morning’s LA Times, all about how, suddenly,
‘Cause, don’t ‘ya know, this isn’t a real country capable of making their own decisions and all. But, not to worry,
Also, as a better read, an interesting outline of six Iraq scenarios on the front page.
What puppethead said at 44.
Chess metaphor was dandy.
Here’s a list of Mrs. Pelosi’s ‘problems’:
1. She doesn’t need the money (I read she&husband are the 9th richest in congress).
2. She doesn’t want to be a Senator or Governor or Prez
3. She doesn’t care about fame per se . She sees the press as a information/communication tool, not a megaphone for self aggrandizement.
4. She is not insecure. She got her position by leading while the dems were in the wilderness. Some of her caucus will forget that but she wont.
5. She is not a liar. This is rare in a pol and the other pols know it.
6. She trusts the truth, something pundits and pols who deal rumor and spin and cynicism find naive.
7. She really does think being a grandmother is the most important thing to her - (The second most important must be her hair, isn’t she like 65? but her hair doesn’t look a day over 30) - third is Speaker.
8. She ain’t scared of boys - She has been getting her way with them for a long time (I think M.D. is jealous)
9. She laughs like a three year old - It’s disconcerting but we’ll get used to it.
AMEN!
This political sniping is just incredibly sexist, regardless of the person wielding the knife.
NYTimes should DUMP Down for a real feminist, say like, Molly Ivins, who is a better writer, far smarter, and terrifically funny.
Dowd is simply another stealth repug-clintonista masquerading as a clever lefty..think Carville with big hair.
MoDo’s anti-Pelosi screed is another verse in the long wail by the “Kewl Kids” aginst the change in the DC power landscape. As Digby has said, echoed by a wonderful Jamison Foser piece, “there is no honeymoon for democrats”. Even from the members of the press that we thought were somewhat friendly.
Get used to it-but call bullshit on it.
Christy, you are right on with your remarks.
My point is different from Prof’s, although obviously Prof is right. To keep her integrity she owed Murtha. My point is that by backing Murtha even if it means losing (whatever that is), it sends a signal to players outside of the House that she thinks Murtha’s contributions are significant. In other words, she’s going to listen to him when he tells her what he’s hearing through back channels from the military.
Prof @ 47
I meant, of course, being able to trust what a fellow legislator says to you in private, in offering his or her vote commitment, in exchange for something else — a tthe time, in the future, or in payment for something in the past.
I don’t mean we should trust what they say in public.
;-)
Dowd’s stereotypic belittlement of Pelosi masks what I see as a more important problem: how we define strength, courage and integrity, and thus how we examine the merits of alternative public policies.
The depressingly dominant view is that the only appropriate response to foreign policy threats (or beltway politics) is to engage in actions/rhetoric/tactics that are expressed in sexually “manly” terms. Note how often we fall into the trap of defining “courage” as “having balls,” how often we describe servility in fellatio terms and how easy it is to ridicule those we regard as weak in those terms. “Real men” get serviced; weaklings do the servicing. Women blow men. This blog revels in this language, but then wonders why it is so hard for women to be seen as courageous, strong, and honorable and still be what we want political leaders to be.
I would like to suggest that political courage and dedication to the public interest have nothing to do with penises or where we put them.
Moreover, I think that a just, peaceful world probably requires less testosterone in charge of decisions, and more of . . . something else that I’m probably not qualified to define. There are qualities of leadership, courage and honor that simply need to be redefined outside the current political language.
My hope for Nancy Pelosi is that she will not become more “manly,” as that term has been misdefined, and that she never earns the respect of the Maureen Dowds. I hope instead that she brings a language and set of values that are very different and openly challenge the phony macho BS we tolerate from the media — and ourselves and that seem to drive a lot of the most outrageous, inhumane policies. If the values she brings to her office are associated with “women” or the “sacred feminine,” or whatever, then good for her.
MoDo? I wouldn’t take the word of anyone who fucked Michael Douglas.
Prof @ 47
except she went a step further (it was reported) by making behind the scenes calls. Was that also pro forma?
just asking.
David at 60 — now there is an image I did not need this morning. lol
Love the picture!!!!!
Wait for more of the same.
Condi got a pass because she was protected by bush.
We need to change the syatem otherwise, we will be reading more of the samre where a women is involved.
Except…. MAureen should have known better!!!!
Lindy’
First batch. More to come
November 16th, 2006 at 3:16 pm *
Christy -
Note that Judge Walton actually vacated his November 13th Opinion in an Order filed today, November 15th (he says it wasn’t clearly written). I’ve got a longer analysis of today’s filings I’ll post in a current thread, for anyone who’s interested. [Things are moving fast and furiously this week in the CIPA process, but it’s damned hard to figure out who’s got the upper hand because of all the sealed filings.]
Quote This Comment
146 pow wow says:
November 16th, 2006 at 6:33 pm *
Er, excuse me, make that “today, November 16th” (in my comment above about when the Monday Opinion was vacated). I’m guessing here (because today’s Order is a bit obtuse in its wording) that Walton’s re-do of his Opinion has something to do with a defense filing made on Tuesday, 11/14. The defense filing is entitled “Memorandum by I. Lewis Libby on Legislative History of CIPA Substitution Provision” (the rest of it is sealed).
The crux of today’s Order vacating Monday’s Opinion is this:
“Specifically, the Court’s opinion discusses the Section 6(c) standard in the terms of a balancing test, which might be misleading. What this Court intended to express is that the government’s challenge to the defendant’s use of classified information remains a consideration during the Section 6(c) proceedings, but only to the extent that the assertion affords it the opportunity to propose redactions or substitutions for the classified information the defendant desires to use. At that point, the assertion drops out of the Section 6(c) picture and the Court must exclusively focus on whether the redacted or substituted version of the classified information the defendant desires to use provides the defendant with substantially the defense he desires to present.”
Seems to me that this approach was effectively what Monday’s Opinion was detailing (although the Opinion did seem to spend a lot of time ‘propounding the obvious’ repeatedly - presumably for an Appeals Court’s benefit), but I may be missing an important nuance here.
Quote This Comment
147 pow wow says:
November 16th, 2006 at 10:09 pm *
UPDATE, due to a government filing late on 11/16:
The government has responded to that 11/14 sealed defense filing, and the government’s filing is not sealed. I am excerpting key parts of it here, because it explains the Judge’s 11/16 Order to vacate, and confirms that he was responding to a defense argument about CIPA’s Section 6(c) that the government, in its response, finds “alarming.” The government quotes from the defense’s sealed filing. This is what the CIPA process (and thus the fate of the Libby case) has come down to (emphasis added):
An even more alarming assertion in defendant’s CIPA Memorandum - one that completely controverts the purpose of CIPA and reveals defendant’s true graymail motivation - is the assertion that Congress’ contemplation of an acceptable statement admitting relevant facts would only be satisfied in this case if the government admitted that “the national security matters were vastly more important to Mr. Libby than the snippets of conversation concerning Valerie Wilson and thus caused him to confuse or misremember those snippets when asked about them months later.” … The drafters of CIPA contemplated that the “statement admitting relevant facts” would be a statement admitting relevant “facts,” not a statement of conclusions the defense wants the jury to draw. The government has offered a statement admitting relevant facts that serves the purposes contemplated by CIPA, in addition to proposing detailed substitutions for all of the relevant classified exhibits…
…
In fact, during the Section 6(a) hearings, even defendant admitted that balancing of the government’s right to hold people accountable for criminal activity and not subvert the process through graymail is proper at the Section 6(c) stage: [by Mr. Cline:] “And I think when we get to the substitution phase, that is where Congress sought to find a way of balancing these needs.” … Now that the Court is at the Section 6(c) stage, defendant conveniently seeks to avoid such balancing.
- Special Counsel Fitzgerald 11/16/06, including key quotes from a sealed 11/14 defense filing
The defense is also apparently disputing how the government is allowed to use the ex parte affidavit permitted by Section 6(c)(2), and trying to blur the line of CIPA’s “substantially the same ability to make his defense” standard [probably the nuance I missed]. So Judge Walton apparently felt he needed to rethink his Opinion in light of this parsing of the meaning of CIPA; I sure hope he gets it right when he re-issues his Opinion. This filing, as highlighted, also makes it sound like the government has already provided substitutes to just about everything that couldn’t be declassified, pending perhaps a few items still being worked on, in addition to this dispute over how CIPA’s substitution phase is supposed to work.
P.S. One thing I haven’t seen the AP cover yet (although they may have) is the three government memorandums in opposition to the defendant’s motions in limine. The government’s three memos were all filed after Monday this week, with their side of those motions spelled out (they call two of them “moot” and ask for the one about the reporters to be denied). I believe replies will be due by noon on Friday. [The AP has covered the Libby response to the government’s sole motion in limine - that was the article Swopa excerpted and posted about the other day.]
I really long for the day when we can have news as dry and factual as the BBC news.
So happy you tore into Dowd’s piece.
I often speed read her. I sometimes think she should just become a food critic.
The battle line is being drawn. Me thinks it’s between the Pelosi line (center-left). And the Hillary line (center-right). Which “political theology” do we want to run the government in 2008? I still adhere to the quaint notion that the idea the Constitutional framers had of ‘checks and balances’ was a very good, and sound legal concept. I don’t want another imperial presidency in 2008. Whether it be from Repubs OR Demos.
E-gad. I picked up her last book,Are Men Necessary? in the store and couldn’t make it past the first few paragraphs. I never got why she was such a big deal,she’s like the mean girl at school who is nice to you only so she can reel you in and humiliate you in front of everyone later. No thanks.
Give me Molly Ivins any day.
An Angry Old Broad @ 70
I worry about Molly. She is battling cancer. Has been for quite sometime. Molly Ivins is right up there with Helen Thomas. Molly has been fighting the Bush outfit for longer than I can remember.
Howie has a great take on this as well. I updated above with the link, but didn’t want anyone to miss it.
This criticism of Pelosi about Murtha is so pervasive that it almost makes me wonder if I’m missing something.
She wanted Murtha- she must have known that she didn’t have the votes- but she supported him anyway-cause she said she would..and lost.
How big a deal is it that she lost? Not much that I can see- but the press is actin like she farted in church.
looseheadprop @65
Thank you for the update.
Now, did Libby lie to the FBI and to the Grand Jury or not?
I respect the law, and all the need to protect the innocent, but if he escapes prosecution on greymail then we can add his name to the list of other noted celebrities who accomplished same:
Lt. Col. Oliver North
Admiral William Poindexter
Caspar Weinberger (pardoned by Bush 1 so any GHWB involvement in Iran-Contra would not be revealed)
And the list goes on and on.
Even if Patrick Fitzgerald loses on this issue, I still respect what he tried to do in the name of justice for all.
dowd’s a bitch who has clearly ran out of material. i do think pelosies backing of murtha was a mistake but not because nancy throws like a girl. at this moment everyone she throws in with better be squeaky clean. corruption is top of my list. i’m fed up and will not look the other way. if she keeps backing murtha types, the democrats will be seen in the same light as the republicans in 2008. i sometimes wonder if it’s all part of the plan. the bank accounts of the corporate democrats have grown like a corn fed pig in the last decade. i’m not confident they’ll be able to start dieting and stop feeding from the trough.
To: Christy Hardin Smith on your article “Catty.”
Great article! I totally agree and was delighted to read you also found Maureen Dowd’s article questionable.
Normally, I love her articles, but this one struck me as too harsh towards Nancy Pelosi’s choice of Murtha. I never for a second thought her decision was not a calulation!
Thanks!
T. Barr
Scottsdale, AZ
Oklahoma kiddo @ 68
OK, I hope I don’t seem to be picking at word-choice (or your word choice).
If that is the case, I apologize.
I hope progressives will start to define the progressive agenda as centrist and mainstream.
The Mighty Wurlitzer has been slamming brand “left” since the late 40’s - that brand is irretrievably contaminated with negative connotations.
I fear that the “left-right” framing places us - at the start of the fight - in a losing rhetorical position.
For over a decade, Americans report majority values wholly congruent with the progressive agenda.
We ARE the centrists.
Hillary - with her extreme ambition, lack of concern for others, and total identification with corporate agendas - Hillary is the extremist.
Progressives are the mainstream.
Ambitious, calculating, tightly-wrapped corporate tools are the weird extremists.
Ruh Roh. I just went through my study and took a good look at what went undone for the last 3 months :o
Webb and Tester lookin’ good on mtp. Does it repeat?
kirk murphy@43
The best snark of the day.
MoDo did the same kind of bashing to Judy Miller. And although JM deserved to be bashed, it still reflected the
same type of sniping by a jealous and unhappy person.
Yup, therapy might help, but so too, might
“getting laid more often” (DefJef@2)
egregious at 78 — it usually replays on MSNBC at some point in the evening. You might check their website…
Quick drive-by…please check out the holiday project at Howard-Empowered People. If you like the idea, please pass it on.
Beyond her ability to turn phrases well, Maureen Dowd is cotton candy when it comes to any political analysis. She’s another political weather-vane who blows with the prevailing winds.
Her pap is tiresome.
-GSD
Well whether it was a mistake or not- the Pelosi story is on it’s last pitiful legs- time for the press to get onto the more entrancing story of how Clusterfuck totally blew his trip to Asia..Which is more important?
Dowd’s a great writer in my opinion- but her snarkiness is sooo extreme- that it all depends on who’s ox she’s goring.
rw at 83 — Blew his trip to Asia? You mean, standing up in front of a room full of Vietnamese dignataries and saying we should have kept trying to bomb them into submission during the war wasn’t a diplomatic triumph? Do tell! (That sound you hear is me laughing out loud.)
Modo as food critic:
“The canapes were of the usual sort, shriveled, dry, and undersized, much like the penises of powerful men I have known. Just what our party hostess saw in him I am at a loss to fathom. I think I’ll give her a big hug and *whisper-hee hee* that comparison, It’ll get a big laugh. Poor dear, I suspect (this I’ll flesh out in another column) that these pitiful scraps were the best she could afford.”
She doesn’t pass my pap test.
-GSD
Sorry Punaise.
Redd–Well- that and forgettin to get the congress to approve the change in status that was the whole fuckin POINT of the trip- an sitting in his fuckin hotel room for a whole fuckin day in order to avoid the vietnamese people.
Yeah- he didn’t do well. Maybe it’s jet lag.
Great analysis Christy. FWIW, I think the institutions of power need more of the very positive things that women uniquely bring to the table (along with those men who have sufficiently evolved beyond their testosterone drives).
Simple take,too. Could it be that Modo is a bit, well, threatened, by any woman who is elevated as a power possessing being rivaling her own imagined status?
On the House Intel appointment, factor in this bit on AIPAC behind the scenes crap:
http://www.forward.com/article.....pac-probe/
leslie @ 78
Leslie -
Thanks for your kind assessment. I completely agree with you and DefJef about MoDo’s need for love (fourteen year olds don’t make for stable long term partners, according to my old textbooks).
Hope I don’t seem rude in demurring on best snark o’ the day.
For me, that goes to:
Bush would have been behaving like Borat had he actually gone in public.
“In my country, we used to carpet bomb you peoples.”
-GSD
Sen. John McPenishead is now calling for abolishing Roe v Wade, just as he takes on some operative from Bob Jones University.
Oh that John, he sure stays ahead of the political trends….
-GSD