NY Daily News columnist sends me a nasty email. Help me respond

Michael Goodwin writes an opinion column for the NY Daily News

The column for today, January 19, 2005 is titled:

Self-demolishing Dems
First Kennedy, now Boxer rant against W's nominees

<snip>
Liar!
Am not!
Liar!
Am not!
Senate confirmation hearings don't get any more raw than the bareknuckle back-and-forth yesterday between Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CAlif) and Condoleezza Rice.

Pants on Fire!
That would apply to Boxer, who seems to be going through a terminal meltdown. Something is driving her over the edge, and she's determined to take the Democratic Party with her.

A week after she tearfully sided with the wackadoo wing by becoming the only member of the Senate to vote against certifying President Bush's election victory, Boxer crossed the line again.This time she was dry-eyed as she used the hearing...to accuse Rice of lying repeatedly about Saddam Hussein and the Iraq war.

<snip>
The smackdown ended only when the spoilsport committee chairman, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind), said, "Let me intervene" and called for a lunch break. Just when it was getting good.

<snip>
My problem is that Boxer came off as someone who needs a rest. Just as Sen. Edward Kennedy did in the hearings on Alberto Gonzales...Kennedy and Boxer both lectured Bush's nominees in condescending moral terms...I wanted Gonzales to ask Kennedy if he had been to Chappaquiddick lately. And I wouldn't have blamed Rice had she told Boxer to stuff it.

<snip>
Whatever's bugging them, Kennedy and Boxer need to get a grip. They're embarrassing themselves and defining their party as a bunch of sour-grapes, out-of-touch losers. All the talk about Dems moving back to the political center and working with Bush is being demolished every time these two open their potty mouths

Of course, there is another, even more scary possibility: Maybe Kennedy and Boxer actually speak for the majority of their party.

In that case, Dems are in more trouble than they can ever imagine.

www.nydailynews.com

*************
My letter to Michael Goodwin:

Michael Goodwin:
Your first word in today's column is "LIAR!" And that goes to show exactly what you are.

Senator Boxer at no time called Condoleeza Rice a liar. But Dr. Rice's own words PROVED her to be a liar. Dr. Rice never once responded to the points being made but instead used the good old Neocon trick of turning the point into a personal attack on herself, thereby ducking having to answer Senator Boxer's questions.

No, Senator Boxer is not having a meltdown, rather a build-up of disgust at the unaccountability for the many lies this administration has told.

In another place you state, "I wanted Gonzales to ask Kennedy if he had been to Chappaquiddick lately." Hmmmm. Now you would truly have a hissy fit if someone asked George Bush about his alsoholism or his drug use or his AWOL record or his marriage infidelity. Why is it ok to talk about one thing when the other is off-limits?

Oh, right...if the Republicans do it it is alright. If the Democrats do it it is dead wrong.

In supporting Gonzales you are supporting a man who advocates torture. I fail to see how any Jewish person whose family underwent the horrors of Nazi Germany's experimental concentration camps and the tortures they were subjected to could possibly suport torture for anyone else. I don't know if this applies to you or not, but it is worth mentioning.

No Boxer and Kennedy are NOT embarrassing themselves. They are making us very proud and happy and that is what is bugging YOU. We are NOT the party of accomodationists and we do not have to move back to the center. We only need fair elections and fair media.

Without liars such as yourself, Rush, O'Reilly and your ilk, many more people would begin to understand that they are voting against their own best interests when they believe the likes of you - flush with money and trying to take even more from the middle-class and the poor. No, the media is unfair today because all of you make too much money to sympathize with the average person. Bush's tax cuts are beneficial to you so why would you TELL THE TRUTH? You have absolutely no reason to tell the truth or to question Bush's policies.

I really find it difficult to understand how ANY newspaper can publish the untruthful garbage that you try to pan off on the public. But I guess the owner of the paper agrees with you and pays you enough to make it worth your while to continually lie and lie and lie.

IMO, you have been ArmstrongWilliam-ized and not a single word that you say means a thing. You have zero credibility.

MY name
**************
Michael Goodwin's response:

You want the wackadoo wing representing you--congratulations, you got it. If you get 49 more Senators on your team, you'll have a majority. But given that your preference is for rancid name-calling, I suspect you'll continue to be lonly.(sic) Oh, and by the way, what do you think will happen should there be another Democratic president? Do you think Republicans will treat his or her nominees with respect? Or will they, in the spirit of payback, also use the confirmation hearings for cheap moralizing lectures that are nothing more than smears? The hearings are supposed to be for questions--not browbeating lectures. Senators who want to vote no should do so. but to use the process as a forum for humiliation is disgraceful. Decent Democrats know that, which is why most of them asked real questions and why they will vote for her.

***************************
He needs a great answer. Let's give it to him....

I pity you.
Sometimes there are people who will need change their mind. Its call the "So what " reply. There is really no way to talk to this catergory of people except to pity them.

When you do send the "I pity you" reply be ready for a page in reply full of rants. Cause you show them something they will refuse to see.
Their reflection in a mirror.

This is a typical turnabout. In fact, craft an answer using all of these words and phrases:

wackadoo
browbeater
moralizer
crossing the line
needs a rest
meltdown
over the edge
condescending
get a grip
potty mouths

Perhaps he did not write his own column. If the above-listed phrases don't constitute name calling and "smears", then I would like to know what does.

And ask him if Laura Bush has been back to the intersection where she killed someone lately.

phrases. I was only going to use "wackadoo" but now I've got even more to work with.

But here are some things you can use to frame this debate.

1.- Doctor Rice knew of this memo, Bin Ladin to strike America. Her lack of actions on this "historical" document have weakened the United States.

2.- Dr Rice is aware that we have not trained enough Iraqi personnel, her actions have weakened the United States.

3.- Her actions during the last four years have weakened the united states, as her actions have helped to weaken our position in the world. We are no longer able to work in the world as part of the world, and this has weakened us.

(Thanks to Lackoff for this)

Yet you insist on not holding Doctor Rice accountable for her actions. Wouldn't it be better to have a President who held those serving at his pleasure to some level of accountabity? If the President is not going to do such, then it falls to the Senate, or do you want the Senate to become a rubber stamp organ, not unlike the Politburo in the USSR?

Oh and CC your answer and his letter to the Editgorial board of the paper. Ask, is this the profesional behavior you allow your writers to engage in? Sould I conclude that name calling is ok with your paper?

you'd better believe I am going to write to the editorial board about this column. It is one thing to express an opinion, but his column is full of blatant lies.

of time or energy defending yourself to him. His mind is clearly made up. I have to second the thought that he might not write his own column, after seeing the total inanity of that email! :eyes:

(Had to return to the subject line to add "wackadoo." It's a totally ludicrous word, but it's a good description of him.)

Point out that his indignation about the name calling shouldn't be prefaced by terms like the "wackadoo wing" of the Democratic party.

Point out that expressing reservations about someone's record in office and their tendency to evade questions is not "moralising", but an attempt at determining their ability to perform a job they are trying to get approval for.

If an applicant for a position at the Daily News came in looking for a job and had a poor journalistic record, no editorial experience, a habit of fabrication and plagarism, and a history of ignoring and deflecting criticism, (well, they'd probably be hired by that rag) would it be "moralising" if the interviewer brought it up?

part of your first sentence....I want to try to get this out by morning.

starting with: "...indignation about the name calling..." to the end of that sentence.

"For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.". ~ Hosea 8:7

not Hosea 8 : Smiley face

Maybe we should send that Bible verse to Jesusland. They need to lighten up

That was standard operating procedure from the Repigs during Clinton's terms, nothing will change. They have nothing to stand on in terms of facts or integrity, so they will simply revert to being their true poo-flinging monkey selves.

Personally, I would welcome Republicans to use my confirmation hearing for cheap, moralizing lectures. In the spirit of truth, if there is nothing to hide, why worry?

edit: typo

why all this concern about the questions being "humiliating" unless there is some truth to the charges within those question.

Rice and then vote yes anyway, they lose my respect, and believe me I mean that sincerely. They would have been much better off to just shut up at the hearings and vote no.

That, of course, would have required convictions, values, and balls, all of which are in short supply.

Damn them.

Dear Michael Goodwin:

I suggest that you take a short course in what happens when all of the houses in a congress or parliament, the head of state, the judicial system and even the news media start a rampant campaign of propaganda on citizens who truly are concerned when their representatives, appointed or elected, aren't called into question for their actions, particularly where human life is at stake.

What you'll find, Mr. Goodwin, is a short history on the descent into fascism.

By name-calling Democrats (whackadoos?) who dare question the information Condi Rice provided to them and the American public regarding the need to go to war, you are giving protection to those who would seek to further their personal and political agendas without regard for the more than half of the country who question this war. Rice will also be the Secretary of State for those 56 percent. Rice's information about the need to go to war has proven to be false, inept and morally destructive to both the United States' standing in the world and to another sovereign nation.

The Republicans, for 12 years, have been on a constant lecture circuit via their media outlets to smear the names of good and decent people from Democrats to members of their own party who don't follow their self-described mandates (Sens. John McCain and Arlen Spector come immediately to mind.) We expect our politicians to challenge one another, but to use OUR public airwaves to launch propaganda wars and to spin information rather than provide us with useful data is more humiliating than sparring in a political forum - set up, in part, to do that very thing: challenge.

I realize your column is your personal opinion, but it should be based upon the facts given at the confirmation hearing and, at no such time, did Sen. Barbara Boxer call Rice a "liar." She merely questioned Rice's information, or lack thereof, that has lead to the deaths of more than 1,300 American GIs and countless (because Republicans won't let them count) innocent Iraqi civilians.

Yes, paybacks are hell, but don't you think the families of the nearly 3,000 people who died on 9/11 deserve an answer from Rice regarding her failures to make George W. Bush understand how important the PDB, "bin Laden to Attack the United States," was to the future of this country? Maybe you hadn't thought about it that way and maybe it's time you did.

I especially like the one about his having moral indignation to Democratic name-calling when all he did, from his e-mail to you to his column, was name-call.

:crazy:

Thank you so much. You have included so much that I had forgotten about and you did it in such a concise manner. I really appreciate the effort you put out.

...that a "newspaper" like the New York Daily News exists...otherwise, you would be in DC tomorrow, cleaning up after the horses.

I know this is pretty immature; but yesterday a guy tried to get me to take a subscription to this rag!

Everything that's going on in the world and yesterday's front page was about Trump's latest wife's $150k wedding dress. I read someone's copy at work and all I ever read is the comics section because the rest is a waste of time.


"When you trade your values for the hope of winning, you end up losing and having no values....so you keep losing." Howard Dean 2004

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/

It is absolutely delicious.

BTW, you write very well - much better than Goodwin. No comparison.

I see it has been updated and wanted to point out that I was referring 1/19/2005 (you'll have to scroll down).

Come on, shrike - write Goodwin. Double dare ya!

1. wackadoo wing -- It's called an opposition party.

2. rancid name-calling -- lessee: Bill Clinton was a) a rapist, b) a drug smuggler, c) a traitor. Shall I go on?

3. lonly: LOL -- guess they don't have spell check at NY Daily News

4. Do you think Republicans will treat his or her nominees with respect? Were you asleep during the Clinton years?

5. Or will they, in the spirit of payback, blah, blah, blah. See above. Republicans have perfected the art of payback. They just don't like it when it's used on them.

6. To use the process as a forum for humiliation is disgraceful. See 2, 4, and 5.

7. Decent Democrats know that, blah, blah, blah. In other words, we only like Democrats who allow us to lead them around by the nose.


I so wish this guy had written to me. Think if I wrote to him he'd send the same email to me?

you could remind him of Newt Gingrinch and clan who dogged Clintion relentlessly (how many independent investigations did they launch which turned out to be nothing?).

The whole concept of payback implies some type of imbalance that must be righted. The rethugs have never experienced this imbalance. They have always been mean-spirited, unethical, muckracking liars, and a grave discredit to humanity.

"Kennedy and Boxer both lectured Bush's nominees in condescending moral terms."

Isn't moral values the reason that * was re-elected???

They ran the same editorial in the Houston Chronicle.

To: The Editor

Re: In Boxer-Rice Smackdown, Democrats Got the Black Eye,

By Michael Goodwin, Houston Chronicle, Jan. 19, 2005

Contrary to Mr. Goodwin's editorial, Barbara Boxer's tough questioning of Condoleeza Rice during Dr. Rice's confirmation hearings was neither childish nor embarrassing. If anything, the other senators should be faulted for blithely giving Dr. Rice a pass on her disastrous performance as national security advisor.

Dr. Rice was one of the primary administration cheerleaders for this country's preemptive attack on Iraq. Her warning that the "smoking gun" proving that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD "might be a mushroom cloud" was a scare tactic intentionally used to hype the Iraq War and to counter critics who correctly pointed out that Saddam posed no real danger to the U.S. Dr. Rice knew full well that intercepted aluminum tubes, which she cited on CNN as "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," had non-nuclear uses, and that a large amount of countervailing evidence showed that Iraq had no current nuclear capabilities. She was also well aware that Iraq had not threatened any neighboring country for over a decade. Even worse, despite knowing full well that Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with the 9/11 World Trade Tower tragedy, Dr. Rice nonetheless fed the public's misperception that there was indeed a connection.

Thanks in large part to Dr. Rice's crisis-mongering, this country is now mired in a war that is, and always has been, based on lies and half-truths. Not a good track record for Dr. Rice to lay before the Senate. It is peculiar, then, for Mr. Goodwin to criticize Senator Boxer, whose job it is to examine Dr. Rice's fitness for the new post of Secretary of State, for daring to hold Dr. Rice accountable for her grievous failures as national security advisor. But then again, considering that George "slam dunk" Tenet received the Presidential Medal of Freedom despite his rendering of fatally flawed WMD intelligence, these are peculiar times.

Re his e-mail back to you-- he seems like an angry SOB. He won't listen to you anyway, so I wouldn't e-mail him back.

If democrats are really so crazy, irrelevant, and "in need of a rest", why do you concern yourself with them? If Barbara Boxer is nothing more than a silly woman, why do you waste your energy considering her at all?

If the democrats' comments during confirmation hearings are only "cheap moralizing lectures", why listen to them?

You say they are "using the process as a forum for humiliation". Are you saying these democrats are torturers? I thought torturers were highly approved by you and your comrades?

You seem to threaten, when you ask, "what do you think will happen should there be another democratic president". It depends. If a democratic president fills cabinet posts will yes-men and yes-women, and people who are more concerned with the welfare of oil companies than with that of the American people, then that president will receive his due--just as your president is now receiving the criticism he so richly deserves.

There is a saying that "well-behaved women do not make history". Furthermore, "decent democrats", as you define them, do not make history. Our apologies if the democrats have not yet attained the proper mindset of the True Believer. Perhaps another 4 years of exposure to Mr. Bush's scary "Stepford wife" followers will finally hypnotize democrats into that sheeplike state which Bush followers now exhibit. Until then, you and Mr. Bush will have to deal with the annoying and discomfiting fact that some people still have eyes to see that your Emperor is stark naked.

In the meantime, you will just have to keep your livestock (Bush followers) protected from the "feral" humans who are, admittedly, stronger and smarter.

I just hope C-Span is there when the asylum attendants have to peel him off the podium and drag him away.

It's called projection. Yes, certain inadequate and neurotic people are compelled to ascribe their own faults abd crimes onto others, allowing them to attack the other person and thus, as it were, to abuse themselves. I believe the technical term for people like you is wackadoo.

But that would be name-calling.

Sincerely

NOT A WACKADOO