The one thing I love about liberal columnists is how they complain about people spewing invective as they spew invective.
Such was deliciously the case in New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd's offering Wednesday when she went after Rush Limbaugh:
Years ago, when I dubbed Dubya “The Boy Emperor,” Limbaugh spewed a stream of personal invective about me that embarrassed even my mother, a Limbaugh fan.
In a classic example of the liberal double standard, Dowd didn't have any problem whatsoever spewing invective of her own.
Better still, in a piece about America's leading conservative talk radio host, Dowd felt the need to also attack George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, and Liz Cheney.
Let me count the ways:
- But the tactics of Limbaugh, Palin, Cheney & Fille are more cynical: They spin certainty, ignoring their side’s screw-ups, and they exploit patriotism, labeling all critics as traitors.
- In an interview on “Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace,” Limbaugh accused the president of trying to destroy the economy — yes, the same economy that W. came within a whisker of ruining.
- Even a chickenhawk like Rush should remember how well that worked in Vietnam, or in the early years of Iraq.
- W., on the other hand, was like a kid who knew that Daddy's friends would take care of him; he was always running off to the gym or going biking, leaving the governing to his regents, Cheney and Rummy, or incompetents like Brownie.
And what would a column about Rush Limbaugh penned by a devout liberal be without mention of his previous addiction to painkillers?
But on Sunday, he ripped the president for having "an out-of-this-world ego," for being "very narcissistic," "immature, inexperienced, in over his head."(Isn't immaturity scoring OxyContin from your maid?)
It gives new meaning to pot, kettle and black.
Actually, complaining about vitriol in an article filled with it makes Dowd the one pointing fingers at the kettle.