New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd must have woken up on the far-left side of the bed Tuesday given the number of prominent conservatives she chose to abuse in her article published Wednesday.
In "Daisy Chain of Cheneys", Dowd went after former Vice President Dick Cheney, his two daughters Liz and Mary, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, former Vice President Dan Quayle, Rush Limbaugh, the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol, and OF COURSE George W. Bush.
This was really quite a venom-dripping hatefest even for Dowd (h/t Jennifer Rubin):
It’s hard to believe that the Bush dynasty, which limped away in disgrace after smashing our economy and the globe, has spawned another political dynasty.
But Jason Horowitz reported in The Washington Post that Mary Cheney, the younger daughter of the former vice president, is starting a consulting firm modeled on Kissinger Associates.
Since it involves the Cheneys, it’s shrouded in unnecessary secrecy. But Mary’s friends say her plan is to make it Cheney cubed, bringing in her dad and big sister, Liz, when those two finish cleaning out the Augean stables of Dick Cheney’s legacy for his memoir.
Shrouded in unnecessary secrecy? Why would these folks want to keep secrets, Maureen? Should they think complete transparency of all their business would discourage hateful, deranged columns from folks like you?
But I digress:
The influence-peddling firm will be wildly successful, no doubt, because if anyone has shown a golden touch, it’s Dick Cheney. And there are bound to be oodles of clients who want coaching on how to make things look totally the opposite of what they are.
Saudis, right-wing dictators and Bernie Madoff calling for image makeovers? Scooter Libby calling to see how to get his career back after taking the fall for his scheming boss? Rush Limbaugh calling to strategize about how to buy an N.F.L. team with black players as he says offensive things about blacks? Rupert Murdoch seeking tips on how to merge Fox and NBC into Brian O’Hannity?
You can hear a receptionist chirping: “Cheney, Cheney & Cheney. Who would you like to target today?”
Oozing with hypocrisy, isn't it? After all, how does someone spewing such invective chide others with "Who would you like to target today?"
Pretty funny, dontcha think? Somehow the oh so holier than thou Dowd missed the irony in her attacks:
The blonde 43-year-old lawyer, a mother of five hailed by her fans as “a red state rock star,” teamed up this week with Bill Kristol to start a new group called “Keep America Safe.” Kristol, of course, was the chief proponent of the wacky notion that Dan Quayle, and later Sarah Palin, could Keep America Safe, which somewhat undermines the urgency and gravity of the group’s moniker.
And Liz’s dear old dad was the one who made America less safe by straining our military to the breaking point while carrying out his knuckleheaded theory of pre-emptive war.
Hold onto your seats, for Mo was rolling to a truly offensive conclusion:
Kristol joked to Politico’s Ben Smith that the venture might serve as a launching pad for Liz to run for office. (A Senate bid from Virginia, where she lives, or Wyoming, which she still calls home?)
That raises the terrifying specter that some day we could see a Palin-Cheney ticket, promoted by Kristol.
Sarah would bring her content-free crackle and gut instincts; Liz would bring facts and figures distorted by ideology. Pretty soon, we’re pre-emptively invading Iran and the good times are rolling all over again.
Amazing. How does one person possess so much hatred for so many Americans and get paid to express it in writing?
Commentary's Rubin offered an explanation:
What if the Republicans come up with a conservative standard bearer who is smart, attractive, and dedicated to debunking Obama’s weakling foreign policy — and female? It’s enough to send Dowd running for her smelling salts. And the invocation of Palin is telling as well. She was the last (and not so coincidentally also female) Republican who unhinged the Left.
Non-stereotypical conservatives with some popular appeal running for anything has that effect on liberals, who greatly prefer character assassination by word association (”torturer!” “ideology!” “sexist!”) in lieu of facts or any real analysis. Should that conservative figure turn out to be an articulate opponent of the views they hold so dear (but for which they can’t quite mount a reasoned argument), that’s cause for hysteria. And if you’re looking for that on the pages of the Times, you know just where to find it.
Sad, but true.