Skip to content

Maureen Dowd Continues Her Storied Race-Hustling Tendencies With the Crowley Story

July 26, 2009

Fiery-haired vamp, New York Times op-ed columnist, and all around liberal half-wit Maureen Dowd continues her streak of racially-tinged invective with her most recent offering of burnt liberal tripe.  Thankfully, she saved precious time for anyone without enough time to process her inanity and excoriate her in print (thanks for the material, MoDo!) by making it painfully obvious how stupid she is with her first sentence, in an article on the Crowley/Gates clusterfark, titled “Bite Your Tongue”.  MoDo’s sterling legal opinion?  “Being obnoxious is not a crime”.

Actually, Ms. Dowd, yes it is.  When that obnoxiousness rises to the level of tumult that Mr. Gates apparently created, and when that obnoxiousness occurs in full display of the public toward an officer of the law, it is a crime.  Meaning that there is a penal code specifically crafted to prevent that sort of nonsense.

Ah, but in Ms. Dowd’s world of self-deprecating white hatred, this is an issue where “race, class, and testosterone make for a combustible brew”.  “It escalated into a clash of egos — the hard-working white cop vs. the globe-trotting black scholar, the town vs. the gown, the Lowell Police Academy vs. the American Academy of Arts and Letters,” she continued.

This is a woman who sees the full scope of human behavior from behind racially-tinged lenses.  Consider, if you will, recent “columns” excoriating–wait for it!–Republicans, apparently for having the audacity to be white, sometimes old, and for maintaining some semblance of morals–even if they fail to live up to them, from time to time.

Dowd has a nose for barking up the wrong tree in any and all situations.  Hence, just two weeks ago, she stuck to perhaps the most lost cause of all time by bleating for the millionth time that the Clinton impeachment boiled down to “Newt Gingrich and other conservatives indulged in affairs with young Washington peaches as they pushed to impeach Bill Clinton”.  Apparently, Dowd is about 11 years behind the power curve.  Clinton wasn’t impeached for adultery, he was impeached for perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power.  Apparently, the fact that “abuse of power” begins with the letter A leads Dowd to confuse “abuse of power” with “adultery”.  This woman doesn’t need a conspicuous venue to pen ignorant screeds–she needs to buy a Baby Tad doll and learn how to read. Thus, the Sotomayor confirmation hearings weren’t about valid concerns on a host of issues including judicial activism, racial quotas, equal protection of the laws, and so on, it was–according to Dowd–about nothing less that race!

Judge Sotomayor kept her feelings in check, while her white male Republican interrogators dissolved into whining about wanting to keep their guns and nunchakus and wishing they could get back some sway over what women do with their bodies.

See how that works with liberals like Dowd?  Nothing is ever about what it is really about.  Abortion isn’t about murder, silly; it’s about women doing “what they want” with their bodies!  Judicial activism isn’t about legislating liberal preferences from the bench; it’s about the conservative desire for judges to return to the original intent of the framers and apply the Constitution’s text as worded–in this case, the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause ought to mean, “equal protection” in the sense that men shouldn’t be denied jobs based on race.  But I digress.

Back to Dowd’s snarling racist screeds.  Just a week before her long-winded bloviations on scary white Republicans assaulting the poor, hapless Latina, she was busy wailing and gnashing her teeth about the fact that Sotomayor is even required to answer questions for those eeevil, hate-mongering white folks referred to as “The Republican Party”.  She even threw in the requisite Bush-basing for good measure!

So when Republican Senator Jon Kyl, without so much as a howdy-do, went at Sotomayor, and soon was asking her if she agreed with Barack Obama’s contention, when he voted against John Roberts, that a judge’s heart is important, the would-be justice was as adroit as her idol Nancy Drew.

“No, sir,” she said, indicating that the only bleeding-heart thing about her was the color of her jacket. She added that “it’s not the heart that compels conclusions in cases. It’s the law.”

President Obama wants Sotomayor, naturally, to bring a fresh perspective to the court. It was a disgrace that W. appointed two white men to a court stocked with white men. And Sotomayor made it clear that she provides some spicy seasoning to a bench when she said in a speech: “I simply do not know exactly what the difference will be in my judging, but I accept there will be some based on gender and my Latina heritage.”

The judge’s full retreat from the notion that a different life experience is valuable was more than necessary and somewhat disappointing. But, as any clever job applicant knows, you must obscure as well as reveal, so she sidestepped the dreaded empathy questions — even though that’s why the president wants her.

At last we have it out of the horse’s mouth: lying is just a-okey-dokey, if the intent of the lie is to get one over on those obnoxious Klansmen in the GOP.  Oblivious to the fact that yes, laws are to be applied using facts in evidence, and no, emotion should not be factored into judicial decisions, MoDo concerns herself with one main contention: she’s Latina, they’re white; they should just shut the hell up and let themselves be run over in the name of racial harmony!  Her contention that Roberts and Alito were selected for their whiteness–or that other potential nominees were not chosen for their non-whiteness–is particularly telling.  Roberts and Alito were chosen because they were, arguably, the most accomplished jurists available, because they both respected the Constitution as Originalists, and because they were highly regarded and well-respected–even amongst some of the less militant liberal types out there.

MoDo’s entire world is about race and liberalism.  I’m not sure if she’s checked with the Times’ ombudsman lately, but she’s white, too.  Which is to say, it’s mostly about how liberals use race to advance their agenda.  In Dowd’s world, having minority status should render one immune from criticism–provided that the minority isn’t a conservative, hence her false claim that Justice Thomas obfuscated during his confirmation hearing.  Only the most staunch liberals are still unaware that Anita Hill has been thoroughly debunked and held up for derision as a lying sad sack.

Dowd’s unaware of a lot of things.  It’s her defining characteristic.  Thank goodness that the Times’ defining characteristic–at least of late–is its shrinking relevance as a credible publication.  One can only hope for the day that Dowd is relegated to writing classified ads for some obscure daily in some godawful place in the middle of nowhere.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: