Quoth the Old Red Lady of the NYT: Mirror Mirror on the Wall! 

Do I see My Party and Myself in My Writings?

Abstract: There is a cliché in politics that goes something like this: we soon become exactly what we criticize or words to that effect. This notion is amplified today by the New York Times. Maureen Dowd performs a decent hack job on herself with a raft of sticky aphorisms and amusingly boomeranging hypocritical harangues while chucking spears at Rush Limbaugh. Maureen morphs into Maureen and tries to defend Obama for his political blunders like she has done to him in the past. Her Beloved tried to intervene in two important gubernatorial races and boogered both of them. Dowd cannot seem to comment on this and focuses on Rush. Hypocrisy, thy name is Dowd and thy mirror is our witness.

We are always entertained by the well-scripted but mostly slanted scribblings that appear in the NYT—aka the Walter Duranty Papers[1]-- as they attempt to ‘form public opinion’ with stale propaganda that surges unerringly along its destined path despite the news.[2] Upon pressing new and sweeping ‘changes’ in our economy and society  that ultimately lead to socialism, inflation, debt as they appear to redouble the  losses of our  Constitutional Rights not to mention our wealth.  This has been the mission of this turn-of-the-crank screed extruder for many decades so we need not bother to search any of their written works for a trace of any substance that might conflict with their sacred, to them, mission. They are mired in the leftist stooge tank and when it comes to ‘thinking outside the box’ they can no longer even identify a box.  Their box collapsed in 1989 along with their Beloved USSR.

Today, we are treated to a rather tautological, highly propagandistic and a nasty screed by the Old Red Lady[3][4][5] of the Old Gray Lady[6] [Dah Dowdy Dowd]. [7]  She takes it upon herself to instruct us in criticism?! A stage whisper suddenly materializes:  [Does Maureen cook her hair in the microwave??[8] Where does that color come from? As a chemist, I know that some chemicals that color can eat through glass. [9]]

She chucks her first spear at Rush:

“In those days, he [Rush Limbaugh] called himself a “harmless little fuzzball.” He’s a lot less harmless now. I went on to columny [A clever play on the word Calumny[10] ed], as my pal Bill Safire called it, and Rush went on to calumny. [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

As he and Sarah Palin conduct their auto-da-fé of moderate Republicans — “Moderates by definition have no principles,” he told his radio audience on Monday — Limbaugh is more than ever the face of his party, as Rahm Emanuel said.

He’s also the mouth.”[11]-- Who Are You Calling a Narcissist, Rush? By Maureen Dowd Op-Ed Columnist Published: November 3, 2009

Note the word association stratagem here coupled with a name association gem! Here we are led, in a propagandistic manner characteristic of the NYT, that Rush is an evil mud slinger and Sarah Palin is his co-conspirator. This is good propaganda but is it not judged hypocritical when she uses calumny to point out her examples of calumny? Such are the little tricks that keep her readers giggling in their tutus. This is so much fun.

A bit of veiled advice to her Fürher Whom She Doth Not Question:

“President Obama will have to step it up on jobs and fixing the deficit if he wants to block conservatives from stoking the anger of Americans who only see a recovery on Wall Street, especially given the Republican sweep in top races on Tuesday night.”-- Who Are You Calling a Narcissist, Rush?

As if all these trillion dollar stimuli and cash for clunkers[12] and such have not failed? We have a ‘recovery in progress’ so what be the need for some stepping up? And, why should the greedy whites who “who cling bitterly to their 401(k)s[13]” feint anger as they are the ones who hoard wealth from the poor and marginalized? They are guilty of their sins of the past.

More name dropping:

“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.”-- Who Are You Calling a Narcissist, Rush?

The ‘all’ clause here is the standard leftist nostrum that any remark made against one of their enemies (or victims) is directed to all humanity. So, when we speak of criminals we must be criticizing the plight of the entire poor masses or other such nonsense. But, to be a bit analytical here, can we wonder if some of our critics are traitors? We still hear that the Rosenbergs were ‘innocent!’ Was Tookie innocent? Mumia? Dan Rostenkowski or Cold Cash Jefferson?

Some traitors:

“It was okay for John Kerry [14]to talk with the Communists in Paris and try to defeat the US in the Vietnamese war.  It was okay for Harry Hopkins to be a paid Soviet Stooge for the Russians and sell of Eastern Europe to Stalin or for the Rosenbergs[15] to be paid Soviet spies [his code name was ‘liberal’—how fitting!] who then sold our nuclear secrets to the Communists. That is okay. It is fine that Mumia is a cop killer and can have routine radio broadcasts from his cell. [16] [17] [from a previous blog[18]].

No traitors in this list of liberals?

One of the difficulties in creating plastic  messiahs  from floor sweepings and other base substances and the similar attempt to create other but lesser ethereal beings for less important work [Hillary Clinton] is the tricky task of  preventing the audience from giving off a few Bronx Cheers or snickers when The One boogers the load and looks like a fool. In New Jersey, the YoYo Corzine[19] broke the state with his moronic tax mongering and corruption and he was tainted with slime and summarily embarrassed in the polls.  We had a repeat of this in the good state of Virginia that just swung back from dark blue to hot red. The six visits of The Anointed One to rescue his New Jersey lackey were embarrassingly futile and made His Greatness look like a gibbering fool trying to rescue his cell phone from deep in the sewers looking something like Old Weird Harold on speed. This was so faultily constructed it seems to bear the Mark of Shrum[20], the leftist operative with the highest number of political failures so far, but the future is approaching quickly and we can expect to see more of these gems.

Of course the Old Red Lady did chide her Beloved a time or two[21] in the past when she detected him straying from the Path and advised him to ‘unwind.’

“It’s hard not to be who you are, but it’s doubly hard to be who you’ve strived not to be. Obama not only has to figure out how to unwind with a Bud. He has to rewind his life.”[22]-- This Bud’s for You By Maureen Dowd Op-Ed Columnist Published: May 4, 2008.

And, a poisoned spear for Hillary:

“The lioness of Chappaqua is hot on the trail of the Chicago gazelle, eager to gnaw him to pieces, like a harrowing scene out of a George Stubbs painting.”[23]-- This Bud’s for You

She continues to dump on Rush:

“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.

“I have to think that it may be on purpose,” Limbaugh said, “because this is just outrageous, what is happening — a denial of liberty, an attack on freedom.”

We could inquire whether his ‘porkulus[24]’ is really fixing up the infrastructure or creating new jobs[25] 0r strengthening the currency or just wantonly plunging us deeper into debt. That sounds like destroying the economy[26] to me even if it is unintentional and he is just foaming at the mouth while trying to understand basic economics and finance. I am surprised it is not worse given his history and training when coupled with the losers he has surrounded himself with. [27][28] Is Obama really an Afro-Leninist, an ideological racist[29][30], a consummate liar[31] and a Marxian advocate or stooge[32]? He acts like one. He might become our new Hoover and bury the leftists for a generation.

The Old One runs out of venom:

“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.”

It is so Greenwich Village-like[33] to end her screed with what is doubtless a vain valiant entwine on the most hackneyed cliché in literary history. But, with the news and circumstances and shrummery abounding in this circus we have to give Maureen some slack as she has little to work with this week.  Things will worsen and Rush’s predictions are coming true.

 rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com