Maureen Dowd laid it out very clearly in an op/ed piece in the New York Times on Sunday:
Be honest. Who would you rather share a foxhole with: a gay soldier or Mitt Romney?
A gay soldier, of course. In a dicey situation like that, you need someone steadfast who knows who he is and what he believes, even if he’s not allowed to say it out loud.
Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue, as the gloriously gay Oscar Wilde said. And gays are the sacrifice that hypocritical Republican candidates offer to placate “values” voters — even though some candidates are not so finicky about morals regarding their own affairs and divorces.
They may coo over the photo of Dick Cheney, whose re-election campaign demonized gays, proudly smiling with his new grandson, the first baby of his lesbian daughter, Mary.
But they’ll hold the line, by jiminy, against gay Americans who are willing to die or be horribly disfigured in the cursed Bush/Cheney war in Iraq.
Hypocrisy is not something unique to the Republican Party, they've just taken it to levels previously unseen in our nation.
Click here to read the rest of Dowd's piece, although Republicans will probably just brush it off as another attack by the so-called "liberal media," which is what they call any media outlet that doesn't bless right-wing policy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Maybe the reason we discount outlets such as the NYT as "the liberal media" is the fact that they don't care too much about...well...facts.
ReplyDeleteMaureen Dowd makes her name by demonizing folks that she with whom she takes issue. Any irony there?
While she makes a few nearly valid points, they're swallowed up by the mass amounts of bile she spits along with them.
The line that really gets me is the one about Cheney. To say that his campaign as VP demonized gays is, frankly, a flat, all-out lie. In fact, the only issue where Cheney broke with Bush was over the president's pushing of the FMA, which Cheney publicly opposed. So how does making public (and nearly unique) objection to an anti-gay policy move amount to demonizing gays?
But Ms. Dowd wouldn't want to let facts get in her way when she's on the war path, I suppose.
Correction to Paragraph 2:
ReplyDelete"Maureen Dowd makes her name by demonizing folks with whom she takes issue. Any irony there? "
While Cheney didn't actively campaign against gays, he WAS part of an overall campaign that worked very aggressively against gays. That's how I read Dowd's comment, although I think she should have made that point more clearly.
ReplyDeleteNot sure what other facts you thought were wrong.
There weren't any factual errors, per se, in that portion of that article. But it's the only direct and clear fact in that excerpt. The other statements are generalizations or hypothetical.
ReplyDeleteBut Dowd has told quite a few whoppers, fibs, half truths, and simple omissions in her columns as a whole body of work. And that is a fact.