In a column yesterday in the NY Times, Maureen Dowd tried again to paint Christian conservatives as intolerant. Her adjective of choice in this column happened to be "vengeful". After reading her recent article, one is left with the impression that she is simply catering to New York liberals' insatiable appetite for Christian bashing. Well, two can play the game of hurling hate rhetoric, so here's USANow's rebuttal using the Maureen Dowd Demonize Your Opponent with Inflammatory Rhetoric Technique:
In order to discredit the agenda of the faithful right, liberal columnist Maureen Dowd paints Christians as a "vengeful mob - revved up by rectitude - running around with torches and hatchets after heathens and pagans and infidels". Her evidence? A letter written by noted anti-Catholic Bob Jones III. Since when does Bob Jones speak for 60,000,000 Americans?
Dowd goes on in dramatic fashion, saying "The Christian avengers and inquisitors, hearts hard as marble, are chasing poor 74 year-old Arlen Specter through Capitol's marble halls, determined to flagellate him and deny him his cherished goal of taking over the Senate Judiciary Committee." What's utterly reprehensible about Dowd's hyperbole is that the idea of Arlen Specter in the role of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman is anathema to her. Clearly, she would prefer any Democrat on earth before Arlen Specter. But now that she's on the wrong side of history (again), she can do little more than jump in the middle of Republican party lobbying, and paint Christians as demons taking away an elderly man's "cherished goal". Quite pathetic. Since when does every 74 year old man have an inalienable right to his "cherished goal"? More importantly, since when does our Constitution mandate that Supreme Court Justices pass some sort of Roe v. Wade litmus test?
The brings us to the heart of the matter, which is that the Specter issue relates solely to maintaining the pro-infanticide status quo. Dowd, clearly shaken by the prospect of a Supreme Court which would protect unborn children, is now interjecting her opinions in Republican party machinations. She is terrified that a pro-life judge may be appointed to the Supreme Court, jeapordizing women's freedom to choose to dismember their unborn children. So Ms. Dowd would prefer to bow down to the most liberal Republican rather than let our democratic processes work their course.
Perhaps Ms. Dowd could spend more time writing about what went wrong with the neo liberal agenda in this year's election. Perhaps she could learn what it means to be compassionate, and at least try to develop an appreciation for Christian America's "cherished goals". More likely, however, Ms. Dowd will continue pandering to her liberal readers and feeding chum to the anti-life sharks of the Democratic party.