Unfortunately, Dowd consistently reveals herself to be a hate mongering dimwit, well equipped at tapping random thoughts of hatred towards all things conservative, but totally inept at developing a rational thesis. Dowd has done little more than reveal herself to the world as being neoliberal dimentia incarnate.
It should come as no surprise that she hates Dick Cheney. But I was surprised to read about her hatred for Pope Benedict XVI in her recent column. This is Dowd's take on the Papal Conclave:
- "The éminence grise who had long whispered in the ear of power and who had helped oversee the selection process ended up selecting himself. In Cheneyesque fashion, he searched far and wide for a pope by looking around the room and swiftly deciding he was the best man for the job."
Dowd goes on to state: "the new pope is a Jurassic archconservative who disdains the "if it feels good do it" culture and the revolutionary trends toward diversity and cultural openness since the 60's." Only an imbecile like Dowd could feign surprise that the pope doesn't subscribe to the "if it feels good do it" club. Does she really expect the pope to subscribe to her dope smoking, gender bending, wife swapping, abortion as contraception culture? Furthermore, how can a man who shepherds 1.1 billion members of all racial and social backgrounds, not appreciate diversity?
I'll be the first to admit that it is a Herculean task to defend the neoliberal platform. Acting shocked that Pope Benedict doesn't preach "if it feels good do it" requires some serious talent. Claiming Cardinal Ratzinger stole the papal conclave election requires some serious credibility. Unfortunately, neither talent nor credibility are Dowd's strong suits. If Dowd is the best the New York Times has to offer in this regard, I can rest easy knowing the effluent that is radical liberalism is headed downwards into history's septic tank of flawed idealologies.