All Dowd's Delusions

Why does the New York Times permit Maureen Dowd to spew idiotic psychobabble as if it were legitimate political commentary?

Dowd is the Dr. Phil of the Op-Ed page. (I expect her to write a diet book soon.)

Her latest column, "All the President's Women," is disturbingly bizarre, almost surreal. She comes off as more and more deranged as she gets deeper into the women in President Bush's personal and professional life.

Dowd writes:

I hope President Bush doesn't have any more office wives tucked away in the White House.

There are only so many supremely powerful jobs to give to women who are not qualified to get them.

The West Wing is a parallel universe to TV's Wisteria Lane: instead of self-indulgent desperate housewives wary of sexy nannies, there are self-sacrificing, buttoned-up nannies serving as adoring work wives, catering to W.'s every political, legal and ego-affirming need.

Dr. Condoleezza Rice is NOT a buttoned-up nanny.

Dowd casts this brilliant individual into the role of a subservient yes woman. I find the ease with which she belittles Dr. Rice, an accomplished, talented woman by all reasonable accounts, to be troubling.

Her depiction of the U.S. Secretary of State is not only false; it’s spiteful.

Maybe it's because his mom was not adoring enough, but more tart and prickly, even telling her son, the president, not to put his feet up on her coffee table. Or maybe it's because, as his wife says, his kinship with his mom gives him a desire to be around strong, "very natural" women. But W. loves being surrounded by tough women who steadfastly devote their entire lives to doting on him, like the vestal virgins guarding the sacred fire, serving as custodians for his values and watchdogs for his reputation.

This cannot be read without coming away with the impression that Dowd is mentally impaired.

There is no logical path that can possibly start with Barbara Bush telling her son to keep his feet off the coffee table and lead to the conclusion that Bush chooses to be around strong women who “devote their entire lives to doting on him.”

I don’t think truly strong women are willing to completely subjugate themselves to anyone. It doesn’t make sense.

Apparently, Dowd thinks that Bush’s Supreme Court pick has something to do with his mother. She turns her column into a creepy Oedipal analysis. Yuck!

Any way you look at, Dowd’s wackiness shines.

First he elevated Condi Rice to secretary of state, even though she had bungled her job as national security adviser, failing to bring a sense of urgency to warnings about terrorism aimed at America before 9/11, and acting more as an enabler than honest broker in the push to invade Iraq.

But what were these limitations, considering the time the workaholic bachelorette logged at W.'s side in Crawford and Camp David, coaching him on foreign affairs, talking sports with him, exercising with him, making him feel like the most thoughtful, farsighted he-man in the world?

Dowd’s assertion that Dr. Rice failed to “bring a sense of urgency to warnings about terrorism” is nuts.

Rice and the Bush administration were pursuing a far more aggressive strategy than the Clinton administration to deal with the terrorist threat, and al Qaeda specifically.

Dowd is in some weird sort of fantasyland. Her imagery of Condi at Bush’s side, making “him feel like the most thoughtful, far-sighted he-man in the world” is pure conjecture.

I’m afraid the scenario she creates is far more revealing about her than it is about the President.

Again, just creepy.

Then he elevated his longtime aide, speechwriter, memoir ghostwriter and cheerleader Karen Hughes to undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, even though it is exceedingly hard for the 6-foot Texan to try and spin a billion Muslims whom she doesn't understand the first thing about.

But who cares about her lack of expertise in such a critical job, as long as the workaholic loyalist continues to make her old boss feel like the most thoughtful, farsighted he-man in the world?

Why does she describe Karen Hughes as a “6-foot Texan”?

I doubt that Dowd is citing her height as a flattering characteristic. What does it have to do with anything?

Dowd whines about her lack of qualifications at the same time that she focuses on such a superficial quality, as though it has some significance.

She contradicts herself as she lays out her argument. With all due respect to Dowd, that’s not too bright.

Then, Dowd gets to the real purpose of her column, the bashing of Harriet Miers.

And now he has nominated his White House counsel and former personal lawyer, Harriet Miers, to a crucial swing spot on the Supreme Court. The stolid Texan, called "Harry" by some old friends, is a bachelorette who was known for working long hours, sometimes 16-hour days, and was a frequent guest at Camp David and the Crawford ranch, where she helped W. clear brush.

Like Ms. Hughes and Laura Bush, she's a graduate of Southern Methodist, and she has always been there for W. In 1998, during his re-election race for governor, Harry handled the first questions about whether Mr. Bush had received favorable treatment to get into the Texas Air National Guard to avoid the draft. Though the former Democrat once gave a grand to Al Gore in '88, she passed the loyalty test for W. during the Bush v. Gore standoff in 2000, when she recruited conservative lawyers to work for the Bush scion in Tallahassee.

But who cares whether she has no judicial experience, and that no one knows what she believes or how she would rule from a bench she's never been behind, as long as the reason her views are so mysterious is that she's subordinated them to W.'s, making him feel like the most thoughtful, farsighted he-man in the world?

Dowd obviously is depicting Miers as masculine--another stolid Texan, known as “Harry.” According to Dowd, those are the traits that compelled Bush to nominate Miers for the Supreme Court.

Yeah, right.

It’s a lame argument to dismiss Miers because she has no judicial experience. She would not be the first justice to be nominated to the Supreme Court without such experience, nor will she be the last.

Moreover, while it’s legitimate to wonder about her judicial philosophy, it’s a ridiculous and illogical leap to insist that Miers only has opinions that bolster Bush’s self-image.

After dredging up some old digs about Bush’s National Guard service, Dowd claims to know that Miers has subordinated her views on everything to the President’s, with the sole purpose of making him feel like the “most thoughtful, farsighted he-man in the world.”

Seriously, what is Dowd’s problem?

She seems to be obsessed with the image of Bush as a “he-man.” I don’t think of him that way. Personally, I don’t know anyone who does.

Furthermore, Dowd discusses "all the President's women" as if they were wives of David Koresh. I consider her degradation of Barbara Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Karen Hughes, and Harriet Miers to be extremely offensive.

David Frum, the former White House speechwriter and conservative commentator, reported on his blog that Ms. Miers once told him that W. was the most brilliant man she knew.

Of course, this sentence is meant to cause any Bush-hater to gag. To libs, if Miers really said that, it’s an indication that she should undergo intensive therapy and be sent to a locked facility in order to protect society from such a dangerous person, someone so clearly out of touch with reality.

Bushie and Harriet share the same born-again Christian faith, which they came to in midlife, deciding to adopt Jesus Christ as their saviors. The Washington Post reported that she tithes to the Valley View Christian Church in Dallas, "where antiabortion literature is sometimes distributed and tapes from the conservative group Focus on the Family are sometimes screened," and where, when she returns, Ms. Miers asks well-wishers to pray for her and the president.

Born Catholic, she switched to evangelical Christianity in her mid-30's and began to identify more with the Republicans than the Democrats, The Times reports today; she joined the missions committee of her church, which opposed legalized abortion, and one former political associate said that Ms. Miers told her she had been in favor of a woman's right to have an abortion when she was younger, but that her views hardened against abortion once she became born again.

I guess it’s to be expected that Maureenie would refer to the President as “Bushie.” She has no respect for the man, and apparently, she has no qualms about disrespecting the office of the U.S. presidency.

By ridiculing the faith of the President and Harriet Miers, Dowd certainly isn’t converting any Christians to believe in what she has to say.

As usual, members of the liberal elite further alienate themselves from people of faith by such condescension. It’s a losing strategy.

Duh!

W. is asking for a triple leap of faith. He has faith in Ms. Miers as his lawyer and as a woman who shares his faith. And we're expected to have faith in his faith and her faith, and her opinions that derive from her faith that could change the balance of the court and affect women's rights for the next generation.

That's a little bit too much faith, isn't it?

In the span of a relatively short column, Dowd attempts to strip President Bush, his mother, Secretary of State Rice, Karen Hughes, and Harriet Miers of their dignity. She unjustly attacks Christians, people who are against abortion, and tall women.

I find her total lack of respect to be especially obnoxious.

Her criticism of them is emotional, not rational. That may be desirable for a gossip column, but not for the Op-Ed page.