Maureen Dowd really is an awful writer. Buried near the end of her latest rambling screed in the New York Times is this paragraph: “The reawakened Republicans are no longer the loyal opposition. They’re revolutionary Bolsheviks who want to eat Obama alive.” Mixed metaphors and gross overstatement be damned. Full speed ahead. (Finally, though, we know exactly what happened to the Romanovs. They were eaten by the Bolsheviks.)
This post was last modified on September 12, 2011
View Comments (14)
If Maureen Dowd were a college football team, she'd win the Hyper Bole!
Actually, she has it backwards. If any analogies are to be drawn, it's the dems who are the bolsheviks. The reps would be the mensheviks.
The words derive from "bolshe" (more), and "menshe" (less) (the e's are pronounced like in "set"). It was one of the earlier uses of "newspeak". The bolsheviks knew damn well that they were the minority. But they managed to dictate the terms of the debate (sound familiar so far?) - it was they who assigned those names.
In principle, more of the population would have agreed with the mensheviks agenda (much more democratic - as in democracy - in nature).
But the mencheviks basically couldn't get out of their own way, couldn't organize well enough, couldn't get their message out, and bickered over minutia.
The bolsheviks were well organized, everyone unquestioningly followed the leaders, they understood incrementalism, and in order to gain the support of the people, they lied through their teeth.
How about now? Sound like anyone you know?
So considering the history of these people, it really isn't surprising that Maureen Dowd would also twist the terms around.
Okay, the demonization continues: Republicans have now been called "hostage takers", "terrorists", "sons of bitches", "barbarians" and now "revolutionary Bolshevik cannibals". I'm surprised at the last one, ordinarily revolutionary Bolsheviks are people that MoDo and the New York Times approve of. Maybe it was a slip on MoDo's part, something she wrote after a three martini lunch.
First there was Krugman's idiotic 9/11 rant and now MoDo's incoherence, the Grey Lady is losing its grip. It's gone from a partisan Democrat newspaper to a left-wing shriek fest.
Elrond, don't you mean DoDo?
Not quite accurate. The phrase the idiot thug used was "son of a bitches."
Get it right! ...Er... um... I mean, get it wrong!
Has communism (or at least Leninism) become so unpopular that a new meme has emerged in which liberals accuse the conservatives of espousing it? Let them encourage this narrative . . . it will only come back to bite them in their collectivist asses.
... bite them in their collectivist asses.
See: you ARE a cannibal!
It is rather weird to say that Republicans are behaving like Bolsheviks. That's like saying, "Those Democrats are acting like born-again Christians!" Weird.
"That’s like saying, “Those Democrats are acting like born-again Christians!” Weird."
ROFLMAO.
Sure, in the "mind" of a liberal, challenging a stupid idea is the equivalent of cannibalism. I'm just surprised she compared Reps to the Bolsheviks (her heros!) Usually, the modus operandi for these people is to juxtapose them to Hilters brown shirts or the SS. Oh, and the new "in" comparison, which is Bull Connor and his fellow RAAAAACISTS. But the Bolsheviks? That's creative... for Dowd.
You spoiled the Lefties game plan; after Nazis, racists, and terrorists they were going to start calling conservatives 'cannibals'. Now they won't know what to do; I hope you're happy.
Necrophiliacs? Naw, that hits too close to Obama's home in Chicago.
Plus, most Progressives could neither spell it nor define it.
Homonecrobestopediphiliacs. I'm certain of it.
Bad writing, bad premises, and demagoguery. That is the Op Ed section of the NYT. Is anyone listening outside of the ever shrinking echo chamber?