Uncle Dick and Papa

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gilliam

Guest
MAUREEN DOWD

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/dropcap/i.gift was a move so smooth and bold, accomplished with such backstage bureaucratic finesse, that it was worthy of Dick Cheney himself.

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.

Just like Mr. Cheney, once the quintessentially deferential staff man with the Secret Service code name “Back Seat,” the self-effacing Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has clambered over the back seat to seize the wheel (or Commonweal). Mr. Cheney played the tough cop to W.'s boyish, genial pol, just as Cardinal Ratzinger played the tough cop to John Paul’s gentle soul.

And just like the vice president, 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.

The two leaders are a match - absolutists who view the world in stark terms of good and evil, eager to prolong a patriarchal society that prohibits gay marriage and slices up pro-choice U.S. Democratic candidates.

The two, from rural, conservative parts of their countries, want to turn back the clock and exorcise New Age silliness. Mr. Cheney wants to dismantle the New Deal and go back to 1937. Pope Benedict XVI wants to dismantle Vatican II and go back to 1397. As a scholar, his specialty was “patristics,” the study of the key thinkers in the first eight centuries of the church

They are both old hands at operating in secrecy and using the levers of power for ideological advantage. They want to enlist Catholics in the conservative cause, turning confession boxes into ballot boxes with the threat that a vote for a liberal Democrat could lead to eternal damnation.

Unlike Ronald Reagan and John Paul II, the vice president and the new pope do not have large-scale charisma or sunny faces to soften their harsh “my way or the highway” policies. Their gloomy world outlooks and bullying roles earned them the nicknames Dr. No and Cardinal No. One is called Washington’s Darth Vader, the other the Vatican’s Darth Vader.

W.'s Doberman and John Paul’s “God’s Rottweiler,” as the new pope was called, are both global enforcers with cult followings. Just as the vice president acted to solidify the view of America as a hyperpower, so the new pope views the Roman Catholic Church as the one true religion. He once branded other faiths as deficient.

Both like to blame the media. Cardinal Ratzinger once accused the U.S. press of overplaying the sex abuse scandal to hurt the church and keep the story on the front pages.

Dr. No and Cardinal No parted ways on the war - though Cardinal Ratzinger did criticize the U.N. But they agree that stem cell research and cloning must be curtailed. Cardinal Ratzinger once called cloning “more dangerous than weapons of mass destruction.”

As fundamentalism marches on - even Bill Gates seems to have caved to a preacher on gay rights legislation because of fear of a boycott - U.S. conservatives are thrilled about the choice of Cardinal Ratzinger, hoping for an unholy alliance. They hope this pope - who seems to want a smaller, purer church - encourages a militant role for Catholic bishops and priests in the political process.

Cardinal Ratzinger did not shrink from advising American bishops in the last presidential election on bringing Catholic elected officials to heel. He warned that Catholics who deliberately voted for a candidate because of a pro-choice position were guilty of cooperating in evil, and unworthy to receive communion. Vote Democratic and lose your soul. “Panzerkardinal,” as he was known, definitely isn’t a man who could read Mario Cuomo’s Notre Dame speech urging that pro-choice politicians be allowed in the tent and say, “He’s got a point.”

The Republicans can build their majority by bringing strict Catholics and evangelicals - once at odds - together on what they call “culture of life” issues.

But there’s a risk, as with Tom DeLay, Dr. Bill Frist and other Republicans, that if the new pope is too heavy-handed and too fundamentalist, his approach may backfire.

Moral absolutism is relative, after all. As Bruce Landesman, a philosophy professor at the University of Utah, pointed out in a letter to The Times: “Those who hold ‘liberal’ views are not relativists. They simply disagree with the conservatives about what is right and wrong.”

nytimes.com/2005/04/23/opinion/23dowd.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fMaureen%20Dowd&oref=login
 
Our local paper prints one of Dowd’s articles each week - only one, thank goodness. I have yet to read anything of hers that isn’t sick. This CINO can’t seem to understand that staying the course is NOT moving backwards.
 
40.png
geezerbob:
Our local paper prints one of Dowd’s articles each week - only one, thank goodness. I have yet to read anything of hers that isn’t sick. This CINO can’t seem to understand that staying the course is NOT moving backwards.
Hi GB,
I don’t think MsDowd is well…

I agree with your post 👍
 
Dowd is a serious near occasion of sin for me. Anytime I WANT to get really, seriously outraged, all I have to do is read one of her columns.
 
The comparison of Cheney to His Holiness Benedict XVI is logical only in the most secular of thought, a compliment to Mr. Cheney and most unflattering to His Holiness.

As an aside, when Dowd states that Mr. Cheney wants to return the US to 1937, I really don’t see much compatible with Mr. Cheney’s policies of today to that of Republican conservatives of 1937. Mr. Republican himself, Robert Taft, would probably find most of the policies of the current administration to be anathema.
 
Elaine's Cross:
The comparison of Cheney to His Holiness Benedict XVI is logical only in the most secular of thought, a compliment to Mr. Cheney and most unflattering to His Holiness…
I don’t see the religous ferver in Cheney that I see in the Holy Father, nor do I see the compassion. They are both highly intellegent men and can both think very logically. That is about the only similarity I see. The Pope is a better author as well 🙂
As an aside, when Dowd states that Mr. Cheney wants to return the US to 1937, I really don’t see much compatible with Mr. Cheney’s policies of today to that of Republican conservatives of 1937. Mr. Republican himself, Robert Taft, would probably find most of the policies of the current administration to be anathema.
I agree with you here as well. She seems very off here, I wonder who she was thinking of??
 
40.png
gilliam:
I don’t see the religous ferver in Cheney that I see in the Holy Father, nor do I see the compassion. They are both highly intellegent men and can both think very logically. That is about the only similarity I see. The Pope is a better author as well 🙂

I agree with you here as well. She seems very off here, I wonder who she was thinking of??
Did you ever take note that about the only times you (and some others on this forum) and I depart from civility with each other and vehemently disagree have to do with the war, even though we are staunchly conservative, probably moreso than our president and VP?

War is so divisive.
 
When reading Maureen Dowd one must never expect to find reason or logic in her words. She really belongs on a spciety page, or gossip page. I think she wouldn’t mke much impact in the blogosphere, where the most visited blogs are better written than her MSM column.

I confess that I frequently send her an email taking her to task for various things. (I only received a reply ((from an assistant)) once, when I took exception to her slurring terriers because Bush has two Scottish Terriers.)
I express opposing opinions,but really focus on the absolute incoherence of her writing, punctuated by logical fallacies, circular reasoning, exageration and unsubstantiated assertions presented as facts. I know she never even reads it, but it makes me feel better.
 
The article’s author obviously ought to have waited until he heard the pope’s talk about power versus love in today’s homily.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top