Pride and Prejudice...Washington Style

[Kooperman]

March 18, 2004

OP-ED COLUMNIST

Pride and Prejudice

By MAUREEN DOWD

WASHINGTON

House Republicans haven't suggested an embargo on olives and paella yet, but it's probably just pocos minutos away. By the time these guys are through, it will be unpatriotic to consume any ethnic food but fish and chips and kielbasa, washed down with a fine Bulgarian wine.

Republicans like Dennis Hastert were ranting yesterday about the Spaniards. "Here's a country who stood against terrorism and had a huge terrorist act within their country," Mr. Hastert said, "and they chose to change their government to, in a sense, appease terrorists."

The Republicans prefer to paint our old ally as craven rather than accept the Spanish people's judgment — which most had held since before the war — that the Iraq takeover had nothing to do with the war on terror.

The Spanish were also angry at José María Aznar because they felt he had misled them about the bombings, trying to throw guilt on ETA and away from Al Qaeda. The Republicans certainly don't want anyone here to think about throwing somebody out of office because he was misleading about Al Qaeda.

During a photo-op with Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende of the Netherlands on Tuesday, Mr. Bush did his "Beavis and Butthead" snigger as a Dutch reporter noted that most of his countrymen want to withdraw Dutch troops from Iraq because they think the conflict "has little to do with the war against terrorism, and may actually encourage terrorism." (Uh-oh, looks like no tulips on the Capitol grounds this spring.)

"I would ask them," the president replied, "to think about the Iraqi citizens who don't want people to withdraw because they want to be free."

Now that he hasn't found any weapons, Mr. Bush says the war was worth it so Iraqis could experience democracy. But when our allies engage in democracy, some Republicans mock them as lily-livered.

The Republicans treat John Kerry as disdainfully as they do the European allies who have disappointed the White House, painting him as a French-looking dude who went to a Swiss boarding school, as an effete Brahmin who would rather cut intelligence and military spending than face down terrorists.

The election is shaping up as a contest between Pride and Prejudice.

Mr. Kerry is Pride.

He has a tendency toward striped-trouser smugness that led him to stupidly boast that he was more popular with leaders abroad than President Bush — playing into the Republican strategy to depict him as one of those "cheese-eating surrender monkeys."

Even when he puts on that barn jacket over his expensive suit to look less lockjaw — and says things like, "Who among us doesn't like Nascar?" — he can come across like Mr. Collins, Elizabeth Bennet's pretentious cousin in "Pride and Prejudice." Mr. Collins always prattles on about how lucky people would be to be rewarded by his patron, Lady Catherine de Bourgh, with "some portion of her notice" and to receive dollops of her "condescension."

Speaking to Chicago union workers last week, Mr. Kerry happily informed them that on the ride over, his wife, Teresa, had said she could live in Chicago. What affability, as Mr. Collins would say, what condescension.

Mr. Bush is Prejudice.

Like Miss Bennet, who irrationally arranged the facts to fit her initial negative assessment of Mr. Darcy, Mr. Bush irrationally arranges the facts to fit his initial assessment that 9/11 justified blowing off the U.N. and some close allies to invade Iraq.

The president and vice president seem incapable of admitting any error, especially that their experienced foreign policy team did not see through Saddam's tricks. As Hans Blix told a reporter, Saddam had put up a "Beware of Dog" sign, so he didn't bother with the dog. How can they recalibrate the game plan when they won't concede that they called the wrong game plan to start?

When he challenged Mr. Kerry to put up or shut up on his claim of support from foreign leaders, Mr. Bush said, "If you're going to make an accusation in the course of a presidential campaign, you've got to back it up with facts."

If you're going to make an accusation in the course of a presidency, you've got to back it up with facts, too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/18/opinion/...print&position=

[MikeHunt]

OP-ED COLUMNIST

Pride and Prejudice

By MAUREEN DOWD

....so this is the writers opinion...NOT ...news

[Kooperman]

Have you read it? It's as critical of Kerry as it is of Bush...or did you notice?

And why the strangely arrogant remark? Maureen Dowd is a nationally known political opinion columnist who does regular work for the NY Times, and has for years. She does political columns....and this is posted in the politics area...so what's the beef about?

[DudeAsInCool]

OP-ED COLUMNIST

Pride and Prejudice

By MAUREEN DOWD

....so this is the writers opinion...NOT ...news

With a title like "Pride and Prejudice", and coming from Maureen Dowd of the NY Times, it's crystal clear that this was an editorial. The political forum is open ended and not closed to just news--its simply a subsection there because that's the genre it's closest to.

Given the fact that the writer takes swipes at both candidates, what's your beef, Mike? Or, didnt you bother to read it before commenting?