By Dave Andrusko
Editor’s note. This appeared in 2019 but I thought it would be a good time to remind us of the lengths to which the New York Times and other abortion outlets went go to help the Biden/Harris team win the 2020 election.
I hadn’t seen the piece (because I no longer routinely read New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd) until today when my wife forwarded it to me. Dowd, who never, ever tires of accusing everyone she doesn’t like of “sexism” had committed one of those galactic faux pas that you never, ever live down.
In her column—“Has America grown since 1984, or will the knives still be out for Biden’s running mate?—Dowd wrote that “It’s hard to fathom that it’s been 36 years since a man and a woman ran together on a Democratic ticket.” [For younger people, that would be Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro.]
Pardon? What about what’s her name and that senator guy from Virginia who “ran together on a Democratic ticket” in 2016?
After a gazillion people pointed out Dowd’s error, the Times hastily added
Correction: Aug. 8, 2020
An earlier version of this column incorrectly stated the history of the Democratic ticket. It has been 36 years since a man chose a woman to run as his vice-president on the Democratic ticket, not 36 years since a man and a woman ran together on a Democratic Party ticket
Of course, you understand why Dowd phrased it the clumsy way she did. She’s part of the Democrat talking points machine. Their job is to rule out of order in advance anything critical of whichever pro-abortion woman pro-abortion Joe Biden selects as his VP.
As part of that pre-positioning, Dowd was busy pitching yet another pity party for Geraldine Ferraro. She was so caught up in her narrative that she’d made only a passing reference to Hillary Clinton.
The point, of course, is not that Dowd (and her editors) missed what she had written. That’s just embarrassing—doubly so, since Dowd and the Times are forever on the prowl for anyone whose word choice can be construed in a manner that makes them out to be a member of the “deplorables,” a category that has grown exponentially since 2016.
It’s rather that every candidate of both parties will stand for something—actually many things—that the other party will highlight for the American public to see.
National Right to Life, for example, has—and will continue—to shine the spotlight on Biden’s embrace of his party’s wholesale embrace of abortion radicalism paid for by the public. All of the women whose names have surfaced as potential running mates subscribe to that same anti-life philosophy.
The Dowds and a host of other media types will scream that it is by definition “sexist” to point this out.
Other organizations will critique Biden and his vice presidential choice for other positions they espouse. And the same media defenders of all Democrats will dismiss honest differences on major issues as a reflection of deep-seated hatred for women and therefore not permitted to be taken seriously.
It won’t stop us, of course. We will tell the truth about pro-abortion Joe Biden and his running mate all the way up until November 3.
We owe that to the truth. We owe that to the babies.