Just who exactly are these scumbag-ette sisterhood vipers? Well one is the “queen of mean” and the other, well, she’s just “mean.” In fact both of them fall in the category of a variation of a quotable phrase by Maureen Dowd “we are in era of Republican Mean girls” (in her recent article, “Playing All the Angles” in the New York Times on 10/16/10). In turn Michelle Malkin (on Fox News 10/21/10) quoted and characterized Ms. Dowd as “catty, nasty and mean.”
But I want to begin with just “Ms.” rabidly “mean” here. I am of course speaking of Rachel Maddow of MSNBC. This woman I surmise has been rabidly mean since childbirth, and somehow I suspect before that too. And this far, far leftist viper saves and stores up all her venom and hisses and dishes it out solely for Republicans, Christians and conservatives with her (and that of Ms. Dowd’s) special emphasize on Republican women and of course, the Tea Party.
In fact, both Ms. Dowd and Ms. Maddow have been dishing out and walloping a dollop of pure, unadulterated “catty, nasty and mean” on a daily and weekly basis for almost the last two years now. So as I figure it, it’s high time for them to take a walloping dollop of comeuppance with their own medicine, and to wit, eat a little, nay, make that a whole lot of crow.
You see attacking conservatives and Republicans, Christians and Catholics, both male and female, appears to be their life’s mission. To demean, vilify, delegitimize and disgrace the former, is truly their life’s work and makes their day both happy and gratifying which believe it or not, is my mission too, but only it is she and her ilk who make up my target, and yes I guess, my life’s work too.
But let us return solely to Ms. Rabidly Mean. Her modus operandi as I see it, is a not so subtle combination of “gotcha” yellow journalism and the head drop, eyes darting around, and body coil of a viper before it strikes viciously with its venomous loaded questioning of “isn’t it true therefore, ergo, ipso facto, igitur, hoc propter hoc, that you are a conservative, a Christian and a Republican guilty of the supreme, capital crime of hypocrisy through the sheer, utter sin of believing in the evil nonsense you do, and the sheer fact of your breathing, having a pulse and being alive and existing at all? Aren’t you thoroughly guilty as charged? Aren’t you, aren’t you!?”
But how did she become this hissing, smarmy and snarky, leftist snake? For surely it did not occur over night nor in the space of a day. Well just as Ms. Dowd “psychobabble” analyzed all those Republican Mean girls, allow me to do likewise herein.
As I see it, Ms. Maddow reminds me of a type of girl who I knew in every class I had in elementary school. (And for that matter, Ms. Dowd, a similar type but not quite as petty, in junior and senior high school.) This girl was one hell of a little package of nasty envy and rather mean-spirited jealousy and contempt for all the other children, but especially so as directed and channelled against all the other little girls.
(Forget the little boys for they weren’t, in her eyes, even worthy of being held beneath contempt.)
You see, dear readers, Ms. Maddow was not as pretty and cute and as sweet as all the other little girls, nor friendly nor sociably acceptable and “in” as they were as well. So little Miss Mean sought out her Medea-like message of vengeance upon all the other pretty, adorable and cute little girls by developing a rather venomous and acerbic, acidic tongue which she apparently has achieved to more than a farthings-well perfection.
For you see, she was plain and again not as pretty nor adorably attired nor as liked and popular and socially acceptable as all the really cute and pretty other little girls were. But because she thoroughly stewed in her own little witch’s brew, you know: “Double, double toil and trouble, Fire burn and cauldron bubble,” and “Eye of newt, and toe of frog, Wool of bat, and tongue of dog.” In her psyche and soul, that plain girl, in actuality that ugly little duckling, meaning Ms. Maddow, was nicer, smarter and much better than the other little girls; so she therefore had to develop a means not only to keep up with them, but she also had to viciously destroy them. For nothing less would do.
You see, it was not enough just to simply destroy them with her bitter tongue, but she had to crush, humiliate and utterly annihilate them through vicious innuendo, gossip, rumors and plots. Well, evidently she has grown up but she hasn’t changed, in fact she has truly become an expert professional at envy, jealousy, gossip and vicious innuendo, smear and ad hominem attack. Nice going Rachel, you’ve finally developed into an all grownup woman. Mazel tov.
Now as for Ms. Dowd, the Queen of Mean, she appears to have, in her own words, been one of those pretty girls whom Rachel also despised and plotted and intrigued against. But even pretty girls who seemingly have it all, can be utterly contemptuous and viciously spiteful towards other pretty girls.
So Ms. Dowd in that article of hers (in the New York Times) claims victimhood, for you see, the other girls were the sort (do I smell innuendo and vicious smear here?) who would “steal your boyfriend” and “spray paint your locker,” etc..
Well I assume the difference here between the Queen of Mean and Ms. Rabidly Mean, is that at least Ms. Dowd had a boyfriend worthy of stealing and that the spray-painting of her locker was truly worth the effort for all the psychic satisfaction and joy it provided.
In this last respect I surely can understand why Rachel not only despised and hated all the other children, but also waged an unholy war against them with a bitter vengeance. For she too was not even worthy of being held beneath contempt, nor having her locker spray-painted. Poor baby.