MORE DOWD

Actually, I’m going to disagree with Tim here: I was struck by how decidedly non-horrible this morning’s Dowd column was. After months of Boy Emperor gibberish and “What? You can’t wear miniskirts in Jeddah?” missingthepointism, today’s column was actually good. That is, by Dowd standards.

Is this because the object of her scorn was W.J. Clinton instead of G.W. Bush? Only partly. Mostly, it’s because her too-familiar scorn was illustrated with articulated reasons. Dowd smacks Clinton for criticizing Bush’s pre-9/11 al-Qaeda standpatism — while neglecting to cite his own failure to take terrorism seriously. Meanwhile, Dowd’s “observations” of Bush are usually limited to pointing out that his father was president, and now he is president too, and he kind of seems dumb when he says things like “subliminable” and oh, isn’t this so delicious? I can deride him as a little child!

Ha ha ha.

Tim is right on the money pointing out that Dowd and her fellow Bush-bashers in the press are making a significant tactical error by underestimating the “Boy Emperor.” She still is — as Tim ably put it — “a bloody fool.” I highly recommend the following article, by Oxblog blogger Josh Chafetz, The Immutable Laws of Maureen Dowd, which indeed puts forth a GUT (Grand Unified Theory) of the NY Times “Liberties” column — or, as I like to call it — the biggest waste of the best real estate in journalism today.

Here’s a pretty interesting link from Andrew Sullivan. What’s funny is that even a report from British intelligence probably won’t convince the lefties on the anti-war train that Saddam needs to go. I guess the sovereignty of Iraq to needlessly torture its citizens must remain intact.

Maureen Dowd just keeps proving what a bloody fool she is. I think that’s the primary problem that the Dems are facing at the moment, insisting that the Bush administration is full of know-nothing hicks while gradually sliding farther to the left. They’d be much better served to overestimate their competition. And, who bombs a furniture store? I mean really.

Censorship Follies

It appears that a Yale history professor is upset with the discussion forums of the campus daily’s website. Professor Glenda Gilmore may consider suing the Yale Daily News for libel. Here’s an example of an attempt at censorship by liberal academia.

link via Andrew Sullivan