Opaque Lucidity

And Not A Strong Mind Among Them

You have to love the way liberals think about their ideological opponents. To many of them, it's not enough to simply disagree. Instead, they have to make their opposite members into idiots, facists or rich playboys with no concern for the "little people". This says a great deal about the strength of their arguments.

Take, for example, the article in this week's "New York" magazine (not to be confused with the "New Yorker"). The article is actually a collection of essays about President Bush. Not his policies or his beliefs, but the man himself. Other than John Heilemann, who wrote the introduction, not one of the writers has spent any time with the President. Ever. Yet, they are all somehow qualified to speak about his emotional and psychological health based on....what? How he comes across on TV? A gut feeling?

In reality, their assessments are based on partisanship and hate. All of them, with two exceptions, are either authors of quasi self-help books or college professors, two groups not exactly known for their conservative bias. They hate President Bush and they don't think he should have ever been allowed in the White House. He's not one of them , pseudo-intellectuals whose fantasies of a socialist state run by an elite oligarchy drive their every public action. He doesn't fit in like Bill and Hillary Clinton did with their Martha's Vineyard vacations and weekends spent in Malibu mansions. He owns a ranch in Texas of all places and they know that nothing worthy of their consideration can come from a state where gun ownership is practically mandatory and heroes are invited to speak in public schools on Veteran's Day.

If articles such as this are what passes for deep thought in New York City, then it is no surprise that they have twice elected an Arkansas coat-tail hugging lawyer to represent them in the Senate.