Columnist, Heal Thyself

Wow, has Dick Polman of the Inquirer fallen off a cliff (figuratively speaking, of course) or what?

Here are Polman's sources for this analysis of "Bush's Bubble" today:

- Jack Pitney, a former national GOP official and Capitol Hill aide
- Rich Galen, a Republican strategist and "staunch Bush defender"
- Reuel Marc Gerecht, a "think-tank hawk" in Washington
- Historian Robert Dallek who wrote a two-volume biography of Lyndon Johnson (OK, a token nod towards objectivity...I'll give you that one)
- Jay Homnick, a conservative commentator who described Bush's famous (?) "obstinacy" on the web site for The American Spectator, which is the closest thing you'll find to a negative comment about Dubya on about half a newspaper page of copy
- David Gergen, a conservative who I actually will listen to or read from time to time because, even though I usually disagree with him, I think he's a smart and erudite guy (who suggests that Bush seek counsel from "amenable Democrats" - another phrase for Joe Lieberman or possibly Bill Nelson)
- Bruce Buchanan, a "veteran Bush watcher" at the University of Texas
- A quote from a Karl Rove interview on FOX television (where else, I ask myself?)

I guess it's not worth the trouble to seriously consider interviewing a Democratic political leader unless you're going to write another screed about how divided they perpetually are, right?

I'm not going to bother with commenting on the "inside the Repug party" B.S. which comprises just about the entire piece. I will wonder, though, what kind of chutzpah it takes on Polman's part to concoct this stuff without even giving a passing acknowledgement to the fact that we have A DANGEROUSLY OUT-OF-TOUCH FUNDAMENTALIST NUT JOB AS OUR PRESIDENT, and GEE, MAYBE THAT'S A BAD THING FOR THE COUNTRY!!

Also, Polman cites Woodrow Wilson, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon as presidential precedents for his "bubble" thesis, which to me is like comparing apples to oranges to blueberries. I find myself in the odd position of, for the second time in a week, defending the 28th President of the United States by pointing out that he was indeed shielded by his wife (Edith Bolling Gault) near the end of his presidency because he had been severely incapacitated by a stroke, and I would also like to point out that, along with the fact that Nixon was a naval veteran who had at least served our country (unlike Dubya and practically all of the other Repugs running our government), both of Lyndon Johnson's sons-in-law served in the Vietnam War (from "The Vantage Point"). I would say that that provides some context that you aren't likely to find in any of Polman's recent work.

I think someone else needs to "break out of a bubble" besides Dubya, but I don't think that is likely to happen either.