BlatherWatch: Tom Teepen

DirectorBlue's blog ^ | 3/15/2005 | directorblue

[directorblue]

It is through a lense of grim compassion that I view certain liberal pundits: Maureen Dowd and Richard Cohen, for instance. This pair is so committed to their litany of failed predictions that they'll stick with them no matter how far out of whack they may be.

But I feel a certain sympathy for them: at least they truly are committed, along with being sour and inane. Who can blame them? History hasn't treated either kindly and, given the momentum of the Administration's sweeping initiatives, it's only going to get worse for them.

Thus, I do feel a sort of compassion for them... much like I have for an organ-grinder's monkey at the circus. After all, Dowd and Cohen are the tiny monkeys sitting on the shoulders of the heavyweight op-ed writers on their respective newspapers. Like clockwork, you can expect the Dowds and Cohens of the world to chime in with -- no, not an original thought -- hamhanded attempts at humor sprinkled with their traditional Democratic groupthink. In perfect harmony with the fever swamp, both have achieved a track record of spectacular, flame-out-at-the-air-show-and-smash-into-the-tarmac-with-blazing-explosion failures.

Thus, one can't help but feel compassion, not only for their poor track record, but also for the plain fact that so few people even read them anymore.

Other liberal pundits are simply... not all there. Their driveways don't go all the way to the garage. A few sandwiches shy of a picnic. The elevator doesn't go all the way to the top floor. A guy like Tom Teepen comes to mind. He differs from the top-shelf liberal punditry on a couple of parameters: a willingness to ignore reality. and astoundingly poor writing skills. Here's his latest gem, courtesy of Cox. My comments are in bold...

Rest of article

[Fenris6]

Its fun to count Dowd's adjective:fact ratio.