What I would note about Ivin's essay is that she begins not even knowing who Camille Paglia is. Ivins then very clearly does her homework and cites a number of sources while making her points. When she reaches snarky conclusions, it's very apparent that those conclusions are based on facts. That's why I like lefties so much. They don't simply talk out of their butts, they do their due diligence, they do their research and therefore reach solid conclusions. Are they wrong from time to time? Yes of course, they are human and errors do happen.

I don't make a coherent argument? Simple way to correct that. Show me where I'm wrong.

Yeah, I notice that all of the sudden, after years and years of "Dear Leader can do no wrong and anyone who disagrees wth His Glorious Word is a traitor, commie, etc.," people on the right wing have JUST discovered that Bush is a RINO who isn't really a "real" Republican. Yeah, funny how that works.