Tabloid to mainstream in one easy sleaze...

I see that, apres le Edwards, the progressive left is turning a quizzical yellow eye to The National Enquirer as a possible intelligence source. For some time, the Inquirer's headlines have blared a series of rude questions, Is Bush on The Sauce? Is Laura Leaving? One poster noted that, after all, they got the John Edwards thing right, so don't discount tabloids, okay? Except that tabloids pay their sources and don't correct their brightly lurid tales when wrong. Getting your info from a tab is like eating at Mom's Home-Cookin'. You'll probably get food-poisoning, but now and then you might get a hamburger that won't kill you outright.

As Smiley, the archetypal operative, notes in one of John Le Carre's novels, when it comes to intelligence, pedigree matters. Otherwise, the National Intelligence Estimate would be banged together out of what a psychic has to say, a couple of horoscopes, and the musings from a Metalica fan. This is not to say that Bush isn't boozing it up. Over an eight year period, I've spotted several instances of his public slurring and stumbling. But drunks are always the elephant in the room and, for some reason, no one ever wants to mention it. It's too large and too scary, this elephant, so we choose to let it trumpet loudly, mash the furniture into matchsticks, and scare the baby.

As to Laura leaving him, I wouldn't blame her but my experience with such wives is that they cling unto the bitter end. You see, next to a drunken fool, they look like Mother Theresa, Mary, and Mrs. Claus rolled into one, and who wants to give that up? Of course, someone should whisper to Laura that if standing next to The Current Occupant makes you look good, maybe it's time to take some courses, volunteer at a soup kitchen, or get religion.

So I don't think we can look to the Inquirer as a reliable source, except when it comes to documenting celebrity fat. And that's a relief. Bottom-feeding can be a real chore.

All you get is a mouthful of mud.