The juxtaposition of opinion columns in the New York Times is a little weird this week.
On Tuesday, David Brooks, the token semi-conservative, wrote a somewhat perplexing piece about how reassuring it is to see our commander-in-chief's confidence hasn't been shaken by anything going on in Iraq, in Afghanistan, at home, or anywhere else his policies have made a dent:
I left the 110-minute session thinking that far from being worn down by the past few years, Bush seems empowered. His self-confidence is the most remarkable feature of his presidency.
Tomorrow, Paul Krugman, one of the liberal rest, chastises "enablers" among the pundosphere:
In a coordinated public relations offensive, the White House is using reliably friendly pundits — amazingly, they still exist — to put out the word that President Bush is as upbeat and confident as ever. It might even be true.
What I don’t understand is why we’re supposed to consider Mr. Bush’s continuing confidence a good thing.
It doesn’t demonstrate Mr. Bush’s strength of character; it shows that he has lost touch with reality.
Did someone spill coffee on someone else down editorial way?