1982 Maureen Dowd vs. Ann Coulter

Both of these women journalists are vitriolic, sarcastic, bombastic and often angry. The difference is Coulter's columns actually contain information and facts. I tried, I really did, to read Maureen Dowd's column today about Abramoff, but it wasn't about him. His crime didn't appear until paragraph five where she gets to "the Abramoff plea bargain." On the way there she manages to smear only Republicans, as though there are no Democrats involved. Then she moves on to bashing Bush, then Cheney, then she's on to quoting the WaPo that Bush has used something (legal) 108 times. Then moves on to smearing Bush for a joke he cracked at a medical center, completing her tirade about Abramoff (I think) with Nixon. That's a lot of column inches to point out that Abramoff has a plea bargain.

She might spend a bit more time on the whole smelly process of tribal casinos. Today's WSJ reports "Indian gaming is a $19 billion industry involving 228 tribes operating 405 gambling operations in 30 states." "Lobbyists, legislators and inside-the-beltway lawyers are the real stakeholders in Indian gambling," according to Alexis Johnson, Arizona lawyer, and Abramoff is the tip of the ice berg.

I think Dowd knows that, and her column is smoke and mirrors. She'll want to check into some of the Democrats' favorite causes when she's finished bashing Bush and Cheney (yeah, that'll happen) because these tribes getting wealthy on gambling are exempt from local taxes, state labor laws, municipal ordinances, zoning restrictions and environmental reviews.

For well-paced, factual vitriol, here's Ann Coulter. You can find Maureen Dowd on your own.