Because intelligence is obviously not one of the requirements. Gail Collins demonstrates that today (although Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich and, yes, Paul Krugman may well do so on other days. YMMV). How? Just check out this opening paragraph.
In Ohio, citizens marched to the polls on Tuesday and voted to allow gambling casinos in the state. This was obviously a message to President Obama that independent voters are not happy with the way the health care bill is going.
Yes, I know, sarcasm and all that. Her larger point, though, is nonsense. Of course a local issue such as casino authorization doesn't reflect on Mr. Obama's presidency, and, unless she's going to present exit poll data no one knows whether independents like blackjack and slots. But her farcical analysis here reflects not at all on the meaning of the other results, and obviously so.
It's apparent to anyone with a rudimentary education that certain of the election results could be interpreted as relevant to Mr. Obama's presidency, while others can't. Whether that interpretation is right is another argument entirely. But to use one - or two or three - that obviously can't to argue against all of them is laughable.
And would be, if it weren't on the pages of America's Paper of Record.
