The Case for Sarah Vowell

Over at TNR they're not too impressed with commentator Sarah Vowell. I find it amusing that Keelin McDonell can say that "she has not, so far as I can detect, demonstrated a sophisticated or, for that matter, unique, grasp of current events." No apparent irony - does David Brooks demonstrate these qualities? If he does, I haven't noticed them.

Her column on cronyism from yesterday's NY Times op-ed page, When Bush Falls in Love, ended with this sterling paragraph, which I quote here for the firewall-barred, having hand-typed it from my Sunday paper (hard copy).

Bonhomie, as our ex-cronies the French call it, should have its limits. Seems as if American voters picked the current president because they thought he'd be a fun hang at a cookout - a jokey neighbor who charred a mean burger and is good at playing Frisbee with his dog. What we should be doing is electing a president with the nitpicky paranoia you'd use to choose a cardiologist - a stunted conversationalist with dark-circled eyes and paper-cut fingertips who will stay up until 3 tearing into medical journals in five languages trying to figure out how to save your life.

I agree with her that way too many people in this country approach a vote for president the same way they'd approach a vote for prom king. Of course the media is complicit in setting the tone with their breathless and brain dead coverage. But still. Why is an interest in preparing to do a good job as president considered a geeky disqualifier? Isn't it time we elected a wonk?