Well, at least that is something about which Will should be not merely well informed, but a surpassing agent in producing.
Will's latest article, entitled Obama’s campaign goes empty and strident, stridently makes the case that Barack Obama is, as Will says "indolent in mind". His examples of how this is so include the Obama campaign's "bilious tone".
Well, that sounds bad, bilious being a word that has no obvious charm or appeal, even if you don't know what it means.
But, assuming you've gone and looked it up, if you didn't know it before, when was the last time we got a "good-tempered" presidential campaign? When they almost anointed George Washington king of America? And is Will actually suggesting that Obama's bilious tone is distinguished in any way on that count from the putrid slime of Romney-Ryan's pack of hateful lies (and worse, even more hateful truths)? Obama has generally been more truthful more of the time.
But let's just look for a moment at Will's notorious habit of committing intentional offenses against perspicuity (usually by his abusing minor-league obscure words), perpetrated by Will as a substitute for his making cogent arguments.
Certainly, a person who is truly "bilious" is unlikely to be at the same time "indolent", at least concerning the same matter. The former would be too much work for the latter.
Indeed, as anybody who witnessed Obama's actual indolence in the first debate can attest to, it was the severe lack of biliousness on Obama's part, his failure to seem interested enough to bitch-slap his etch-a-sketchy opponent, that gave many Americans great concern Obama had exhausted his interest in being president.
The damage that real indolence did to Obama's campaign has only now been corrected in part, as Obama's polling average finally has recovered to a tie with Romney nationally. The key states that will decide the election are still favoring Obama at this point.
It is perhaps unfair to say that Will's entire article is merely empty stridency. In the service of attacking what he calls "the Democratic Party's vast reservoir of condescension…focused on women", Will illustrates a key issue amongst the nation's majority demographic: GOP gender cluelessness:
"Much of the Democratic Party’s vast reservoir of condescension is currently focused on women, who are urged not to trouble their pretty little heads about actual problems but instead to worry that, 52 years after birth control pills went on the market and 47 years after access to contraception became a constitutional right, reproductive freedom is at risk. This insult may explain the shift of women toward Romney."The revelation on Will's part that women's health concerns are not "actual problems", or are only so to women who enjoy being condescended to by Democrats trying to protect those rights, is a typical Willian contortion of reason, mixed with Will's absolutely jaded willingness to be a shameless hypocrite.
Of course, many people have written over the years of the Will problem at the Washington Post, which is, let us say, a problem of indolence at the Post in perpetually harboring such an intellectual lightweight as one of their token conservative opinion writers.
Will finishes his emptily strident exercise in meeting his WaPo article quota, by saying Obama's "last days" are being so bilious and mean to Romney because:
"Perhaps [Obama] feels an earthquake's first tremors."I suppose Will means the tremors of some kind of GOP wet-dream-quake, where Romney trounces Obama and the Republicans take over the US Senate too—complete with the outrages of Akin, Mourdock and other peabrain tea-pee stains on the national congress.
Or maybe, this ridiculous jerkoff of an article by George Will, mirrored by a wonkier, if maybe sillier, version, by Karl Rove at the Wall Street Journal, is the beginning of a storm surge of realization by Republicans that Sandy Frankenstorm was the last nail in the coffin of GOP presidential aspirations for 2012.