There seems to be a Birther Gap at the New York Times op-ed page.
Sunday’s Frank Rich column:
So many Republicans don’t know Obama is a natural citizen — 41 percent in a poll last week— that we must (charitably) assume some of them have forgotten that Hawaii was granted statehood.
But the Times op-ed page is nothing if not varied, assuming you mean by “varied” slight differences in the same perspective.
Sunday’s Maureen Dowd column:
[A] CNN poll showed that a quarter of Americans still doubt the president was even born here.
To recap: Rich says 41 percent, Dowd says 25.
Funny thing is, they’re both citing the same poll.
Isn’t that the Times all over.
Campaign Outsider 
Rich was talking about Republicans. Dowd was taking about Americans. These are not the same things (Conservative rhetoric notwithstanding).
Right, Steve – slight differences, same perspective at the Times.
Ah. Sorry, I’m humor-impaired on Mondays.
Carry on! 🙂
Could the difference be due to Rich saying “Republicans” and Dowd saying “Americans”? But doesn’t matter: Dowd’s writing, regardless of what you think of her slant, is snarky, smarmy, and semi-comphensible, anyway. She simply can’t wrte a clear, well-composed set of sentences. I am not sure I’d even call it “writing” in sense of trying to make a point or advance and argument.
Yes – as commenter Steve Stein pointed out above. As for Dowd’s writing, it doesn’t feel any more jangly than usual to me, but maybe I’m just comfortably numb.
Never fear, Bill, brooklynbadboy explains it all over at the Great Orange Satan.