Can someone tell me what this writer in Time is trying to say?

Can anyone tell me what this guy is saying? What does he mean at the end?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101031013-493326,00.html

Put me on the payroll, please, I am as good a lapdog as anyone else in the media!

Sounds like Kinsley is trying to imitate George Will

He slips back and forth so damn much! But in the end, I believe he's saying the Dems don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of beating
Bush in '04.....:mad:

found confusing, is an example of the very irony that Bush lacks the capability to understand. Irony, in this instance, is saying one thing when meaning the opposite. Unfortunately, the word is often misused in place of other words, like 'coincidence,' or 'unusual.' This guy used it correctly. It's a pretty good piece, actually, especially for Time.

I'm too gullable

Basically, this Krauthammer says liberals have become "unhinged" by their anger at Bush and that it is "driving them to self-defeating ideological extremes..." <as paraphrased by the writer>

His response to Krauthammer's crocodile tears that the liberals are shooting themselves in the foot by being so angry, is "we're not suicidal. We're pragmatic." And we're committed to booting your boy no matter what it takes. So, "If I were a conservative, I wouldn't be too worried" refers to Krauthammer's phony concern for his opponents. It would have been clearer to say "I wouldn't be to worried about the continued political viability of the LIBERALS, know what I mean?"

I have met people like Bush and you just give up as they are right and you are wrong. The Dem do not wish to give up and Bush has most of the power so it gulls one. It is like having a house full of teenages.

conservatives are idiots. "If I were a conservative, I wouldn't be too worried" means "y'know, conservatives ought to be fucking petrified, and would be, if they had any goddamned brains".

Kinsley tends to be hard to decipher sometimes. Most of that column ws right on, as a diagnisis of how liberals see the present situation. And a more honest assessment than most pundits give.

But that last paragraph does throw it off. Either he's being ironic and doesn't mean it and that conservatives ought to be worried.

Or he is saying we don't have a snowball's chance in hell because censervatuves play the nasty game better, even though we're smarter and we are the majority.

Or he's doing a double-reverse flip and saying that just as we miunderestimated Bush, they should not misunderestimate us.