Unsinkable Molly Although Molly Ivins's new book is being cast as a 'retrospective,' she expects to find plenty more chicken-fried nincompoopery to laugh at in the years to come BY TAMARA WIEDER

MOLLY IVINS IS a little worried that her new book, Who Let the Dogs In? (Random House), is being billed as a "career retrospective." It makes the 59-year-old feel, she sighs, "faintly dead."

But with its collection of more than 100 of the syndicated columnist’s observations on American politics, it’s a fair description. In the book, Ivins takes aim at everyone from Phil Gramm to Tom DeLay to Bill Clinton to George W., offering gems like "Let’s have a new rule: If you pronounce the word nukular, you shouldn’t go around nullifying nuclear treaties. Or building nuclear power plants" and "Newt Gingrich has already achieved the improbable effect of making Bob Dole seem cuddly."

The Texas native, whose work has appeared in Esquire, Mother Jones, the Nation, and the Atlantic Monthly, among others, has previously written five best-selling books, including BUSHWHACKED: Life in George W. Bush’s America (Random House, 2003).

Q: Why this book, and why now?

A: Well, now there’s a good question. It was really the brainchild of Jonathan Karp, my editor, who says he sees it as a career retrospective — a prospect that makes me feel faintly dead. I don’t know that the world was particularly waiting for a retrospective collection from me. But here it is.

Q: What do you hope readers will take away with them, from reading this book?

A: The interesting thing is, you’re a journalist, they come in and they say, "Okay, we’re bringing out a bunch of your stuff," and you go, "Ummm?" I mean, what is the connection? What makes this a collection? And I really was kind of surprised to find that the connections are just so strong, they’re so thematic, that it goes through pretty much everything I write. And there it is, after all this time. Still think this is funny, still think it’s important, still want people to pay attention to it. And I still think that we can fix it.

Q: If you didn’t think that, would you even be writing anymore?

A: No, I wouldn’t. I keep thinking, I suppose we all do — what was it Lily Tomlin said? "No matter how cynical you get, it’s hard to keep up." And I suppose we’re all entitled, I believe we are, to be cynical about American politics at this point. But there’s so much that’s at stake, there’s so much that matters more than being able to slip off a cheap comment about what dodo birds these people all are, that I really think it’s worth taking seriously. And oddly enough, the best way to take it seriously is to laugh at it.

Q: And it seems like not enough people on the left do.

A: Well, I’d say political humor is a bit limited on both sides. But as you know, we are in a time of polarization, and you watch people try to have political conversations anymore, they get all red in the face, the tendons stand out in their necks, their wattles start to shake like a turkey gobbler — it’s terrifying.

Q: Your bio reads, "Molly Ivins is a nationally syndicated political columnist who remains cheerful despite Texas politics." How do you remain cheerful? What cheers you?

A: Well, first of all, there are very few things on earth more amusing than Texas politics. Grant you, it requires a strong stomach to enjoy this, but you remember, I’ve had decades of experience here. No, I really do think it’s wonderful. There are days when I can’t believe I get paid to do this. It’s like covering the circus. It’s like covering the zoo. It’s just heaven.

Q: So you don’t get discouraged?

A: Oh, no! I mean, aside from thinking that maybe we’re losing everything, I don’t get discouraged at all.

Q: Why do you continue to live in Texas?

A: Well, it’s my home. [Texas Observer founding editor] Ronnie [Dugger] used to say, "Home is where you understand the sons of bitches." Texas is more fun. In a lot of the civilized East Coast, West Coast environments, people are always having to deal with shades of gray. The nice thing about Texas is that it’s really quite simple: the bad guys wear black hats and the good guys wear white hats, and there’s not so much confusion. It’s a lot easier. And you never sit around having existential questions about what to do; it’s always "Shut up and bail!"

Q: I assume you saw Fahrenheit 9/11?

A: I did, in fact.

Q: What did you think of it?

A: Lukewarm. I thought maybe as much as two-thirds of it was wasted. The rest was good enough so you could see what it might’ve been. But it’s hard for me to judge, because of course I know all that stuff already. I know that many of the people who don’t follow politics that closely come out going, "My God! I didn’t know that!" But the whole portion he spent on the Bush-Saudi connection and the Unocal pipeline, you know, all that’s true, but it’s not very relevant. Bless his heart, it’s probably true of everybody’s work: if he’d taken a little more time and done a little more editing, he would’ve had a better piece. It’s certainly true of my work.