I've been wondering how to explain this:
Why would a full-time columnist at the state's largest newspaper constantly resort to petty insults? I've been tempted to believe that Laurie is just appealing to her base and throwing out insults is red meat to a partisan crowd.
However, I think the real answer is worse than that.
Notice that Laurie's insults are usually about Ducey's courage or mental fitness? When he disagrees with Laurie he is in denial or doesn't have a backbone. When he agree's with her, or moves her direction he "finally grows a spine" or "finally locates his backbone."
Laurie is so sure of her (ever changing) positions that she believes that Ducey can't actually disagree with her. I would argue that Ducey is trying to strike a balance between the economic and psycological harm of shutting down the state with the physical harm of the virus. It's a difficult balance and as conditions change, he as to adjust his positions. He lags because he doesn't want the population to be whipsawed.
Laurie on the other hand is so sure of her opinions that she can not imagine that Ducey might be walking a tight balance which causes him to take actions that differ from her recommendations. She believes that Ducey knows that she is right and when he doesn't do what she advises, it is an indication that he is in denial or he is a coward.
Why do I claim that this answer is worse than throwing out insults to appeal to her base?
This is worse because calling the Governor a coward in order to energize her base would be a character flaw.
However, genuinely believing the Governor is a coward based upon her inability to understand the rationale behind his decisions is an intellectual flaw.
There are plenty of columnists with character flaws. However, columnist with intellectual flaws are tolerated--to a point--and then they fade away.