"Why don't Democrats just say it?"

So begins liberal columnist E.J. Dionne in his most recent piece, "Government is the Solution."  He continues:

They really believe in active government and think it does good and valuable things. One of those valuable things is that government creates jobs -- yes, really -- and also the conditions under which more jobs can be created. 

You probably read that and thought: But don't Democrats and liberals say this all the time? Actually, the answer is no. It’s Republicans and conservatives who usually say that Democrats and liberals believe in government. Progressive politicians often respond by apologizing for their view of government, or qualifying it, or shifting as fast as the speed of light from mumbled support for government to robust affirmations of their faith in the private sector. 

This is beginning to change, but not fast enough.

Dionne demonstrates here, almost perfectly, the difference between a pundit and a pol, or at least the difference between a liberal pundit and a liberal pol.

I'm guessing he doesn't recall that during the 1984 campaign, proud liberal Walter Mondale, the Democrat Party's nominee for the presidency, stated clearly and unapologetically that, if elected, he would raise taxes, the mother's milk of the Big Government he, Dionne, thinks is the solution.  Mondale lost 49 of 50 states.

Among the most refreshingly liberating things about being a conservative is that you don't have to hedge, much less lie about anything you hold dear.  Liberals by contrast, liberal pols anyway, know that in order to succeed they must, if not lie, at least learn to be very, um, nuanced about almost everything they believe.

"Journalistic Realism"

Ben Stein, much to his dismay, woke up yesterday morning being forced to remember Watergate as well.  Apparently, he's friends, or at least friendly, with Carl Bernstein, but nevertheless is wary of what he and Bob Woodward themselves have to remember about Watergate now forty years alter.

Anyway, along the way he coins an interesting term, "journalistic realism":

Poaching on the genius idea of "legal realism" -- created at my alma mater, Yale Law School --journalistic realism says that journalists will write, report, analyze in whatever way suits their political tastes and likes and dislikes.

I Think I'm Turning Japanese

Now here's some illegal aliens the Left, the Green Left anyway, doesn't want ever to cross our borders.

Whatever happened to tolerant multiculturalism?

Just Wondering

Have you noticed that while the Left waxes ever enthusiastic and increasingly insistent about the right to homosexual marriage, they at the same time eschew other terms once associated with the institution, for example, husband and wife?

And it's not simply because a joining in matrimony of "husband and husband" or "wife and wife" sounds awkward.  Even within heterosexual unions they studiously avoid the traditional labels, preferring instead to use the more ambiguous "partner."

Might it be because what they're really after is not the extension of the institution of marriage to  everyone, but instead the extinction of the institution for everyone?

Just wondering.

What IS Watergate?

Our intrepid reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein are back together again, and on the pages of the Washington Post no less, for the first time since they mined the Watergate scandal for all it was worth almost forty years ago.

Their subject?  Why, Watergate, of course, and they've organize their piece around answering the question posed in 1974 by Senator Sam Ervin, the Chairman of the Special Committee formed to investigate the scandal:  "What was Watergate?"

The answer, according to W & B, is that it was no less than five wars waged by then President Richard Nixon against America itself.

My question for them is why now?

It's true, in a week it'll be the 40th anniversary of the "third-rate burglary", but it has to be more than just that.  Surely they can't see a similar threat to liberty coming from the current White House occupant?  And why didn't they produce the piece on the 30th anniversary of the break-in when George Bush, a la Nixon, set about destroying the Republic?

They didn't trust Nixon.  I don't trust them.

Water Fight at the OK Corral

I'm not kidding.  In Tombstone, Arizona, yep, that Tombstone, the Earp brothers, Doc Holliday, the Clantons, only this time they're fighting over a water line.  The "they" is the city of Tombstone and the Feds.

It seems the 26-mile pipeline that has brought mountain spring water to the city since 1881 was damaged in last years fires and the heavy rains that followed.  The city, unsurprisingly, set out to repair the line, but were stopped by the Ferds when they came across, are you ready?, the rare Mexican spotted owl.

For crazy libs this is a glorious twofer.  Not only is the bird on the endangered species list and, therefore, all progress must be halted.  But it's also an illegal alien bird, so all laws are suspended as well.

Continuing Education

The Board of Trustees of Metro Sate College of Denver has agreed by a vote of 7-1 to cut tuition rates for illegal immigrants. That's right, illegal immigrants.

With absolutely no sense of irony, the Denver Post reports and the principals in the story comment:

"We all deserve the chance at a higher education and to become productive members and give back to our community," she said. ("She"is an illegal immigrant. Which community?)

Three criteria must be met to qualify for the new category of tuition. A student must:

• Have attended a Colorado high school for the past three years. (What about the newly arriving illegal immigrant? Is that fair to them?)

• Have graduated from a Colorado high school or gotten a general equivalency diploma in the state. (What about the illegal immigrant who illegally immigrated not just, say, from Mexico, but from another state?)

• Provide proof they are in good legal standing, other than their undocumented status, and that they plan to seek lawful status when eligible. ("Good legal standing"? If the immigration laws are not applicable, why would any others be? How does the Board distinguish?)

Trustee Jack Pogge, the only member of the board to vote against the plan, wondered whether the benefit derived by Metro State from implementing the new rate was great enough, particularly in light of the failure of the state legislature to pass the ASSET bill. ("Great enough"? Surely the Trustees will offer grants for those illegal immigrants unable to pay the lower rates?)

ALL the italicized snarky questions are mine. Imagine me shaking my head as I typed.

BTW, I can't for the life of me figure out why this section is highlighed in white.  A little help maybe?