Honey, Get Me Re-Write

The Washington Post prints its annual "in/out" list today. I barely understand a quarter of it, the remainder being crammed with Hollywood references too obscure (Jude?) and un-interesting to me. But beyond that, it's an awful list for three reasons:

1. Where's the politics? The WaPo's not just a liberal newspaper--it's the liberal newspaper of the Nation's Capitol. Yet except for a few lines ("John Edwards out/Barack Obama in", more wishful thinking then prediction, and "Jeb out/Mitt in", a bold statement given that Jeb announced he wouldn't run in '08), the list eschews politics. Could that be because. . . .?



2. Where's George? He just won an election declared pivital by both sides. Thus, the WaPo doesn't quite have the stones to declare President Bush "out," though I thought they'd try dissing a Michael Moore-ish "old Bush" and welcoming a victorious "new Bush." But no. Absent. It might as well be the Des Moines Register.



3. Why the back of the bus? The Post confines politics to the last section of the list, labeled "The Faith-based, new moral values list" apparently aimed at red-staters. To paraphrase Mary McCarthy's old quip, I hate every word in this title, including "The." Does it mean that liberals are unfaithful? Or not moral? Moreover, the "morals" the WaPo tries to mock are anything but new. And why bolt-on a "moral" list at all?: are "faith-based" Americans forced toward a "separate but equal" list? If so, isn't that forbidden by the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments? See Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 498-99 (1954).

Liberals in the media still don't understand conservatives; they still don't even try. They're also petulant and condescending, especially in defeat. Good thing conservatives control estates one through three.