This past Sunday, the Albuquerque Journal carried a political profile of GOP Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist by James Kuhnhenn of Knight-Ridder. Informative, yes, but stupid, too, in its misuse of language. Yes, Mr. Kuhnhenn comitted what I have complained of umpteen times in this web log. (I guess he doesn't read it.)
We learn that Frist says he has 750 days to push the Bush agenda through the Senate, a job made difficult by - the reporter tells us - "conservatives who insist on prompt action, moderates who urge caution and Democrats who, at any moment, can get in the way."
You see?
The reporter is calling the White House and many Republicans in the Senate conservative when their agenda shows they are anything but. Call them neo-cons, right-wingers, the far right,Bush loyalists, whatever. They're not conservative, though.
(Also, he calls the minority of Capitol Hill Republicans who differ "moderates." Given their caution on foreign policy and affection for balanced budgets, I would say they are conservatives.)
Why get so excited? Because the chickens come home to roost some paragraphs later. "Conservatives," we read, "are pressuring Frist to quash any potential filibuster by changing longstanding Senate rules...etc., ettc."
Conservatives against the traditional institution of the filibuster? Nonsensical.
But that is what happens when reporters don't think about the meaning of words. They produce idiocies.
So much for the bad news.
The good news is that it probably matters not a whit For fewer citizens read newspapers these days.
Sick joke, huh?