And Merry Christmas to you too, Dina

Dina (Elizabeth) Hovde at The Columbian advances the war on straw.

November was a nasty month for conservatives, who watched Republicans fall on the sword of world problems for which there seem to be few solutions. And as is typical in heated election seasons, we heard some of the same old falsehoods about conservatives from their liberal contenders.

The basic criticism goes like this: Conservatives are stingy, selfish and only interested in getting ahead, getting oil and getting tax breaks. Conversely, liberals and Democrats lavish praise on themselves for being the party for the poor, the saviors of the streets, the liberators of the lost. When the Democrats took control of Congress, pundits everywhere predicted policies that would bring about a kinder, gentler society in which the little guy would get further than he could under the rule of those crusty, conservative Republicans.

So in two paragraphs Hovde neatly absolves Republicans from any responsibility for their actions ("the sword of world problems") and sets up a straw-man argument.

Then, as the purpose of this column seems to be to both diminish any possible feelings of doubt or guilt amongst conservatives, and to show how ultimately superior conservatives are to liberals, she turns to the writings of Arthur C. Brooks, a professor of public administration and columnist for The Wall Street Journal.

Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is sending a message no liberal likes to hear: They're not walking their talk when it comes to helping others. Using 15 sets of data, Brooks found that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional families and eschew government income redistribution are the most generous Americans. Secular liberals give far less to charity. The pattern held true despite income level and even after excluding a person's religious contributions (such as tithe to a church).

This is where the concept of "rejecting the premise" comes in for progressives. First of all, a professional cog in the right wing noise machine doesn't get to decide what my walk is. She just doesn't. I reject utterly Hovde's right to judge me in any fashion. I'm not the one who gets paid to write conserva-tarian propaganda.

The flip side to Hovde's assertion that liberals are parsimonious is that conservatives think giving guilt money absolves them of broader societal obligations. So the argument, a nonsensical one to begin with, is right back where it started.

Not only should we reject her premise, we should point out that a lot of the money that is supposedly "charitable" is, in fact, used for political movement building by the far right. Anyone can head over to Media Transparency.org and see just how corrupt and incestuous the world of conservative "charity" has become. Tons of tax-exempt money flows to thoroughly conservative political outfits like the Heritage Foundation. Real magnanimous stuff, Dina. How much of it flows to your buddies at the Evergreen Freedom Foundation?

But Hovde isn't finished.

The most irritating thing about Brooks' message in his just-released book, "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" --a great Christmas gift for the trash-talking liberal in your life -- is that Brooks cannot be dismissed as a darling of the right. The academic has registered in the past decade as both a Democrat and a Republican. Now, he tells reporters, he's an independent and, like many of us, feels uncomfortable pledging allegiance to any party. A review of his Wall Street Journal columns found no consistent political bent.

Excuse me while I roll around on the floor for a while. The "trash-talking liberal in your life?" A Wall Street Journal columnist who "considers himself an independent?" Ok then, pass the potatoes.

I wonder if someone at the Thanksgiving table had a few choice words for Hovde? She seems particularly bent out of shape now that conservatism is being rejected by the American people. Time to teach those loud-mouth liberals a lesson in print! We are too better than them! Talk about petulant.

The need to claim conservatives are better people than everyone else is a long-running subtext of the failed conservative movement. You see, if progressives disagree with the awful things that are done in the name of conservatism, it means we either don't understand the world or we are really hypocrites. There can't be that third, terrible alternative--conservatism as it is currently constituted is an ideology of death, destruction and greed. All that ucky war 'n torture stuff, we can't control that, but we threw some coins in the kettle, so deep down we're better than you. Pass the turkey.

I keep hoping The Columbian will realize that they are never going to regain credibility with Democrats until they, at the very least, place someone on their editorial board to provide a counter balance to Hovde's ceaseless and insulting acclamations for the conservative meme du jour.

I'd say it's rather uncharitable of the only daily in Clark County to shut Democrats out of the editorial room so completely.