The thing you always need to remember when Democrat politicians talk is that they're lying.

(How's that for open-minded dialogue?)

I suppose that is a bit too strong; let me rephrase. It's not that they're lying, exactly; they're just not really talking about what they're talking about. A good example is the Iraq war debate. What, exactly, is their position? After all, they all believed, when Bill Clinton was president, that Saddam Hussein had a WMD program and threatened to remove him from power. Then, under George W. Bush, when the country supported going to war to do just that, they voted in favor of the war, for dozens of reasons, many having nothing to do with WMD. Now that the war is unpopular, they're against it, … except not really, because they overwhelmingly supported a new commander for the war's continued prosecution and funds to keep it up. So … when Democrats talk about the war, they're probably being dishonest, unless they come out with their real position: "I have no idea what we should do about Iraq, except that you should blame the guy in the White House for everything bad going on there."

It's the same with this nonsensical pseudo-scandal surrounding U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Democrats couldn't care less what he did or didn't do, whether he's doing a good or bad job, who he's hiring and firing, what policies he does or doesn't institute at the Justice Department or anything else about the man. Except that he's vulnerable and close to President Bush. Everything else is just, well, lying.

In one controversy after another, Democrat leaders in the last 40 years have shown themselves almost wholly without any compass other than partisanship. Nixon obstructed justice to cover up a scandal, Democrats hounded him from office; Clinton did the same thing, Democrats rallied to his defense. G. Gordon Liddy tried to steal stuff from the DNC, he's a pariah; Sandy Berger successfully stole stuff from the 9/11 Commission, he's a hero. Ronald Reagan says he wants to reform welfare, he's a racist; Bill Clinton says he wants to reform welfare, he's a visionary. Sen. Robert Torricelli quits his reelection race in New Jersey, Democrats demand the party replace him with a better candidate; I quit my reelection race in Texas, Democrats demand that Republicans not be given the same opportunity. Clarence Thomas is incredibly accused of sexual harassment, Democrats fly into a rage; Bill Clinton is credibly accused of sexual assault, Democrats play deaf. Bill Clinton says Saddam Hussein needs to go, Democrats rattle their sabers; George W. Bush actually does something about it, Democrats howl.

The only thing consistent about Democrat politics these days is its insincerity.

Now, ask yourself: If Alberto Gonzales were Janet Reno and George W. Bush were Bill Clinton, is there any chance -- any chance at all -- that Sen. Chuck Schumer would give a hoot about the president exercising his authority to hire and fire whoever he darn well pleases? Of course not. His crusade against Gonzales has nothing substantive to it, nothing sincere and nothing noble. Gonzales is just a cut in the president's side, and all Schumer wants to do is to widen the wound and bleed the administration to death.

Whether Alberto Gonzales is the best or the worst attorney general in American history is irrelevant, and Democrats don't care either way. They don't care that the next time a Democrat president fires a U.S. attorney, the Democrats now calling for Gonzales' scalp will then be defending the president's right to fire whoever he chooses. Dishonesty, insincerity, hypocrisy, whatever you want to call it, that's all Democrats have now.

Remember, the only Democrat to be elected twice to the presidency since World War II was an almost pathological liar. To many leading Democrats these days, that's not an indictment, it's advice.