Editor's note: Michael Ackley's columns may include satire and parody based on current events, and thus mix fact with fiction. He assumes informed readers will be able to tell which is which.

Our undercover operative has provided the transcript of an editorial meeting between a prominent television commentator and two of his producers, Howard Bashford and Amy Handleman:

Commentator: So, what did you find up in Alaska?
Bashford: It's going to blow your socks off, boss.
Handleman: I'll say. It's a definite scoop.
Commentator: Well, don't keep me in suspense. What is it?
(Bashford and Handleman exchange a look.)
Bashford: You go ahead, Amy. You're the one who found the first clue.
Handleman: No, you go first, Howard. You're the one who put two and two together.
Bashford: No, really, Amy, you should . . .
Commentator: Somebody tell me!
Bashford and Handleman : (together) Conservatives have sex!
(There is a lengthy, not to say pregnant, pause.)
Commentator: NO!
Handleman: It's true, and not only that, members of the Christian Right also have sex.
Commentator: You mean like . . . like regular people?
Bashford: They do. We're sure of it.
Commentator: But how . . .?
Handleman: We talked to a lot of people about Gov. Palin, and they all mentioned what a good mother she was to her five children.
Commentator: The children! Of course! Sex would explain them, wouldn't it?
Bashford: It would. It also would explain how her 17-year-old daughter got ...
Handleman:Yes! It shows that teenagers in conservative families can get carried away and, uh, . . . you know . . . just like regular people.
Bashford: This is dynamite, chief. We can have a report and commentary ready by this evening's broadcast.
Commentator (sadly): Not to take anything away from your great work, but there's no way we're going on the air with this.
Handleman and Bashford: (talking over each other): What? You're kidding! No way!
Commentator: Think about it. We've worked for years to show that conservatives – particularly those of the Christian Right – are not like regular people. We've reported, we've commented, we've innuendoed that they are weird, crazy – like space aliens.
Handleman: (whispering to Bashford) Is "innuendo" a verb?
Bashford: (whispering back) It is on TV.
Commentator : (continuing) If we report these people have sex, our viewers might start to see them differently, like, potentially reasonable, rational – even human. You've done great work, but it has to stay under wraps.
Bashford: Isn't there anything we can do with this material?
Handleman: Yeah. Why can't we say they're hypocrites, because conservatives and Christians aren't supposed to have sex?
Commentator: Hypocrites. You know, you might be on to something.
Bashford: What does hypocrite mean, anyway?
Handleman: It doesn't mean anything, silly. At least, not the way we use it.

(Column continues below)

Too conventional

Despite their high-tech trappings, today's to the days before nominees were decided in advance. The first I recall was the 1952 Republican convention in Chicago. It was an extravaganza I greatly resented, because it preempted what little children's programming there was. Still, I watched it because it was what was "on," and I recall dissenters' chants of "we want Taft" as Dwight D. Eisenhower steamrolled to victory. There was drama in the Democratic Party convention, too, though I was most interested in the unusual names of candidates like Adlai Stevenson and Estes Kefauver.

But '52, alas, was the last of the multi-ballot conventions. But there was some tension – or at least comic relief – four years later, when Eisenhower's selection by GOP acclamation was delayed by the nomination of the fictitious "Joe Smith." Since then, the party conventions have been little more than sales rallies – not much more than a boost for banner makers, printers and balloon salesmen.

This year's conventions gave us a lot of well presented but essentially vacuous speechifying, which reminded me of the oratorical low point of the Democratic Convention of 1972. George McGovern's acceptance speech was so poorly delivered, one wag said it "sounded like he was reading his laundry list." Nevertheless, McGovern once made a point all voters should keep in mind when they feel carried away by election rhetoric. He said, "It's possible to dazzle a crowd if you really work at it. But that is no qualification for leadership. Hitler was a master of crowds."

More of the same: Democrats were whining Thursday about how "partisan" and "divisive" GOP VP nominee Sarah Palin was, noting Obama had promised to get past partisanship and bring a new tone to Washington. Say, wasn't that just what George W. Bush promised eight years ago? And what did he get from the Democrats?

Palin postscript: Following Sarah Palin's convention speech, an MSNBC commentator sneered that the VP candidate had "belittled" Sen. Barack Obama. At this, I turned to my wife and predicted "belittle" would become the establishment catchword for criticism of the Democrats' presidential candidate. Sure enough the Associated Press story of Thursday read, "Wielding a stiletto and a smile, Palin belittled Democratic Sen. Barack Obama ..." Keep a watch on this, will you, and let me know of instances you encounter.

Thus we make a new entry in the Blind Partisan's Dictionary:
belittle: v. to criticize substantively.

Related special offers:

"The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality"

"The Audacity of Deceit: Barack Obama's War on American Values"

"NObama" magnetic bumper sticker