Colorado Senator Ken Salazar -- who I once mistakenly confused with a nice guy -- recently called popular psychologist and Christian radio personality Dr. James Dobson "the Antichrist of the world."

Whoops! Apparently he misspoke, and really only meant to say this:

"I meant to say this approach was unchristian, meaning self-serving and selfish."

Ah yes, that's so much more better.

Salazar was doing fine when he said "unchristian." Approaches can be, arguably, "unchristian". That's certainly a legitimate debate. But approaches can't have feelings: when he threw in "self-serving" and "selfish" Salazar revealed that he was again criticising the man allegedly behind the approach, not the approach itself.

So we have Ken Salazar standing in judgement over Dobson, asserting publicly that Dobson, in his heart, is not Christian, and that his actions and political stances are motivated only by selfishness.

How very leftist.

No doubt if Dobson were more "selfless", he'd just fall in line with Salazar's political program-du-jour, or at least just remain quiet.

So what was the purported offense?

"After being relentlessly attacked in telephone calls, e-mails, newspapers and radio stations all across Colorado, having my faith questioned, and having my wife's business picketed as part of these attacks..."

"Relentlessly attacked"? Really, what, were his politics questioned? Gosh, that never happens to conservatives. Who would imagine that a politician would have people disagree with him, and do so in public! They made telephone calls to his office, even! The nerve. Gosh, those voters are getting high and mighty -- it's almost like they thought they were Salazar's boss or something.

And of course we have recently learned that it's fine to call President Bush "the Antichrist" and publicly call for his assassination... and to treat prominent conservative leaders similarly. No problem with that. But to disagree with a Democrat, in a newspaper or on a radio station?

That should be illegal, clearly. Or at least socially forbidden.

Getting to the facts of the matter: first there's apparently no connection between the church that picketed "his wife's" Dairy Queen (what, Salazar neither receives nor benefits from any of the proceeds?) and Dr. Dobson, other than that both apparently are Christians. (I presume Salazar would say he was one also, so I'm not sure how that's supposed to be a linking element.)

Second, I'm not sure what's supposedly wrong or evil about picketing the Salazar family business anyway -- if I recall, the left is quite fond of picketing and boycotting businesses whose owners take the "wrong" political stances. (Domino's Pizza and the "Buy Blue" campaign, for example.)

Is that suddenly forbidden for others?

(And is there no end of Democratic hypocrisy?)

Nor, in my reading on this, can I see an example of a place where Dr. Dobson actually questioned the sincerity of Salazar's faith. It seems he simply asked people to write to their political representatives. If he didn't, then Salazar is simply -- I don't mean to accuse, but the conclusion seems inescapable -- lying when he says or implies Dobson did questioned his faith or asked others to.

My guess is that Salazar got a lot of flack for his stance, and felt the need to make Dobson a face or whipping boy. It seems to me that the left is fond of portraying its opponents as mindless automatons who believe in centralized authority and control. (A bit of projection, I'm tempted to believe.)

Next, it's incredible for Salazar to claim it's wrong for other people to question his faith or motives, since it's apparently not wrong to state, forcefully and definitively, that others are "selfish" or "unchristian". And calling Dr. Dobson "the Antichrist" was only wrong, apparently, because "self-centered" was a more accurate term.

So I don't know if Dobson did say such things about Salazar, but one thing that is clear is that Salazar has just said the kinds of things he himself just claimed were horrible and despicable to say.

Again, the hypocrisy displayed here is stunning.

As I implied at the top, despite mostly disagreeing with Salazar's politics, I've always been inclined to think kindly of him -- though admittedly that was more from charity and ignorance (and probably me being a sucker for his clever political campaigning) than experience.

This is an eye-opener: the filth I see leaking out here is shocking. Don't like a man's policies, so you attack his character, his motives, and his faith, while claiming your faith is being attacked, and that such attacks are always wrong -- even as you perpetrate them.

People usually can't see through that garbage (indeed, they apparently fall for it hook, line, and sinker), but I can, and think it's despicable.

Update: It seems Salazar made public campaign promises like this:

"One of the most disgracefully partisan spectacles of President Bush's first term was the way Senate Democrats obstructed the appointment of his judicial nominees with filibusters. In a pre-election interview with the News editorial board, Sen. - elect Ken Salazar said he favored an up-or-down vote in the full Senate on judicial nominations."

So the guy said one thing to get into office, and then did something completely opposite once he got the suckers good people of Colorado to elect him. Given that, I can completely understand why voters would be unhappy with his current ardent opposition to "an up-or-down vote in the full Senate on judicial nominations."

Update 2: Next, Salazar insults Clarence Thomas.