Jon Carrol's dazzling lights

''Jon Carroll'' is a code word for ''Dumber than Robert Scheer''

When last we paid any attention to Jon Carroll, columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle, he had deduced that Conservatives were attacking the Gray [and decrepit] Lady because:  'The name of the New York Times contains the word "New York ... a nifty code word for 'Jewish.' It is very nice for the president to be able to campaign against the Jews without (a) actually saying the word 'Jew' and (b) without irritating the Israelis.''  Here's his latest ne plus ultra precept [JON CARROLL] ''The question before the house, as it has been for some time, is: "Why are the Democrats having trouble getting elected even though their opponents lie, cheat and steal with bewildering frequency?" Below is just a partial answer, I think, but it's a darned good start.'' Of course that highly questionable pretext immediately begs another question - which one of us lives in the parallel universe Goreon? Sheesh.  Anyway, he seems to have found the meaning of life on the left in the dialectic of one Chris Bowers, a lefty blogger I never heard of.   Here's an example of the insight that has Carrol in semi-rapture. "The habit of the Democratic Party to kill itself via self-referential meta-talk was on full display at the DLC (Democratic Leadership Conference) meeting yesterday. Tell me if you can find what is wrong with the message coming out of the conference. (Here's a quote) from the San Jose Mercury News: "Sen. (Hillary Clinton) said the council's initiative can 'unite Democrats and elect Democrats.' "Now, when you preface your policy proposals by indicating that said proposals are intended to win elections and unite your party, you have already pretty much ended any chance that people will think you are making said proposals because you believe in those proposals. This is because, well, you just said that the purpose of these proposals was to win elections. Americans love it when politicians admit in public that their legislative proposals are designed to win elections. It seems to me that the next paragraph ought to be, as read in a grammar school civics book: "Instead of pandering to what we think our loopy base wants to hear, we democrats must formulate principled policy from which we will not be deterred, and are not afraid to espouse.''   Instead, we get, ''We have to be devious or everyone will hate us more, but for god's sake don't announce it in public.  Read the rest, if you want, and tell me if I missed anything.  I'm blinded by the dazzling light.