Some descriptions are used so often, we become deaf to the meaning they convey along the words they're modifying. One of these that's become a pet peeve of mine is "arch" in front of the word conservative as in, "That guy's an arch conservative." This descriptor is especially prevalent in NPR-speak and on MSNBC. The phrase "arch conservative" is throw around to describe anyone who is a Republican, has served in a Republican administration, or voted for Reagan instead of Jimmy Carter. It's usually spoken with a hint of shock or disdain; similar to the way a reporter describes a captured serial murderer or Colombian drug lord. Arch conservative = arch enemy. Batman, Superman, and Spiderman all have arch enemies. Liberals have arch conservatives.
Once when recommending Bill Bennett's morning radio program to a friend who is a liberal, I received the most surprising reaction. Instead of saying he'd give it a listen and see if he liked it, he asked, "Bill Bennett, the arch conservative?" with a horrified look on his face. I said Bill Bennett, the former Democrat who served Ronald Reagan as Education Secretary. Bill Bennett who held a position most conservatives see as overkill in the federal government as there are no federal schools.
Is there such a thing as an arch liberal? If there were, Nancy Pelosi would fit the description, but her name is usually spoken in the same breath as "House Speaker." Couldn't Bill Bennett be referred to as Doctor or Secretary instead of a term that strikes fear into the weak little hearts of liberals everywhere?
Such a reaction and inflammatory reference is laughable. Every time I hear it, I smile my sly conservative smile and laugh my evil conservative laugh and start discussing Jonah Goldberg's NY Times best seller Liberal Fascism.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha!

The upcoming presidential election reminds me of the lists learned in history class when preparing for a test. The list of Kings of Israel from 1020-587 BC could be summed up by the simple description of "Bad King, Good King". And if I remember my history correctly, the less the people believed in God, the more bad kings they got.
Then there was the list of Roman Emperors post Augustus Caesar. Same thing: Good Emperor, Bad Emperor. And the more dependent the citizens were on public welfare, the more bad emperors they got.
Seeing a pattern here? Are we getting to the point in history where our president's terms can be distilled down to the simple "Good President, Bad President" list? And are we on the path to deserving more bad than good? Frankly, I'm praying for a miracle.