On my way into work this morning, the gal on the news radio station here headlined a story this way: "A bill which would have made cars go a lot further on a lot less is shot down in the Senate."

Now aside from the annoying propensity to phrase everything in the present tense no matter how convoluted, which is now the norm in radio news, this is far from an objective way to headline this story. In reality, the bill that was "shot down" would have essentially forced automakers to begin phasing out enormously popular SUV's and other low-mileage vehicles over the next 12 years.

Though the American people have clearly stated at the gas pump and in their automobile choices that they are not unduly burdened by the cost of gas or our "dependence" on foreign oil (and in fact are willing to pay quite a bit for the convienience of an SUV or a minivan), Sen. Dick Durbin and his fellow do-gooders wanted to engineer a nation in which everyone is forced to drive Hyundais. I wonder why the newscaster didn't say "A bill which would have drastically cut down your choices in choosing a car is vanquished in the Senate." It would have been just as objective and quite a bit more accurate.

Am I the only one who finds it odd that the left, which describes itself as "pro-choice," is not pro-choice when it comes to cars, guns, schools, religious speech, the right of association, or indeed most of things which real people make real decisions on every day?