Not that I really care that much, but I'm curious to know what a wingnut would do if one of their favorite
liberal media whipping boys turned out not to be worth whipping after all? Turns out that Dana Milbank -- called by Hugh Hewitt "among the most partisan of the Post's reporters," written about in the National Review as "probably the most anti-Bush reporter currently assigned to the White House," idenitified by Brent Bozell as a "liberal Washington Post reporter," smeared by Powerline as "one of the Washington Post's most rabid Democrats" -- is not a Democrat. Milbank says:
I have voted in five presidential elections, twice for a Democrat and thrice for a Republican. I am registered as an independent. While covering national politics for the last couple of elections, I have done write-in votes, choosing the ideal candidate rather than one of those on the ballot.
I assume that a wingnut would just say that it doesn't matter who you vote for, that it only matters if you're a commie librul. But it sure does seem weird to call a guy who voted for either Dole or Bush (do the math) a liberal, doesn't it? I'm certainly not going to hold my breath for a retraction from any of those estimable sources, though.