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.
-- Michael
If the wingnuts were to make a retraction, it would mean that they were able to both read and comprehend what was written. I have my doubts that they're able to do either.
Posted by: Incertus | March 22, 2005 at 08:25 PM
As Thom Hartmann likes to put it: "The Radical Middle".
Posted by: Ryan | March 22, 2005 at 11:01 PM
If what Milbank says is true, then we are in worse shape than I thought. I always figured the so-called liberal media was in fact liberal personally and tended to vote democratic, and that is why they slanted so far to the right in their reporting, stupidly overcompensating for their perception of their own bias. If Milbank regularly votes republican, then his rightward slant makes even LESS sense to me. Not to mention that fact that it proves he is an idiot. In this polarized society, how can a truly politically aware person possibly go back and forth? OK, voting against Gore in 2000 maybe I can get-- the MSM hated Gore and Clinton's peace and prosperity lulled people into thinking that the election didn't really count for much. But no way a truly thinking person could vote Clinton 1992 and then either Dole 1996 or Bush 2004. No way. Maybe Perot or Poppy 1992, Clinton 1996, Bush 2000, Kerry 2004? Does that work?
Posted by: the exile | March 23, 2005 at 02:49 AM