Equal Time For Liberals

Michelangelo Signorile (who the hell names their kid that?-ed.) is about the most liberal writer being published regularly. He, in fact, is on his own personal jihad against Drudge that has led to the NY Press being de-linked by Drudge last year. In the spirit of the free exchange of ideas I've decided to link to him and post his weekly article:

TELEVISION NEWS coverage has become so twisted that CNN commentators are not only withholding judgment on who won each debate, waiting to get spun by the campaigns—they're admitting that they're doing so. Meanwhile, Fox News' pundits have been immediately straightforward and honest, defying the spin.
"I think Kerry won this debate as he won the first debate," Fox news commentator Mort Kondracke said directly after Friday's debate in St. Louis. "I thought that Kerry was much more aggressive and the president was basically on the defense and didn't have new arguments."
What gives? I'll get to that later. First, some words on why Kondracke is absolutely correct. George W. Bush was as off his game on Friday as he was on the Thursday prior. He managed to hold back the scowls and grimaces, mostly, but the anger and petulance were unleashed through his darting around the stage, screaming and shouting his answers to the audience and cutting in on Charlie Gibson, at one point taking control of the debate from the moderator. If, in the first debate, Bush looked like a first-grader making faces while in class, in the second debate he came off as the same child on Ritalin. (Or perhaps presidential-grade meta-amphetamine?)

Almost funny in a Maureen Dowd-on-PCP kind of way. More, referring to the second debate:

On domestic issues, Bush rarely seemed credible. Does anyone really believe he's an environmentalist? He didn't answer any of the questions with passion, except the one that dealt with abortion. Since most Americans, including those undecided voters and women, believe in a woman's right to choose, this did him little good except, again, to energize his base while underscoring how much he tilts to the right. Bush belittled a questioner who offered valid concerns—concerns polls show most Americans share—about the Patriot Act by saying he doesn't "think" it takes away civil liberties and then asking the man if he really believes that. Then, when asked to name three mistakes he has made while in office, Bush refused, rambling back into a defense of Iraq.
All of which is why it has been pitiful to watch tv commentators pander to Bush in the post-debate analysis. The Hardball panel on MSNBC went out of its way to compliment Bush after both debates—Salon noted that they seemed to have watched some other debate on another planet the first time around—while Tim Russert and Tom Brokaw punted, pining on with sentimental crap about how debates show the true spirit of democracy. On CNN on Friday night, Jeff Greenfield blurted out a wish-washy analysis that basically amounted to saying the debate was a draw—though he didn't even want to be that definitive—while Wolf Blitzer waited until Judy Woodruff offered up a report from the "spin room."

I find it amazing that the Mike and I watched the same debate and two completely different views developed. The free exchange and all that is making me feel so open-minded (please shoot me):

Another reason for the disparity is that many liberal commentators in the media bought into the Iraq war rationale and now feel like utter fools. The more they criticize Bush on the one issue central to the campaigns and the debates, the more they are admitting their own stupidity at having been suckered by him. The Washington Post editorial page, which often pummels Bush for conservative positions on same-sex marriage, signed on early to the war in Iraq and not only refuses to admit its folly now, but still supports Bush's rationale for war. Not surprisingly, the Post was one of the few editorial pages (even among conservative papers) that actually opined that Bush held his own during the first debate, a position that seems laughable now. Like Bush, these commentators are loath to admit they ever made a mistake.

That's it. In the interest of a two-sided debate, I posted a Signorile piece and allowed his brilliance to flow over you. Did you feel it? Do you feel smarter and better informed? Me neither. Now I'm going to puke with the thought that this guy is on my blog.