I pick on "conservative" columnists a lot here. I've noted elsewhere (click here) why this is so. Now I am not the only one making this observation. From County Fair:
Last week, I noted that the numerical advantage conservatives have on the nation's op-ed pages doesn't tell the whole story:
There's a huge qualitative difference between the conservatives given newspaper columns and their progressive counterparts as well. The conservatives tend to be more partisan, more aggressive, and more reliable advocates for their "team."
The Washington Post employs as a columnist Bill Kristol, a hyperpartisan neocon Republican strategist who has been a key player in GOP efforts to block health care and start unnecessary wars. Who is supposed to be Kristol's counterpart? Richard Cohen, who opposes affirmative action, supports torture, and attacked liberals who opposed Kristol's war in Iraq?
Now, here's what you see if you turn to the op-ed page of today's Washington Post:
Former Bush speechwriter and current Post columnist Michael Gerson on "The Democrats' Assault on the CIA."
Conservative Post columnist Kathleen Parker on chaos in the GOP.
Former Bush aide Ed Gillespie, misleading readers about his party's historical reaction to Supreme Court nominees by Democratic presidents.
Centrist Post columnist David Ignatius on President Obama's approach to Israel
Liberal Post columnist Ruth Marcus writing about her new puppy.
So that's three conservatives, including two former Bush aides, a centrist, and a progressive. One conservative attacking Democrats, one conservative misleading readers about the Supreme Court and attacking Democrats, one conservative noting disarray in the GOP, and a liberal writing about her dog.
I invite those who hunger for balance on this page to produce the party-line liberal columnists in national newspapers.