WaPo Columnist Ruth Marcus Calls Left, Blogosphere ‘Deranged’

I would have to agree:

During an appearance on Chuck Todd and Savannah Guthrie’s Daily Rundown, Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus may have one-upped Robert Gibbs‘ “Professional Left” comments. Having already written a column agreeing with Gibbs, she told Chuck, Savannah, and Anita Dunn that the left and the blogosphere are “deranged.”


I was all set to agree with her, until I found out she wasn’t talking about their berserk reaction to Gibbs’ comments, but rather, their high expectations of President Obama and the Democrats.

While it is true that a great many liberals have too-high expectations of President Obama, and little patience, the example that Marcus cites is the worst one possible. On health care, the left has an indisputably valid point. In her column, Marcus wrote “Can these people count to 60?”

As a matter of fact, we can, but apparently, the Democrats can’t. Instead of pressing the advantage while they had that filibuster-proof Senate majority, President Obama went on a pointless consensus-building exercise that resulted in a weaker law that barely passed after Scott Brown upended that 60-seat majority.

It’s a bit of a cliche´, but the truth lies somewhere in the middle. There are many on the left for whom pragmatism is a dirty word, and Gibbs was right to throw cold water on comparisons to Bush. But it’s not a hippie acid trip to think that the Dems could have gotten a stronger health care bill had they, themselves, bothered to count to 60 while they still could.

Washington Post Admits To Media Bias Favoring Barack Obama

Examiner.com:

Now that the election is over the Deborah Howell, the Washington Post Ombudsman, admits that the Post's election coverage was biased toward Obama.

Howell reports readers complained consistently criticized the Post's "lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama." She conducted a survey of the Post's election coverage since November 11, 2007 on issues, voters, fundraising, the candidates' backgrounds, horse-race stories on tactics, strategy and consultants, and photos and Page 1 stories since Obama captured the nomination June 4.

The survey, which conveniently ended on Election Day, found that the readers' criticisms are "right on both counts:"

The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces (58) about McCain than there were about Obama (32), and Obama got the editorial board's endorsement.

I'll say it again, there was nothing John McCain could've done differently to win the election. With a month left in the presidential campaign for McCain was leading Barack Obama in most national polls. And then the economy began to tank and media bias already favoring Barack Obama grew immensely. While credit should be given to WaPo for admitting that they were in the tank for Obama, what WaPo and every other major news outlet did, except FOX, was despicable in light of uninformed voters who depend on the media to act like professionals and report the events in an unbiased fashion.