BurkaBias

Liberal media? You be the judge:

Re: the Dean of DC Columnists ...

Greg Sargent notes today that the Washington Post's David Broder chatted with readers late last week, and there was a brief-but-interesting exchange.

New York: Will you and the media ever apply as much scrutiny to the Giuliani marriages as you have done to the single Clinton marriage?

David S. Broder: I plan to leave both subjects alone.

Is that so.

About a year ago, the NYT published a 2,000-word, front-page dissection of Bill and Hillary Clinton's marriage. It contained no real news, few named sources, and plenty of gossip masquerading as political coverage. Observing that the Clintons typically spend 14 days of each month together -- hardly unusual for a couple that includes a senator and a peripatetic former president -- the Times opted for the half-empty conclusion that the two lead "largely separate lives."

Just 48 hours later, it was none other than David Broder who devoted his column to the Clintons' marriage. In fact, the day before his piece ran, Broder heard Hillary Clinton deliver a substance speech on energy policy. Broder said he was bored and wanted to hear more about the senator's marriage. In fact, Broder concluded that the failure of reporters in the post-speech Q&A to grill Hillary about her personal relationship with her husband was the "elephant in the room."

But now the Dean of the DC media establishment plans to leave both marriages alone. How big of him.

And straight from the Dean of Texas opinion columnists ...

I have been trying to decide which party primary to vote in. I've been leaning Republican/Rudy, because he is the only Republican who can defeat Clinton. But Noonan makes a good case for Democratic/Obama.

Of course, beating Clinton seems to be a recurring theme for Burka. Given the reasoning above, however, I'm inclined to think the old man needs his head checked. He claims to be middle of the road, but supported George Bush for four consecutive elections, offering that he would no longer vote for the man once it became a constitutionally moot point. He bemoans what the modern-era Republican party has become, yet fails to see his continued ambivalence as something short of enabling. My money is on Burka voting in the GOP primary, endorsing the GOP nominee, and once more bemoaning the very thing he voted for in the first place despite overwhelming evidence that he ignored in the first place. I'd go so far as to wonder if Texas deserves better than an arbiter of conventional wisdom than the likes of Burka ... but I have to think Texas Monthly and Evan Smith should make that determination as well. More from the November mag once I get home and have a chance to do a little transcribing.