Washington Post is "Liberal," Huh?

By: Lowell
Published On: 1/15/2006 2:00:00 AM

For those of you who believe there really IS a "liberal media," and specifically that the Washington Post is "liberal," you might want to read its editorial, "Confirm Samuel Alito."  That's right, despite the fact that "Judge Alito's record is troubling in areas," the Post is "alarmed at the long-term implications of denying him a seat."  In other words, the Post appears to be arguing for the Imperial Presidency, or at least an extremely powerful Presidency relatively unchecked by other branches of government.  Yeah, that's wild-eyed "liberal" alright!

Speaking of the Imperial Presidency, the New York Times has a powerful editorial on President Bush seeing "no limit to his imperial presidency."  The powerful editorial blasts Bush for the "unilateral rewriting of more than 200 years of tradition and law by one president embarked on an ideological crusade."  On the Supreme Court, note the contrast with the "liberal" Washington Post.  According to the Times:

The administration's behavior shows how high and immediate the stakes are in the Alito nomination, and how urgent it is for Congress to curtail Mr. Bush's expansion of power.

In this case, at least, the New York Times has it exactly right, and the "liberal" Washington Post has it exactly wrong.

Comments