Just how much liberal bias is there in the Washington Post news and opinion?

Asks the WaPot ombudsman Patrick B. Pexton. He talks about the bias people see in the new articles and then moves on to the columnists:

One aspect of The Post that particularly irks conservatives is the columnists who appear in print and online in news positions (as opposed to those on the editorial and op-ed pages and the online Opinions section). With the exception of Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza, who cover politics in a nonpartisan way, the news columnists almost to a person write from left of center.

Balz and Cillizza are nonpartisan? That assertion screams liberal bias.

Is it any wonder that if you’re a conservative looking for unbiased news — and they do; they don’t want only Sean Hannity’s interpretation of the news...

They. That's telling.

... that you might feel unwelcome, or dissed or slighted, by the printed Post or the online version? And might you distrust the news when it’s wrapped in so much liberal commentary?

Yeah, they need to get a lot of conservative columnists if they want to get away with doing the news liberal-style. Isn't that the Wall Street Journal method?

Wisconsin "will be at the epicenter of American politics" for "at least the next two months."

Says Dan Balz at the Washington Post, explaining the importance of the recall effort to unseat Gov. Scott Walker.

This homegrown fight has national implications. Walker has become a symbol of Republican governance in today’s GOP. He is campaigning energetically and unapologetically, arguing that he took courageous action to deal with his state’s severe fiscal problems — the same thing Republicans are saying should be done nationally. Walker contends that his policies have been good for the state’s economy and its taxpayers.

His opponents see those policies almost exactly the way President Obama described the federal budget written by Walker’s Wisconsin soul mate, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, and passed recently by the House. Last week, Obama called the Ryan budget a radical document that would put the country in decline. That echoes the view of Walker’s opponents, who say his actions have hurt the state and unfairly punished state employees....



Walker is a hero to Republicans. Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum were the featured attractions at the Waukesha County dinner before last week’s primary, but it was Walker who generated by far the most energy in the room. He was greeted with several standing ovations.

Republicans don’t just approve of the job he’s doing; they enthusiastically embrace him. More than nine in 10 “strongly approve” of the job he is doing, according to exit polls from Tuesday’s presidential primary. Among strong tea party supporters, strong approval is 94 percent. Among very conservative voters, it’s 92 percent.

There's a big upside for Republicans here, though the Democrats brought this showdown upon themselves. In the first of the 2 months, as Balz describes at the link, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett and former Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk are tearing each other apart to get the Democratic Party nomination. You've got the man beating up on the woman just when Democrats want to demagogue the "war on women." The election is very much about the power of public unions, and because she has the backing of the unions, Falk may win the primary only to be "cast... as a tool of the unions who would do their bidding as governor." This is our little drama here in Wisconsin, but as Balz says, it has national implications.

I'd love to know what the Obama people really think of this immense distraction their Wisconsin Democrats have kicked up. I doubt if they want Tom Barrett and Kathleen Falk — fighting each other — as the face of the party in these crucial 2 months when there's not much else going on in the political arena. Meanwhile, it will be interesting to see how Mitt Romney and (Wisconsin's own) Paul Ryan will  exploit Scott Walker's (heroic?) struggle for survival.

What do the Election 2009 results mean for Obama (and the congressional Democrats)?

In the WaPo, Dan Balz says:

Neither [the Virginia nor the New Jersey] gubernatorial election amounted to a referendum on the president....

Why not? Read... read... read... read... oh, here it is:

White House senior adviser David Axelrod said Tuesday's races were in no way a reflection of public opinion about the president or his agenda. "Whatever's driving these voters, it wasn't attitudes toward the president," he said, noting that local issues and attitudes toward the candidates on the ballots were the major influences.

Why not? Because David Axelrod says not.

Axelrod warned against extrapolating into the future the shift among independents. He said he believed that many people who called themselves Republicans in the past now call themselves independents but are still voting for Republican candidates. "I don't think they portend long-term trends," he said.

He said the only race with real national implications was the congressional contest in Upstate New York.

Noted.

To be fair to Balz, he did get a Republican, Haley Barbour, chairman of the Republican Governors Association, to agree with the proposition that the 2009 election was not "a referendum on the president." But on the substance of it, Barbour observed that "[t]he president's policies are very unpopular, and they are hurting Democrats in Virginia, New Jersey, New York."

In the NYT, Adam Nagourney says:

The results in the New Jersey and Virginia races underscored the difficulties Mr. Obama is having transforming his historic victory a year ago into either a sustained electoral advantage for Democrats or a commanding ideological position over conservatives in legislative battles....

... Mr. Christie and Mr. McDonnell won after decidedly playing down their conservative views on social issues.....

The critical question after this setback [in NY 23] is whether the conservative groups who had clearly signaled that they intended to press their advantage and challenge other Republican candidates they considered too moderate would now have the impetus or support to continue down that road.

Let's see now.... who to go to for quotes?

“[McDonnell] focused on the issues that are on people’s minds: jobs, taxes,” said Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi, the head of the Republican Governors Association. “I don’t think there are a lot of governors who are more conservative than I am. But I try to run campaigns on what people are interested in.”...

[David] Axelrod acknowledged that Mr. Obama’s supporters had not shown up in New Jersey and Virginia, but he said he did not believe that meant the end of the Obama coalition.

“That doesn’t mean they won’t come out for us,” he said. “I think they’ll come out for national races. But this wasn’t a national race.”...

The Wall Street Journal enthuses:

The GOP has been flat on its back since the Obama ascendancy in last year's presidential election, but Republican Bob McDonnell's blowout victory over Democrat Creigh Deeds in the Virginia governor's race and Chris Christie's defeat of Jon Corzine in New Jersey should help dispel the party's gloom.

Yesterday in advance of the results, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was dismissing commentary on the impending bad news as "navel gazing." If so, navel gazing's bad reputation is suddenly looking up. The onrushing Obama Democratic machine has just hit a significant speed bump....

Mr. McDonnell ran straight into the teeth of the blue trend, explicitly campaigning against the policies of the Obama presidency. In at least one swing state that matters, the Obama Democratic ascendancy is on hold....

The overweening liberal-progressive confidence of late suddenly looks misplaced. The party's Blue Dogs have a basis for their misgivings. Republicans, too timid until now, have an opening to find ideas to give obviously anxious voters an alternative to the party in power.

IN THE COMMENTS: Pogo said:

"Mr. McDonnell ran straight into the teeth of the blue trend"

But not straight into the yellow teeth of the blue trend, surely.