What Liberal Media? There’s an interesting profile of my congressman, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Liberal Enclave) in the Los Angeles Times today. But the story could have some editing, however — or the writer needs a thesaurus — because he described Rep. Waxman as a “partisan” no less than six times:
And his public utterances are so unfailingly partisan that he has little capacity to get cooperation from his Republican colleagues. He also contributes to the toxic political climate that many decry in present-day Washington…
Investigative reporters in Washington agree that — partisan as Waxman is — his staff research is highly reliable. Chief Counsel Phil Barnett, the final gatekeeper, vets every report the office releases…
Conservatives liken him to a male Jane Fonda or a liberal version of their own Tom DeLay, the disgraced former House majority leader known for his intense partisanship…
“It is clear his interest has always been more focused on using his position for partisan attack rather than legislative achievement….”
And his intense partisanship contributed to his isolation…
Some have a partisan edge: a file called “Iraq on the Record” chronicles “misleading statements” by Bush and his Cabinet leading up to the war…
What makes this stranger still is that I don’t see Rep. Waxman as being all that partisan. He’s a liberal fighting the cause but he’s hardly a lackey for the party.
If Waxman is partisan, I’ll take partisan any day over bland, limp, mewling, handwringing, complicit representatives.
But really, if you’re going to be in journalism, get a thesaurus.