Is the Prince of Darkness Bailing on Bubble-Boy Bush?

Robert Novak, aka "The Prince of Darkness", has this column today in the Washington Post where he quotes an unidentified Republican Senator as saying "they just do not recognize the depth of the difficulty they are in." The "they" this Senator was referring to is the Bushies, led by Bubble-Boy and the Duck Hunter.

The article is interesting not because it points out that Bush is losing Republican Senators over Iraq, rather it is interesting for the tone that Novak adopts in the article. Instead of the usual sneering tone that Novak uses for those who oppose BB's programs, in this article he seems to actually be urging the Bush Administration to get its head out of its collective rear-end. This is seen by this quote from the end of the article: As the first in a succession of Republican senators to be critical of Bush's Iraq policy, Hagel feared the worst when he returned home to conservative Nebraska for Fourth of July parades. Instead, he was pleasantly surprised by cheers and calls for the troops to be brought home. Perhaps a White House scouting trip into the American heartland might be worthwhile.

If the Bushies have lost Robert Novak on the Iraq War, then they are in very deep do-do.

Is There a Unwritten Rule for Media that "Liberal" Commentators Must See Both Sides While "Conservative" Commentators Are Allowed to See Only One?

You have seen it time and time again with "talking heads" on cable and broadcast shows. The conservative on the show is rude, totally fixated on getting his or her points across, while the show's token liberal is some person who is quick to see "both sides" of an issue. So you get commentatory from the conservative how great Bush is while the liberal says things like "well, I can see why you think he is great, and he has done some good things, but, all in all, I think he is not as great as you think" or some other bs like that. Which leads us to this question: is it because of the personalities involved or is it a intentional choice made by the producers of the show?

And you don't just see this in TV shows. You see it in print media, too. Take the Washington Post. Their two liberals, Richard Cohen and E.J. Dionne, aren't nearly as partisan as Robert Novak by himself. Robert Novack has never seen a Republican do a bad thing in his life, unless it is to try and reach out to Democrats or, heaven forbid, suggest that income tax cuts aren't needed. Meanwhile, Cohen and Dionne are bending over backwards to show how fair they are to Republicans.

We want to know why TV shows and papers can't have fire-breathing liberals on to balance the fire-breathing conservatives. Surely there are liberals and progressives who can match the intensity of people like Novak. So why aren't they getting airtime? Is it "them", TV producers and publishers, or is it "us", liberals and progressives?