Canadian Cynic

"Journalist" Robert Novak: craptacular once again!

Regarding the second Presidential debate, there's how the minimally sane, functionally sentient members of the human race saw it. And then there's how hack Bob Novak saw it.

Bob Novak: sleazy, dishonest, biased, right-wing douchebag for partisanship.

POSTSCRIPT: There's something worth appreciating about the report card at the link above. Given that Paul Begala represents the left, and Novak the (wingnut, lunatic fringe, incoherent) right, you would expect that, naturally, Begala would score the debate in Kerry's favour, while Novak would lean the other way.

But look closely.

Begala seems to be at least trying to remain objective, by giving Kerry only a moderate edge in both categories: A+/A- for content, and a bigger edge of A/B- for delivery. Novak, apparently watching a different debate entirely and trying out some brand new meds, gives it to Bush B/C for content, and an equally wide margin of A/B for delivery. So who has the better grip on reality?

Well, just take a look at the average grading from the 200,000+ CNN.com users: a resounding victory for Kerry -- B+/C+ for content and A-/C+ for delivery -- a bigger stomping than even the left-wing, liberal Begala judged it.

Think about that.

You'd expect that, with their partisan leanings, Begala and Novak would both lean fairly far in their respective directions, while the general public would act as a modifier and fall somewhere in the middle. But the public, astonishingly, gave the debate to Kerry by an even larger margin than the left-wing Begala. This is an amazing result. It means that Begala was pretty much falling over himself to be fair to Bush. It also means that Novak is a complete idiot who can't even pretend to be objective anymore. Colour me shocked.