To the extent that they think about it -- as opposed to simply letting their little lights artlessly shine -- liberal journalists seem to think that acting like cheerleaders strengthens their team. It doesn't. That more conservative candidates and causes face hostile media scrutiny that liberal lions don't makes the conservatives tougher and more battle tested. It can ground their political calculations more securely in reality; if there are any gaping flaws in conservative arguments, programs or personnel, they can be reasonably sure that a vigilant mainstream media will point them out in great and loving detail.

This is not always a blessing, but surprisingly often, it is. More hostile media scrutiny would have convinced Senator John Kerry that his Vietnam record could not anchor his presidential campaign. It would have made then Vice President Gore much more aware of what a liability it is that so many voters heard him as condescending and elitist. It would have alerted President Obama to the critical flaws in the congressional porkfest loosely but inaccurately referred to as a 'stimulus package'. It would have let the greens know that their carbon treaty concept was an obvious flop before they wasted precious time and money on a decade long unicorn hunt.

Over and over again in modern American politics, liberals have developed "frames" and strategies for key issues that they think will shift the debate their way. Over and over again the echo chamber of the liberal press resounds with praises of the new approach. And over and over again liberals "unexpectedly" get sucker punched by conservative counter attacks a more critical press would have forecast as both inevitable and deadly.

Sometimes one wonders: is the liberal press secretly taking the Koch brothers' money?