Those who have followed this occasional series will recall that the show seldom has much partisan balance.  But with the Democratic nomination contest approaching an end, and the general election contest starting up, the gang has become even more partisan.  Last week and this week the gang got grades of zero.  There was nothing in either hour from independents, Republicans, moderates, or conservatives.

That didn't surprise me this week, since the host was Marcy Sillman, substituting for Steve Scher.   Scher knows there are Republicans, but doesn't much like them (unless they are involved in a sex scandal); Sillman appears not to know about the existence of Republicans.

And, though this may be hard to believe, Sillman may be even more Seattle-centric than Scher.   Neither host knows or cares much about events in this area, outside that reactionary city, Seattle, but the two reacted quite differently to Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels' suggestion that Seattle should secede.   (He said, through a spokesman, that he wasn't serious.)  Scher understood that Nickels wanted to take much of the productive parts of this area with him; Sillman seemed to hope that a moat could be dug at the Seattle city limits.

Today, the gang began by discussing the departure of the Seattle Sonics, a subject they have discussed before.  From there they moved to the Bush former press secretary, Scott McClellan.  All four seemed certain that McClellan is now telling the truth, and that he was telling lies before.   Why they believe him now, when they didn't believe him before was not clear.  Perhaps they, like so many, are simply believing what they want to believe.  A skeptic might have noted that McClellan now has a big financial incentive to attack the Bush administration, and that his mother (for whom he has worked) had an erratic relationship with the Texas Republican party.

During this discussion, Danny Westneat said something interesting, but failed to see that his argument works both ways.  Westneat said that, after 9/11, much of the country (perhaps including McClellan) was in a "fog", and that we are slowly coming out of it.  As the fog dissipates, we see things more clearly, and turn against victory (although of course Westneat did not use that word) in Iraq.   But Westneat has forgotten something:  After the 9/11 attack, many people, even some journalists, argued that the attack had made us see what we had been ignoring for years, had, if you will, temporarily cleared away the fog.

Since then, the usual fog, much of it created by our "mainstream" media, has come back, and many have returned to the ways of thinking that made us vulnerable to the 9/11 attack.  Since Westneat works for the Seattle Times, which has biggest fog machine in Washington state, it is understandable that he is confused on this point.  Understandable, but not entirely forgivable.

The gang, prompted by a listener, again plugged Westneat's column on travel writer Rick Steves, who is now trying hard to distract us from Iran's race to develop atomic weapons.  All four seemed to believe, despite some obvious objections, that one could learn much about a foreign country by visiting its tourist traps, as Steves has been doing for years.  Those who take that idea seriously are invited to search Steves' programs on France for evidence that he foresaw the riots by young, disaffected Muslims that have become a regular occurrence in that troubled nation.  Or for evidence that France would choose a president, Sarkozy, who is openly pro-American, and friendly to President Bush.

The program ended with the gang wistfully contemplating the salary that Robert Mak, who was a reporter for King 5, will be getting from Mayor Nickels.  None seemed the least disturbed by still another "mainstream" reporter taking a partisan position, although these switches can only hurt the credibility of the news organizations they left.

Last week, the gang began with a discussion of sexism, racism, and ageism, prompted, of course, by the identity politics fight in the Democratic party.  The four took the expected positions; the PI's D. Parvaz (a woman) thinks sexism is a more serious problem than the three men in the gang do.   None seemed to think that we should just ignore sex and race, and choose the best person for the job of president.

The gang discussed the result of the Democratic primary contests in Kentucky and West Virginia.   D. Parvaz seemed to think that Hillary Clinton's margin in Kentucky came from Republicans inspired by talk show host Rush Limbaugh.  None of the four seemed to find this implausible, though a glance at the totals will show almost anyone why that idea is silly.  (And I am not sure that Kentucky even allows last minute party switches.)

Knute Berger contributed one of those gems that keeps me listening the program:  Berger thinks we have too much cynicism.  I could not tell whether he understands how much he, personally, has contributed to cynicism in this area, whether he was engaging in self-criticism.  But he should, and I would be happy to give him some suggestions if he doesn't know where to start.

Shortly afterwards, Berger proclaimed that Seattle was full of rich jerks.  None of the four disagreed; none seemed to realize that the politicians they back generally drive away families, leaving a place that has less civilized behavior than before.

There were three incidents in earlier programs to which I would draw your attention.  In each case because, as in the Sherlock Holmes story, nothing happened.  Some time ago, Seattle Times editorial writer Bruce Ramsey was filling in for Westneat.  Ramsey said, early in the program, that news organizations were full of Obama mania.  Later in the program, when asked, he said that he was backing, for president, the candidate who must not be named.  (Who is different from the candidate who must not be middle-named, though both candidates have drawn what one might call uncritical support.)  Both comments should have led to interesting discussions, discussions that would have added considerably to the — sorry, but I must use the word — diversity of the program.  Both times, the other three said nothing, treating what Ramsey had said like a [insert vulgar metaphor here].  I am no fan of the candidate who must not be named, but I would have asked Ramsey why he was backing the man.  (And I might even have asked him what his candidate had accomplished.  If anything.)

In a later program, Steve Scher read part of an email from a Republican who criticized the program for its constant Bush bashing.  Scher said that Republicans should call up and make their own case.   In other words, taxpayers (including Republicans) should pay for this biased program, and if the Republicans didn't like the bias, Republicans were responsible for trying to restore some balance.   (I doubt that Scher would make the same argument to a politically correct minority.)  But I am not sure that Scher even meant what he said.  As it happens, some time ago, I offered to help Scher bring some balance to the program, to bring on a token Republican.  He never replied to my email.  (Credit where due:  Knute Berger has suggested a Republican for the program, at least once.)

Finally, a practical suggestion for both Sillman and Scher:  Consider writing your principal questions before the program.  It is distracting, sometimes even painful, to listen to you fumbling around, trying to formulate a question.  And a suggestion for all four:  You should show your work.  Long ago, most of you came to definite conclusions on many subjects (too definite, in most cases).  And so you often state those conclusions on the air — without explaining how you arrived at them.  For example, if you believe that the earth is flat — and this would not surprise me completely — you should not simply say that the earth is flat, you should give your evidence and your reasoning.

Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.