The New York Times editorial page is a perfect weather vane for the way the liberal media's hot air is blowing. In an October 26 editorial called "Torching the Big Tent," they lamented: "The feeble pulse of moderation in the Republican Party is in danger of flat-lining in the Nov. 3 Congressional election in upstate New York."

The feeble "moderate" the Times was backing for Congress was Dede Scozzafava - pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-union power, pro-tax hike. The Times found these positions to be proof of "refreshing tinges of centrism." The Times lectured the conservative movement to embrace this candidacy, since "creative ideas and candidates, not right-wing zeal, are the obvious way to get back in the game of democracy."

Any New Yorker foolish enough to follow the political advice of The New York Times deserves what he gets.

What if the Times portrayed this battle for the 23rd District of New York the opposite way? What if the surging campaign of conservative Doug Hoffman was portrayed as "Revenge of the Irate Moderates?" Liberals would rub their eyes in utter disbelief. But just three years ago, the Times editorial page was using those exact words to describe the hard-left forces behind Ned Lamont, who upset moderate Democrat Sen. Joe Lieberman in the primary, only to lose to him in the general election.

Is it essential for an extreme liberal to be a paranoid conspiracy theorist?

Whether it's American involvement in taking down the World Trade Center, or war for oil, these folks can't swing a dead cat without hitting some nefarious cabal involving Republicans.

The newest one, floated by Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake fame, is that if Joe Lieberman is John McCain's running mate, and they win only to have the aged McCain die in office, President Lieberman would round up all the bloggers that supported Ned Lamont's senatorial campaign in 2006 and send them to Gitmo.

I kid you not: