WaPo's Bacon defies "cynical reporter" stereotype

It's hard to imagine that a political reporter could have as much faith in politicians as the Washington Post's Perry Bacon seems to.  I've previously noted Bacon's insistence on taking politicians at their word, even when their claims have been shown to be false.  And his jaw-dropping refusal to consider the possibility that politicians may occasionally be influenced by campaign contributions.

Now, take a look at this exchange from Bacon's online Q&A this week:

Arlington, Va.: Nelson was a health insurance company executive before he ran for governor.

Lieberman gets a lot of campaign donations from Aetna, whose CEO said they are jacking up premiums to increase their profit margins even though it would mean up to 650,000 people losing their coverage.

'Nuff said.

Perry Bacon Jr.: Doesn't Chris Dodd get money from insurance companies? Isn't Blanch Lincoln, not a former insurance executive, also opposing the public opinion, as are lots of House members, many of whom also didn't work in the insurance industry?

Wow.  Is Perry Bacon really suggesting that because some politicians vote against the interests of their donors, no politician is ever influenced by campaign contributions?  That's really the only way to read his response; otherwise, what would Chris Dodd and Blanche Lincoln have to do with a question about Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman? 

And Bacon's use of Blanche Lincoln as an example of a politician who opposes the public option despite a lack of ties to the insurance industry is absolutely hilarious, given the campaign contributions she's taken from the industry, and her ties to industry lobbyists. (To be clear: I have no idea what Lincoln's motivations are, but Bacon's suggestion that she lacks ties to the insurance industry is absurd. Just the reasoning he uses to dismiss suggestions that Nelson and Lieberman are motivated by campaign contributions is absurd, regardless of whether they are.)