Dana Milbank, The Washington Post's New Food Writer

I was reading Dana Milbank's recent column on a liberal food fight looking for the good part, you know the part where some lefty radical shoves mashed potatoes into Karl Rove's face, and I came across an error so glaring that even someone not paying attention to the events in the Senate chamber yesterday would have caught it. OK, well, obviously not.

In the article Dana Milbank was obviously staring down his nose at activists Cindy Sheehan and Ramsey Clark. His derision was apparent throughout much of the column. I haven't figured out whether he was being a defeatist or whether he was gloating with this bit:

.....Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) yesterday attempted an obviously doomed filibuster against the Supreme Court nomination of Samuel Alito -- and Kerry got only 25 of the 60 needed votes.

Likewise, the chance of a Republican Congress moving to impeach Bush is close to zero.

Actually, he was gloating. Have you noticed the error that even a novice reporter would not make? Milbank, an experienced political reporter says that Kerry needed 60 votes against cloture to stage a successful filibuster. Actually, Kerry only needed 41 votes. Bill Frist needed 60 votes to close debate and move to confirmation.

The Washington Post has printed way too many errors of late. I don't know if it's laziness on the part of its writers or its editors. Maybe they just do it to watch the bloggers go crazy. If it continues I might just become a conspiracy theorist and start hinting that the WaPo is intentionally falsifying facts as part of a vast right wing plot. Since, I'm not much into conspiracy theories, we'll just chalk it up to very sloppy journalism.

Howell, VandeHei and now Milbank. Will there be a credible writer left by the end of the year? Only time will tell.

Hat tip to Teddy and Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake.