AmericaBlog spotted a curious moment in Wednesday’s Washington Post. John Aravosis at Americablog writes:

To wit, this lead sentence from tomorrow’s front-page Washington Post story on Senator Feingold’s censure resolution:
For months the Democrats have resisted calls from their liberal base to more aggressively challenge President Bush.
Calls from their “liberal base?” Really? Where did you get that from? Seriously. I want facts. How did the Washington Post determine that it was the “liberal base” of the Democratic party that has been the driving force calling for Dems to challenge President Bush?

Actual real-life surveys show that most Democrats, and most Independents, have had it with Bush. Not just liberal Democrats, but all Democrats, and even most Independents.

So, seriously, where did the Washington Post get the facts to justify the very first line of its front page story about Senator Feingold? Nowhere, that’s where.

They just made it up.

Close, John. But they didn’t just make it up. They got it straight from the GOP. (I know because I get the GOP’s press releases.)

Indeed, Aravosis’s take jumped out at me because for the past 2 days, Washington State’s new GOP Chair, Diane Tebelius, has been sending out press releases playing up the same angle the Washington Post is pushing.

Tebelius’s pitch is that Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold’s resolution to censure President Bush for his surveillance program is a “far left wing” position, and (here’s Tebelius’s local angle for this nationally-cultivated GOP talking point)—she wonders where Sen. Maria Cantwell stands on it.

Tebelius’s ploy is twofold. 1) She’s attempting to rein in growing anti-Bush sentiment by characterizing opposition to Bush policy as “far left wing.” (Good luck, in the latest CNN/ USA Today Gallup poll, released Monday, the percentage of people who approve of the President dropped to 36 percent, the lowest of his presidency). And 2) She’s going for a squeeze play on Cantwell—trying to force Cantwell to either alientate her Democratic base or be framed as out-of-the-mainstream.

I posted Tebelius’s first press release on Monday. This was a press release where Tebelius said Congress approved Bush’s surveillance program. (???) Sorry, but everyone from GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) to Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA.) called for an investigation into the program after the controversial program was outed by the NYT last December. Even more, GOP Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said “there is no doubt this is inappropriate.” He called Bush’s program “clearly and categorically wrong.” Republican Specter’s call for an investigation was seconded by another Republican in D.C., Congressman Rob Simmons (R-CT). Simmons is chairman of the House Homeland Security Intelligence Subcommittee.

More interesting, Tebelius’s press release cited a Washington Post poll that found a majority of Americans supported the program. However, in my post I asked if the Washington Post poll explained that Bush’s surveillance program violated existing law and did not have Congressional approval. (My diligent colleague Annie Wagner quickly followed up my post, by digging up and posting said Washington Post poll. Annie’s post answered my question: The poll did not present any relevant facts about Bush’s controversial surveillance program—like the fact that it breaks surveillance laws and did not get Congress’ blessing.)

Unfortunately, judging from the Washington Post article, Tebelius’s spin—part of a concerted national effort by the GOP to marginalize Democrats—seems to be working. Apparently, the Washington Post is getting the same GOP press releases I am—and adopting the GOP’s spin job.

FOOTNOTE: I called Tebelius’s office when her second press release arrived on Tuesday afternoon and asked her to justify using the Washington Post poll as evidence that opposition to Bush’s surveillance program was “far left” when the poll actually found that 47% of Americans opposed it (as did 55% of Independents). Is she saying that 47% of the country is far left? Is she saying that 55% of Independents are “far left”? I also asked her to explain why she relied on a poll that did not present all the relevant facts about the surveillance program. (I actually asked all of this of Tebelius’s assistant. He said she’d have to call me back. She was in Washington, D.C.)

I’ll report back when Tebelilus calls me to answer these questions.