Kudos to Mickey Kaus for getting the Bee's executive editor on the phone to talk about the Weintraub blog, and for correcting the always far-fetched notion that the Bee's editors care a whit what the Latino caucus (or any other group of pols) thinks about their blogger.

He asked Rick Rodriguez one of the money questions -- would the Bee have let the edited Weintraub opine that Bustmante would be a political non-entity if he wasn't Latino? Rodriguez flubbed it, I think. He didn't know. He just thought the writer and editor should have the conversation. Well he's the one guy who should know, because it doesn't demand any parsing of the facts. It's a question of how much freedom the Bee can stomach for its blogger, and what the standards are -- ultimately the editor's call. Poor Dan if it's left to chance based on whoever happens to be up when he gets an idea. That is editor hell. [Correction: Apparently Editorial Page Editor David Holwerk is the ultimate editor of the Bee's opinion columnists, and he answers not to Rodriguez but to the publisher. Email has been sent to Holwerk asking to clarify Weintraub's status.]

I think Kaus is wrong, though, in defaulting to the next available explanation that lets him blame it on journos, liberals or supposed PC thinking. I think what's going on inside the Bee is a culture clash, as Rodriguez alludes. And it's not over politics -- the internal strains would be there if it was a liberal blogger (but some of Dan's defenders would probably be demanding an editor). The news side resents Weintraub's freedom to be blunt and one-sided, and to publish hours ahead of them. The whole institution probably bridles at what is perceived as his special treatment. Some no doubt are unconvinced that blogs add anything to the paper, and possibly detract.

Hugh Hewitt, meanwhile, swings and misses:

Can you imagine if the Lost Angeles Times had put an editor on Scheer's ravings? Would the Left have weighed in?

Everything Scheer wrote for the Times while on the staff did go through an editor, typically several. Same for every word that Weintraub has written for the print Sacramento Bee. And as we now know, everything that Weintraub blogged was back-read by an editor. [Update 12:20 p.m. Sigh. Hewitt says I'm wrong, but misreads the item. Read it again Hugh. It's not that nuanced and 100% true. While he's at it, does he have evidence that Weintraub can't still say whatever he wants?]

Updated 11 a.m.