Note what this characterization of a characterization does NOT say.

Another word about presumptions and images: An article in a recent National Journal is titled "Free-Market Cheerleader" — and it is about Michael Powell, head of the FCC. Says the blurb in the table of contents, "Michael Powell's free-market cheerleading and self-assured approach mesh well with President Bush's views. . . . Powell has resolutely stuck to the idea that regulating as little as possible is the key to overseeing the vast telecommunications industry . . . Powell says his primary goal is to promote competition and innovation, and he says the free market is proving his critics wrong."

Why do I bring this up? Ho-hum stuff, right? Well, it's just that a lot of liberal Democratic critics — and libertarian ones — portray Michael Powell as some awful Puritan, out to muzzle Howard Stern and perhaps the Dixie Chicks, too. Like John Ashcroft, he is portrayed as the reincarnation of A. Mitchell Palmer or Anthony Comstock or someone. He's supposed to be 1984 guy, this free-marketeer.

Weird how certain beliefs and prejudices get started.

It does NOT say that these certain beliefs and prejuces are incorrect.