Lying in ponds, a Web site that tracks partisanship of prominent columnists and some of the nation's most influential editorial pages. The 2002 award for most partisan columnist went to none other than New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.

In a year in which Mr. Krugman generated lots of buzz and won an award, his 18:1 ratio of negative to positive Republican references and 99 columns without a single substantive deviation from the party line were unmatched in the Lying in Ponds portion of the punditocracy.

In an effort to be even-handed, The Wall Street Journal opinion page was ranked the most partisan, among the major newspapers, with The New York Times coming in a close second.

Just to demonstrate how knee-jerk Republican-hating Krugman is, Krugman rated a 75 on the "Negative Republican Index" score, Michael Kinsley came in second with a 55.

In contrast, the most negative Democrat-hating columnist was the Journal's Dorothy Rabinowitz with a 42. Checking that score against the "Negative Republican Index," Rabinowitz is still less negative than: Krugman, Kinsley, and Times columnists Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd, Bob Herbert and Nicholas Kristof.

One thing, however, to note about the Lying in Ponds ratings, as far as the total partisanship score goes. While the Times and the Post publish all of their columnists online (Lying in Ponds deals with online data only, not what appears in the print editions), only a portion of the Journal's columnists appear in the online version. While the Times has conservative William Safire to temper its total partisanship score, the Journal's liberal Al Hunt is rarely published online.

Congratulations to Krugman on another award. My bet is that Krugman will win this award again next year.

Question: How many consecutive years must Krugman win the award before it is named after him?