Maybe, but, like I said before, Wikipedia is not the place I go for editorial content on current events. I also noticed at the bottom of the FR page there was a link to a site that parodies DU. If you want to tit-for-tat every little thing that paints R's and D's in a bad light, it could get tedious. There may be bias one way in one spot, in another way in another spot.
Also, I note from reading the Santorum entry that this word was selected by the American Dialect Society as the most outrageous new word of 2004, and that extensive Google bombing was done in a coordinated effort to introduce the new definition to the public, these two significant events make it worthy of an entry. But I notice that it doesn't have it's own page, it is a subentry under the entry for the somewhat influential blog of the man who coined the term. His primary claim to fame seems to be coinage of "two sex-related neologisms," one of which was "santorum"(I won't say what it means). Since the word is apparently his greatest accomplishment, it's mention and definition are relevant to an article about his blog.
There might be some bias, but if I were editing a worldwide, mul;tilingual encyclopedia, I would be as hesitant to include "islamofascist" as I would to include "baptofascist" or "christofascist." The only purpose would be propaganda against a religion during a time when(rightly or otherwise) this classic motivational propaganda technique is being used by a major political party in a major nation during a time of war.
In brief: failure to validate propaganda for its own sake does not demonstrate bias to me, it demonstrates responsibility and discretion.
Make it, like the santorum entry, a relevant part of an article about something objective, and it will probably be mentioned in its proper perspective under the appropriate topic, as was the word "santorum."
BTW: thank you for whatever work you did on Wikipedia. For PC bias, read Encarta.