I am sorry, but if you or anyone else thinks that this scum bag would “watch” the Obama White House (vs. cheerlead) then you are a real sucker. As a WaPo reader, I must say today is a fantastic day!

Dan Fruit-kin is an anti-american, anti-israel scumbag. I hope the only employment he finds is at the local Wendy’s or BK. Total neo-phyte, total loser. Case closed.

sayabule1 on June 18, 2009 at 6:11 PM

Worth repeating. And Good Lord, Ed, your ability to grant the benefit of a thousand doubts to scum leftists like the Post is not gracious, but really annoying and delusional.

we’ll know that the Post has a different standard for Republicans than they do for Democrats

.
We’ll know that, um, six months ago.

Actually it’s already happened-far Leftist Looney Toon syndicated cartoonist Ted Rall was fired a couple of months ago.
He blamed it on Bush, of course.Del Dolemonte

I had forgotten about him. Liberals are pretty forgettable.;)

Then their guy won. Lapdogs are boring. Boring loses readership/listeners/viewership. And that pop culture media is going to spend the rest of this four-year-term at least being lapdogs. Therefore, they are going to bore the crap out of their audience and lose that audience. Froomkin was let go probably because he was boring his audience.

Froomkin did an excellent job and the Post did make an effort to balance their blog opinions… this weas covered well by Ed in CQ days.

It’s really sad to see all the hateful comments about Dan. He is a nice and very approachable guy who encourages readers to look at conservative blogs and diversify their reading. It was one such write up that led to my wandering over to read Ed’s stuff for the first time. If you think he is merely a cheerleader for Obama then you simply haven;t been reading him since the election.

…we’ll know that the Post has a different standard for Republicans than they do for Democrats.

Oh Ed! If you like the post, and haven’t discovered that the above statement isn’t painfully obvious, then shame on you!

And in other news, water is wet.

we’ll know that the Post has a different standard for Republicans than they do for Democrats.

Was this ever in doubt?

Much to my surprise, Froomkin is the first to be declared ‘obsolete’ under the new administration. I expected Jake Tapper to get this treatment for ABC first.

jon1979 on June 18, 2009 at 7:38 PM

Man, I used to hate Tapper. Now, it seems he’s lost his taste for the Obama Fool-Aid, and as a result his intellectual honesty has regenerated in his brain.

Tapper still has hiccups of bias, but he’s no longer a hack. Following him on Twitter has been a revelation — he can’t stand Robert Gibbs giving him and the WHPC the runaround. OTOH, following Tweets from CNN’s Rick Sanchez and MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer confirms they’re just as dumb as they appear to be.

WashPost Writer’s Deception: ‘Bush Mischaracterized His Iraq Critics’

Froomkin’s angle was that on August 24, 2005, Bush was creating a straw man argument by suggesting everyone who thought the Iraq War was a mistake were advocating immediate withdrawal from not only Iraq, but the entire Middle East region.

Here’s Froomkin’s blog that day (bold mine):

Fighting Back — and Mischaracterizing His Critics

Bush took 10 minutes away from biking and boating at a Utah resort yesterday to step before the microphones. The first question he faced from reporters, not surprisingly, was about war protester and grieving mother Cindy Sheehan.

Here’s the text of his remarks.

“I think immediate withdrawal from Iraq would be a mistake,” Bush said. “I think those who advocate immediate withdrawal from not only Iraq but the Middle East would be — are advocating a policy that would weaken the United States. So I appreciate her right to protest. I understand her anguish. I met with a lot of families. She doesn’t represent the view of a lot of the families I have met with. And I’ll continue to meet with families.”

But as several media reports pointed out this morning, critics of the Iraq war are not advocating an immediate withdrawal from the greater Middle East. And many are not even calling for an immediate pullout from Iraq. Rather, they are asking for a specific plan to bring the troops home, and maybe an acknowledgement of error.

In reality, Bush was not referring to all war critics, he was referring specifically to Cindy Sheehan and people who agree with her. Here’s the entire exchange cut-and-pasted from the White House website (bold mine):

Q: Mr. President, we know you met with Cindy Sheehan a year ago, but she says a lot has changed since then; she has more to say to you. And even some Republicans have said that you should meet with her. Why not do that when you get back to the ranch?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I did meet with Cindy Sheehan. I strongly support her right to protest. There’s a lot of people protesting, and there’s a lot of points of view about the Iraq war. As you know, in Crawford last weekend there were people from both sides of the issue, or from all sides of the issue there to express their opinions.

I sent Deputy Chief of Staff Hagin and National Security Advisor Hadley to meet with Ms. Sheehan early on. She expressed her opinion. I disagree with it. I think immediate withdrawal from Iraq would be a mistake. I think those who advocate immediate withdrawal from not only Iraq but the Middle East would be — are advocating a policy that would weaken the United States. So I appreciate her right to protest. I understand her anguish. I met with a lot of families. She doesn’t represent the view of a lot of the families I have met with. And I’ll continue to meet with families.

For those who would say Bush shouldn’t be believed when he said Sheehan told Hagin and Hadley she wanted withdrawal from the Middle East entirely: Howzabout letting Sheehan speak for herself?

From the Los Angeles Times: Ron Brownstein wrote this regarding Sheehan’s opinion one week before Froomkin’s above post (August 17, 2005):

The danger for critics is that pressure on Bush to change direction may diminish if the public considers their alternatives less attractive.

Though groups like MoveOn support the Jones-Abercrombie proposal for a gradual withdrawal, Sheehan told a conference call Tuesday that she considered that time frame “not soon enough.” She is urging an immediate return of all U.S. troops — an idea that polls show most Americans oppose.

Still not good enough for you? Click here to see a screencap of the February 2005 scheduling of a Marin [County (CA)] Peace & Justice Coalition symposium on the topic “How to Get the Bush Administration out of the Middle East.” There were two featured speakers, and the second was “Cindy Shaheen (sic) whose son was killed in Iraq.”

If anything, it’s nice that Froomkin and I (for the time being) will be getting paid the at same rate for blogging (that is to say, zero.) After all, I do more research he does.

After eight years, we’ve gotten used to having a president whose credibility is shot, whose policy apparatus is utterly politicized, and whose decision-making process is completely opaque. So what do we do with President Obama? Do we treat him with the same skepticism with which we learned to approach Bush? If not, how do we hold him accountable? These are some of the issues I’m wrestling with as I prepare to make the transition from Bush to Obama – and I’d welcome your input.

He was trying to figure out how to turn from “watchdog” to lapdog. If as a reporter you have to figure out how to hold a politician accountable because he is as liberal as you, you shouldn’t have a job. He was wasting space at this point.

I go for Door Number 2, Ed.

Del Dolemonte on June 18, 2009 at 6:08 PM

When it comes to Obama, what does the Washington Post put out other than Number 2?