I suspect that it was the big name hacks on the editorial page that objected to him. Must be hard being shown that you are a complete fool.

The Washington Post was only briefly a worthwhile newspaper. In the 1930s it was owned by the Teapot Dome conspirators.

It’s possible, but it is wrong. Funny, tho, I figured this is where you would end up.

See, I see a false dichotomy there. Four possible outcomes:
(1) Honest; critical of Obama
(2) Dishonest; levies criticism of Obama from “the left” despite not believing it himself
(3) Honest; thinks Obama is making the right decisions and says so
(4) Dishonest; promotes Obama out of partisan loyalty

Given that it’s an opinion column, it’s possible to see “honest/dishonest” as impossible to judge or verify (except insofar as one can ascertain whether a column contains falsehoods, e.g. “So and so said ” when they didn’t).

I thought this questionable use of “honest” is what bianca was calling into question (and I thought Barry’s counter-admonishment was unfair).

You’ve got it backward. The question is not whether you must support civil liberties to be honest, but whether you must be on the left to support civil liberties. In other words, while Bush was in office it was unclear whether Froomkin was motivated by partisan (Democratic) loyalties or honestly held convictions. The former is acceptable, the latter is not, so when he failed to change his stance after the election he was done for.

Barry, the question is “honest (=blunt)” equivalent to “left” now? is pretty straightforward English. You implied that “X is an honest man” if and only if “X is critical of Obama from the left”—implying that nobody who criticizes Obama for being too liberal is being “honest.”

This seems to be a rather partisan interpretation of the word ‘honest’ to me (as well as to bianca, I infer). It’s not at all clear why it’s impossible for someone to honestly support the decisions Obama makes.

Humbert Wolfe.

Perhaps an update for his WaPo counterparts is in order?

If you actually have a question, please rewrite your comment in actual English, and I’ll try to answer it.

You are right, a more accurate statement would have been “no “reasonable” voice is allowed to appear be to the left of … as judged by the standards of the national political media.

The Four Postmen of the Apocalypse

First, after Grantland Rice:

Outlined against the troubles of a nation, the Four Writers wrote again. In Internet lore they are known as arrogance, pomposity, cluelessness and idiocy. These are only aliases. Their real names are: Broder, Woodward, Howell and Hiatt. They formed the crest of the cyclone before which the reputation of the Washington Post was swept over the precipice these past dozen years as a million readers peered at the bewildering panorama spread out on their breakfast tables and computer screens.

And then on to more Ancient Sources

9. [Broder] And I saw when the rabid lamb opened one of the links, and I heard, as it were the sound of wankery, one of the four courtiers saying, Come and read.

10. And I read, and beheld two fatuous quotes: and he that spoke them knew not his hypocrisy; and many spots on Sunday morning television were given unto him: and he went forth being arrogant, and to show all that he well and truly was a dick.

11.[Woodward] And when he had opened the second link, I heard the second courtier say, Come and read.

12. And there I read another work of stenography: and power was given to him that wrote therein to transcribe the thoughts of the mighty, and that they should flatter one another: and there was given unto him great riches for his efforts.

13.[Howell] And after she had someone help her open the third link, I heard the third courtier say, Come and read. And I read, and lo, she that wrote it had a pair of balances in her hand.

14. And I heard a voice in the midst of the four courtiers say, A measure of column space for a Democrat, and three measures of column space for a Republican; unless the news is bad and then the measures shall be reversed; and see that thou hurt not the status quo.

15.[Hiatt] And when he had opened the fourth link, I heard the voice of the fourth courtier say, Come and read.

16. And I read, and beheld a mass of distortions and lies: and his name that wrote it was Idiocy, and The wingnuts followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the estate, to mislead with pen, and with words, and with images, and with the shameful iniquity of their lies.

Michael, do you really think De Vere wrote Shakespeare? Why not pick Sir Francis instead?