Krugman’s column, chiding the media for its unfairly negative coverage of his beloved candidate, was, predictably, a big hit among Democrats — not just because of their agreement with its content but because of what they regarded as the remarkable courage required to publicly defend someone as marginalized and besieged as the former first lady, two-term New York senator, secretary of state, and current establishment-backed multimillionaire presidential front-runner.... Thankfully, it appears that Krugman — at least thus far — has suffered no governmental recriminations or legal threats, nor any career penalties, for his intrepid, highly risky defense of Hillary Clinton.Try setting up a 501(c)3 with "Tea Party" or "Patriot" in the name, though, and see what happens.
Or, you know, try giving money to an existing one.
(I suppose it's been long enough that we might consider letting Greenwald walk from the sockpuppet thing, but it's still what I think of every time I see his name.)
(I suppose it's been long enough that we might consider letting Greenwald walk from the sockpuppet thing, but it's still what I think of every time I see his name.)
ReplyDeleteHas he done anything that indicates he understands his...error...and has changed his behavior? I haven't seen anything; although I haven't followed him, so I easily could have missed it.
There's no statute of limitations on dishonesty or immorality, though. Absent some evidence, I'm disinclined to let him walk, other than longly off a short plank.
That he may have a point in the OP The Intercept piece is little distinguishable from an artifact of randomness.
Eric Hines
Greenwald is a pretty good writer. It's fair to give him credit for that. Good skill may be used in foul cause, however.
ReplyDelete