February 18, 2009
What A Difference An Election Makes...
December, 2008: Media Matters deplores guilt by association tactics.
Update: Sullivan, hilariously finds la Malkin guilty until proven innocent:
Why is it ok now but not then? Was she aware of the sign? Or did she miss it? The fact that Malkin has not answered these questions seems the only apposite thing to note.
Yikes. Sometimes, to see what's under one's nose requires a constant struggle... Case in point: for General Betrayus, a single interview wipes out a lifetime of determined non-partisanship:
….such a decision to cater to one party’s propaganda outlet [the Hewitt interview] renders Petraeus’ military independence moot,” Sullivan declared. “I’ll wait for the transcript,” he continued, before not waiting for the transcript. “But Petraeus is either willing to be used by the Republican propaganda machine or he is part of the Republican propaganda machine. I’m beginning to suspect the latter. The only thing worse than a deeply politicized and partisan war is a deeply politicized and partisan commander. But we now know whose side Petraeus seems to be on: Cheney’s. Expect spin, not truth, in September.”(emphasis added.)
But for Obama, a two decades-long relationship can only be viewed in terms of The One's "total record".
Sometimes, the comedy just writes itself.
Posted by Cassandra at February 18, 2009 08:14 AM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
guilt-by-association only works on Rethugs. Democrats have Teflon skin.
The press distances them by little phrases such as 'no known association,' and 'unaware of'.
It is all in the wording.
Posted by: Cricket at February 18, 2009 11:18 AM
Well, technically, what a difference an *inauguration* makes...
Posted by: Voice of Pedantry at February 18, 2009 11:28 AM
I left a comment on that post at Media Matters. Let's see if it survives moderation.
Posted by: One of those small voices in your head... at February 18, 2009 11:40 AM
Well, the comment survived moderation, but I was chastised for thinking that "guilt by association" when done by right-wingers to left-wingers was analgous to the Malkin post.
That, apparently, isn't "guilt by association," but is something more sublime.
Posted by: One of those small voices in your head... at February 18, 2009 12:27 PM
Well of course, you 'winger!
Remember: it's *different* when the fair-minded and principled among us indulge in tactics they have previously condemned because durnitall, they're *right* and the end always justifies the means (unless of course it's an end they disapprove of).
Posted by: We have nothing to fear but cynicism ....blah blah at February 18, 2009 12:37 PM
Sublime? Nah, more like a whole lot of 90 proof hypocrisy, with lime and salt. None so blind and all that...
Posted by: DewasIsahah NotasIdoah at February 18, 2009 01:55 PM
Does anyone still read Sullivan?
Posted by: ZZMike at February 18, 2009 07:32 PM
Posted by: cricket at February 19, 2009 09:25 AM
Ed Sullivan? He didn't write. He hosted the "Rrrreally Big Shu"
Posted by: bthun at February 19, 2009 09:33 AM