I'd bet a lot of money that the public option will be eviscerated.

And that is a most sickening thought. I just read an article on the practice of "rescission," which is where insurance companies who don't want to pay the bills for someone diagnosed with cancer or some other disease with expensive treatment go through their files and find some utterly bogus excuse like "you saw a dermatologist and didn't write that down on your application form" to deny that person insurance. People are dying all over the place because of this practice. At a recent hearing in Congress, three insurance executives were asked if they would stop the practice of rescission, and they all said NO.

It is an excellent reminder of how high the stakes are. This can happen to anyone: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rescind17-2009jun17,0,5870586.story?page=1

Ha ha, Jim!

The thought of that hideous Krauthammer gloating over his behind-the-scenes manipulations is just too much to take. Blech.

who rightfully pointed out the idiocies of other Wapoo writers in the letters sections. I know I have seen a number of moronic columns where the readers chewed up the arguments and spit them out. Wapoo doesn't need those types hanging around, no siree.

but couldn't find one.

Picture at sig.

But, as Glenn wrote, Froomkin was easily one of the most linked-to and cited Post columnists. Why would it be good for any business's bottom line to dump him?

I am sure they are getting a lot of letters.

Precisely, and that was my point in asking why PGeorge thought it was purely a business decision. If it were, they wouldn't get rid of someone who draws a lot of readers.

Like Notorious, I think that frikkin Krauthammer had something to do with it (see sig.).

Gator, thanks--it's from G. B. Shaw. :)

Whine about the killing of an abortionist - One of only five in the past thirty plus years.

I take it you are a card-carrying member of the "culture of life"?

But Ezra knows which side his bread is buttered on, and he almost never criticizes the news media.

And this has to be my favorite one:

I’d use the Washington Post as toilet paper but I wouldn’t want to insult my asshole.

Obama should be a revolutionary, not a frikkin corporatist rightwinger.

Yes, the Obama apologists do see him in that way. Pic at sig.

I read 'em all and would like to share some of the best:

-- And yes, Froomkin was a casualty, given how staid and crusty he had become. Totally unlike David Broder, who has only been at the Post since 1966, or Charles Krauthammer, consistently wrong since 1985. And is there anyone more relevant and hip with it than elitist "liberal" Richard Cohen? He's only been at the Post since 1976, so he remains fresh and has plenty of course to run. And any dude who wears a bow tie, like George Will, is the epitome of relevant, even if he has been using his Post real estate since 1979 to simply make **** up.

And since the village protects itself against all reason, it was mighty nice of the Post to reward those who haven't hit upon the truth in decades, like Bill Kristol. Being wrong about everything means he's perfectly suited for the Post's op-ed pages.

-- Couldn't let this bit pass:

"When it began, the column was called “White house Briefing.” But the name was changed after concerns by some at The Post newspaper that readers might believe Froomkin was a White House reporter, working alongside those offering objective news reporters."[sic]

Circumscribed lazy-minded formulaic access-addicted stenographic race-calling difference-splitting courtiers like Harris and Vandehei were "objective news reporters"?

-- At this point, the only difference between the Washington Post and the Washington Times is that the demented right-winger running the Post is not a Korean religious cult leader.

-- From Krauthammer to Wolfowitz, from Kagan to Hiatt, from Samuelson to Will, it's all war-is-good, and torture-is-good, and taxes-are-for-the-little-people, all the time. There's something deeply broken about these people. It's frightening and tragic to see people lose so completely their most basic sense of decency, and be so completely unaware of it.

that seem contrary to their own interests; or, as we say in literary terms, whose subject position would seem to indicate a particular political stance.

But how can Obama, who must be aware of the racial inequities of our justice/prison system, "aggressively argue[] before the Court that convicted criminals have no constitutional right to access evidence for DNA analysis"?

What will his black supporters think of this? What fear drove him to do this? Surely the political cost of doing the right thing here cannot have been huge?

Btw, Glenn, I thought you might want to know about a few typos:

lesiglature

"umpries."

acknowldgment

(who wrote the opinion) should be [who wrote the opinion]

Sometimes I just cannot believe what people come up with. I defy you to come up with factual support for that claim, other than his pretty speeches.

Does having principles mean saying it's OK to jail or murder the innocent? Even if only one person were wrongly imprisoned in this country, Obama's position would be dead wrong, but there are MANY.

The pic at sig. is just for you.

I have to give Harris some credit.

Btw, Glenn, a few more typos, all in the same paragraph:

Aaong those lines,

Froomkin's tenancious

no dobut

Exactly, he seems to have nothing but disdain for all those passionate people who hit the streets for him and donated what little bit they could to get him elected. What a monumental betrayal of those people who believed in him. I wasn't in that camp, but I am still pretty stunned by his choices.

I think at this point, even some of those fervent Obama apologists that have annoyed us around here are starting to see the light.