Froomkin was quite literally the only columnist at the Post I read religiously. This is an absolute travesty.

Than a lump of right wing self-pity in a wheel chair.

Fromkin was a sometimes brilliant writer with deep principles and always thoughtful...that the Post would chose to lose this indipendent voice while retaining the NeoCon booby twins of Kristol and Krauthiemer just show how far this great paper, and newspapers in general have fallen.

It is a sad day for newspapers, But I know that it will not silence the necessary voice of Fromikin.

I had just read his post before coming here. For all the hysterical cries of a liberal media, there is no shortage of conservatives grabbing for every camera, microphone, web page they can find to spew their venom.

Now I can remove the WaPo link from my favorites.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but Obama getting attacked from the real Left kinda nullifies the 'Obama is a radical leftist' meme. Is this what establishment is trying to quash? One wonders.

In the one case of "media bias," the wingnut freakazoids are actually playing - and winning - a long game.

It started more than 40 years ago, when Nixon fought against objective and factual accounts of his campaign tactics by labeling all objective media "biased liberal."

Nonstop repetition of this lie wore objective outlets like the Post and the NYTimes down to the point they started believing it themselves, or at least thought they could relieve the weight of the accusation by becoming biased conservative.

The more they leaned wingnut while claiming an objectivity they lost sometime in the '80s, the easier it was for wingnut freakazoid Fox to claim the objectivity mantle for itself.

So the only genuinely objective dead-tree news source today is the Nation, which has proudly claimed the motto "that liberal media bias you can't find anywhere else."

As for the Post and the Times:

sic semper culum vertere

...Post fires one if its most popular...

or,

...Post fires one of its most popular...

I don't think you meant to inject any doubt in that sentence.

This decision is the flip side of the NYT wooing Bill Kristol, or the Philadelphia Inquirer hiring John Yoo as a columnist.

I expect that Froomkin will land on his feet-- perhaps in a Better Place.

I can think of a couple of Salon staffers who could be bumped to make room for him... but I guess the less said about that, the better.

I've read the Post in recent years only because of Dan Froomkin's columns. These have been a true breath of fresh air in the fetid miasma of the neocon swamp that has become the Post Op-Ed page. Without Froomkin, there's no reason for me to continue to visit the Post site. Bye.

So people who err on the side of killing a whole bunch of people for no good reason (or are simply bloodthirsty ghouls like Krauthammer) are serious journalists.

And people who offer thoughtful analysis are unemployed.

Your list of extreme right wingers who write columns for the WAPO left out Michael Gerson, Bush's ex-chief speech writer.

This letting Froomkin go is entirely in keeping with the increasing extreme right wing tilt of the newspaper these days, it's not a surprise at all in a way.

Two of the leading Neconservatives, two, count em. And FOX New's Krauthammer, and Gerson, and Will, and on and on and on.

What a shame, what's happened to that newspaper.

Can Obama be painted a leftist socialist if he gets attacked from the Left?

Yes.

I read the headline of Mr. Greenwald's column and it didnt make much impact.

Then I saw he was referring to Dan Froomkin. My heart sank.

Why on earth would they get rid of him?

The only upside is that I feel confident he will find a new home which will be more hospitable to him.

That is just a travesty. I was just thinking (literally this morning) that with Klein and Froomkin, the Post had two of the best talents writing on politics and policy. Froomkin was the only reason I kept the shortcut to the WaPo on my "toolbar" for the last many years.

Okay, maybe this all goes back to various things like whether Froomkin free-lanced or not, but the important thing is that hopefully Froomkin's absence can help Fred Hiatt and Jackson Diehl concentrate more on providing fact-filled, carefully checked and verified, balanced opinions on a variety of subjects, and avoiding the cliches of establishmentarian hawkery and snobbery and power worship.

It's their awesome instincts for news and the pulse of the American people which keeps everyone flocking to read the Washington Post day after day after day.

Glenn Greenwald is just bitter that it's not him being fired from the Post, instead of Dan Froomkin.

Fat chance. It's not like Salon, bastion of the foolish reality-based community, will ever let any of its columnists go, at least until the flames of America literally on fire finally destroy the last bleating remnants of its liberal subscribership.

In fact, it would be just like Salon to give the unspeakably loserish Froomkin a guest column or something, thereby putting itself prominently in the limelight, massively boosting its readership, and entrenching reality-based thinking even more deeply into the unsuspecting soft tissue of the American body politic.

There are probably Greenwald regulars writing to Salon's editors even now, pledging subscriptions galore if the magazine picks Froomkin up.

When will these idiots stop throwing away their hard-earned money? Don't you know they won't shut up if you don't stop feeding them?

I guess I'm late to this story but, can anyone here tell me just what, exactly, was the Post's official reason for his termination?

Thanks.

In supporting and making possible the election of Barak Obama, the globalist corporate entity that dominates the American government and its propaganda wing, the mainstream media, accepted the reality that it could not impose on us another George W. Bush and still maintain the useful facade of popular government. Barak Obama fit the bill to a "T": someone of unique ethnic origins and masterful oratorical skills, who gave eloquent, if nonspecific, voice to the American peoples' hopes for a new beginning, a reclaiming of the American dream of liberty, peace, and prosperity. His betrayal of this promise in policy decision after policy decision has repeatedly shown for whom he is really working. His paternalistic manner in dealing with critics reveals his inflexible devotion to maintaining the ascendancy of corporations and banks, even in spite of some of their more self-destructive practices.

That an articulate and widely read critic of the hypocrisy and betrayal Mr. Obama has shown over the past few months is terminated does not surprise me, but is probably just one small step in the emerging cult of personality.