Why couldn't they have fired Fred Hiatt?

You're doing the exact same thing, only vice versa. You're indicating he got fired BECAUSE of his political beliefs, and NOT for other reasons.

No. I did NOT speculate on why he got fired because -- unlike you -- I think baseless speculation is worthless.

Your first hint that I wasn't opining about the reasons should have come from the headline: "The Washington Post fires its best columnist. Why?"

Neither of us know the truth, we can only speculate.

If you can't tell the difference between speculating that someone got fired for their political views and speculation that they got fired because they used their work computer to traffic in child porn, then you're well beyond the realm of reason.

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.

I heard a rumor, that today was a very special day for you. Sincere congratulations, and may your next trip around the Sun be lazy, happy, and full of good health and wealth.

... that he done the old woman in!

What else is new? "The good die young", "nice guys finish last", and stellar journalists are fired for keeping it real. Like politics, print journalism and TV news fashion iron-clad cliques which are nearly impossible to penetrate. Krauthammer et al. are strictly middle-brow thinkers with predictable opinions that challenge no one and only drive more and more people to find information elsewhere (Like SALON, I'm happy to say).

Just as a parting shot, I encourage you guys to glance - if you haven't already - at Krauthammer's two-part endorsement of John McCain just before the election. (can you imagine, the pompous ass felt that he needed TWO columns to express his profound thoughts). In them he lists all of McCain's strengths (imaginary) and Obama's weaknesses (delusional). I'd expect that from someone who is so blinded by neocon quackery, but here is the kicker: he never mentions Sarah Palin. EVER. Here we have a candidate that made so many conservatives take pause - and even flee from the party, in some cases - when McCain made the most baffling pick for VP in election history, and Chuckie doesn't even mention her once. Either he is disingenuous or he lacks the analytic skills to be columnist. Either way, the WP is a poorer paper for firing the wrong guy....

Thanks to Salon.com, Dan Froomkin was the first "mainstream" journalist to mention my work on Bush's military records (www.glcq.com)

Back in 2000, Dave Niewart and I both participated in Table Talk's discussion of the 2000 Florida election fiasco. As a result, Niewart mentioned my Bush/AWOL stuff on his blog (Orcinus), which was by Michael Froomkin. Michael F mentioned my work on his blog (Discourse) where Dan read it -- and linked to it!

Dan was unique back in 2004 -- he was just about alone when it came to mainstream media "bloggers", and has remained pretty much unique among mainstream bloggers when it comes to reporting facts regardless of how consistent those facts are with DC beltway conventional wisdom.

Now that the WaPo has taken on the brown-noser Ezra Klein

Apropos of nothing, I saw Ezra on the Metro platform the other day looking very excited about something - same day that I saw Tony Blankley walking around near Farragut West wearing a suit every bit as grotesque as the ones I've seen him wear on McClaughlin Group.

Funny thing about every DC-famous person I've seen in public - to the person, they always have a look on their faces like they know people recognize them.

Ah, Washington's "celebrities."

It was always something of a ? how Dan Froomkin survived at WaPo being he surely is of a calibre WaPo did not deserve in terms of traffic he brought to the WaPo online site. I do recall his column was originally called 'White House Briefing' and that title ran afoul of Junior Bush era WH snares and sneers and was evidently changed out by WaPo management.

Dan Froomkin surely has been a notable current events/politics observer and I wish him greater success in the years ahead.

Dan Froomkin presented rarely seen/found points of view/reporting during the Bush/Cheney WH years and WaPo likely did not deserve his quality of work and insight.

Evolution is not being kind to the wood pulp news industry and with conduct like this on WaPo's part deservedly so.

Dan Froomkin has genuine talent and deserves a better berth.

I heard a rumor that today was a very special day for you.

Well, not exactly a rumor. Jim Montague just posted a comment about it.

I don't know what the hell it refers to; I don't want to know what it refers to.

But whatever it is, I hope it has your posterior dimples blinking like Porky Pig when he splutters, "That's All, Folks!"

Now that you're done writing that, you no doubt have plenty of time to read Glenn's post.

I wrote a letter to the editor at WaPo (letters@washpost.com), and signed out at their site.

What they were delivering to me included in large part Dan Froomkin's column. What they were getting from me was eyeball time on their ads. It's only fair that if they fail to deliver the product, I should withhold the payoff.

BTW, for some people who may not know, he's also at Nieman Watchdog.

http://blog.niemanwatchdog.org/?author=5

I promise you, there was a "GLR" here a moment ago. Probably the latest incarnation of a persona non grata.

And who's this DCLaw you keep going on about...

to bother clicking on anything at that paper (that I refuse to name) now. Froomkin was the only reason I went there at all.

Joan! Joan! Paging Joan Walsh!!!

How about it? Can you bring him on board in any way at all?