A Framing Suggestion:

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

A Fweepoidal acquaintance, in your presence, makes much of "liberal blogs" having taken a part in the "oh-so-unfair" takedown of Mrs. Guckert's little boy. How does one respond without cerebral explosion or implosion?

"So, the guy was chopped into The White House Press Room, in what you and your call "these perilous times" with an assumed name and no apparent journalistic experence. He just gets a walk in the door, something even World Net Daily could not achieve. He gets access to secret CIA documents. In fact he gets a level of executive access few have ever seen. He, almost immediately, becomes the press secretary's "goto guy", being allowed to throw off the frame and tone of the questions being asked on issues vital to the American People. A blocker, if you will. In the midst of that, he is developing websites for the furtherence of prostitution, which still is, right or wrong, illegal.

And you are exercised about this being pointed out, with evidence, to the rest of the world? Have you reconsidered your oft-offered philosophies on "moral values" or are you admitting that you adhere to a double standard, one where those of your persuasion can do no wrong?

And what do we tell the children"

Might work. ;-)

[Nimrod]

1. That's their only standard

"Those of your persuasion can do no wrong." A sub-standard is "Those NOT of your persuasion can do no right." Clinton could discover how to cure cancer with tap water and he'd be vilified, whereas * could end all life as we know it and the last remaining Republican would be standing midst the bloody remains of his family singing praises.

That's pretty much it.

Incidentally, THAT'S why my back goes up a tad whenever someone here criticizes critics of various Dem figureheads just for being critical. Unity is a wonderful and powerful thing... blind faith is an altogether different and dangerous animal.