If you're not reading Dan Froomkin every single day, you really really should be.

[WilliamPitt]

This is a link for his Mon-Fri online Washington Post articles:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html?hpid=topnews

That page should be part of the main course in your daily news meal. It is simply priceless in it's content and analysis.

Sprinkle a little Josh Marshall salt on top:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

...and you've got one hell of a feast.

:toast:

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. Best thing that ever happened to Josh...

Was getting frozen out of Washington DC.

[grasswire]

2. Froomkin, TPM and DU are my daily read

Thanks for the reminder. I particularly have always appreciated the fact that Froomkin values the blogosphere.

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

5. Mine too. n/t

[ProgressiveFool]

12. Don't forget Glenn Greenwald

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

[pat_k]

14. A big kick for GG!

[H2O Man]

3. He is one

of the outstanding journalists of this era. I think that he has provided some of the most interesting and important reporting that I've had the pleasure to read in the recent past, and I definitely make a point of reading his articles.

Just as we have reason to point out the weaknesses in the media, it is important to make note of the strengths. Thank you.

Nominated.

[underpants]

4. Let me add this-The Wisdom of Doubt part VII

The part about the "Social contract" and the history of fundamentalist battling with it (caring for the poor is liberal) was new to me.

http://www.mahablog.com/category/religion/wisdom-of-doubt/

I emailed her-Barbara O'Brien- and not only did she respond promptly she said she is working on making it a book.

Good reading. You can find the other parts by googgling Wisdom of Doubt

[Lilith Velkor]

6. Go Froomykins!

Mad props, and a K & R.

[Oilwellian]

7. Wow! That was great. :D

Froomkin brings what little dignity there is to the Washington Post. I've bookmarked his page and will become a regular reader. I already am a regular at Josh Marshall's site and if I may add Juan Cole...he's a must read if you want the real scoop out of Iraq.

[WilliamPitt]

8. Check out his last few, too

Especially the one from yesterday:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/07/18/BL2007071801472.html

That's the one which motivated me to post this thread. The link flipped to today's new Froomkin piece as I posted.

[malaise]

9. He's very good n/t

[WilliamPitt]

10. .

[bleever]

11. Very happy to send this to the Greatest page.

Thanks, Will.

[pat_k]

13. Too bad Fromkin is apparently happy to accept "off the table."

Given his analyses over the years, one would expect him to challenge the leadership's impeachophobia.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/07/03/BL2007070301366_pf.html">Obstruction of Justice, Continued
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Tuesday, July 3, 2007

. . .The Framers, ever sensitive to the need for checks and balances, recognized the potential for abuse of the pardon power. According to a Judiciary Committee report drafted in the aftermath of the Watergate crisis: "In the convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to 'pardon crimes which were advised by himself' or, before indictment or conviction, 'to stop inquiry and prevent detection.' James Madison responded:

"f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty. . . .

"Madison went on to contrary to his position in the Philadelphia convention, that the President could be suspended when suspected, and his powers would devolve on the Vice President, who could likewise be suspended until impeached and convicted, if he were also suspected."

Impeachment is off the table for congressional Democrats. But the political toll of Bush's choice could still be considerable. Besides Iraq, corruption was probably the one issue that most hurt Republicans in last year's election. And what is more corrupt than using the powers of the presidency for personal benefit?

Back in 2005. . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/07/06/BL2005070601211_pf.html">The Impeachment Question
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Wednesday, July 6, 2005

. . .Nevertheless, could there be anything that 42 percent of Americans agree on that the media care about so little?. . .

But the jaw-dropper was that 42 percent said they would favor impeachment proceedings if it is found that the president misled the nation about his reasons for going to war with Iraq.

Zogby noted: "While half (50%) of respondents do not hold this view, supporters of impeachment outweigh opponents in some parts of the country.. . .

Shailagh Murray of The Washington Post made the poll results the third item in the paper's Sunday politics column: "Even the pollster couldn't believe his eyes. 'It was much higher than I expected,' John Zogby said of the 42 percent. . . .

"By comparison, in October 1998, as the House moved to impeach President Bill Clinton over the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, a Zogby poll found that 39 percent of voters supported the House action, while 56 percent opposed it. . . .

"Zogby said the hypothetical question 'reveals just how badly divided this country is over the war,' but also that people may be more comfortable with the idea of throwing a president out of office. . .

[WilliamPitt]

16. Reporting the facts is acceptance?

[pat_k]

17. No. But the opinion in the following sentence is.

". . .But the political toll of Bush's choice could still be considerable." reflects the assumption that impeachment is outside the realm of possibility.

[WilliamPitt]

18. "could be" isn't "will be"

"will be" would constitute an advocated opinion. "could be" is nothing more or less than the simple truth of the matter.

[pat_k]

19. The assumption that impeachment is outside the realm of possibility is. . .

. . .in the word "But. . ." The sentence is a statement that the "political toll of Bush's choice could still be considerable" even though impeachment ain't happening.

Pelosi's declaration that impeachment is "off the table" doesn't make it so, but Fromkin does not, in any way, shape, or form, challenge the belief that Pelosi's "off the table" = "never gonna happen" (an equation that is simply not true).

[Pachamama]

15. I like that meal....I just make sure I have a side order of Will Pitt & Truthout too!

Yummy.... :9