In Joe Conason’s Journal (that’s a link to the day — without permalinks it’s not a real blog…) he defends Andrew Sullivan’s new column in Salon against readers threatening to cancel their subscriptions:
While I don’t share some writers’ obssesion with exposing Sullivan, I haven’t hesitated to expose his errors and I’ve expressed doubt about his integrity. He is actually no worse in that respect than David Horowitz or William Safire or Bill Kristol or any of the other wingers whose lies I’ve felt obliged to correct occasionally. His distortions are often awful, but they’re also rather typical of current debating tactics at his end of the spectrum. I expect that Salon’s editors will hold him to a higher standard than Sullivan requires of himself on his own Web site, and that Salon’s readers will hold him accountable, too.
It’s amusing that Conason’s blog/journal is filed (in the URL) under “bush,” a reference I suppose to the Bush-goring graphic it launched with and the premise that Joe will bedevil W. through the journal. By the same token I could see the Times filing Krugman’s column that way.