LA Times smears America's most highly decorated living serviceman
By Jeff Emanuel Posted in Anti-war liberals | Heroism | Liberals | Media | Swiftboating — Comments (36) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
...but it sure does defend John Murtha!
The LA Times, no great speaker of the truth, and no friend of America, has crossed the line. "Columnist" Rosa Brooks, in a fit of continued rage over the 2004 swiftboating* of John "I'll pander to make the whole world love us (except the 38 countries I'm pretending didn't join us on our invasion of Iraq)" Kerry, lashed out at a panel which appeared at CPAC last week to discuss "The Left's Repeated Campaign Against the American Soldier," calling participants "key" members of "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the right-wing goon squad whose defamatory insinuations helped sink John Kerry's presidential campaign."
Her column, "The lunatic right returns," continues:
What's depressing about the reemergence of the Swifties, though, is that it's symbolic of the increasing takeover of the "conservative" movement by unprincipled, right-wing extremists.
Among these "extremists" Ms. Brooks so loathes (and lumps in as a "key discredited Swift boater") is George E. "Bud" Day (pictured at right; perhaps you recognize the medal around his neck). Who is that, you ask? Well, you might remember the name if you were alive during Vietnam, or if you pay any attention whatsoever to military history. But I'll let Jason of the blog Iraq Now take it from here:
Amazing. Here's the Los Angeles Times' vaunted layers of vetting and fact-checking at work for you: Bud Day's not even a swift boater**Of course, the Los Angeles Times can't be bothered to tell the reader who Bud Day is, and what he's actually done.
So I will.
And he does, posting a portion of the unbelievable service record of Colonel Day, who earned "nearly 70 decorations and awards of which more than 50 [were] for combat" (and one was the Medal of Honor), and whose career included 5,000 flying hours, and combat duty in WWII, in Korea, and in Vietnam. After being shot down in 1967, Day suffered as a POW for 67 months (that's five and one-half years, for the mathematically challenged), with a two week "respite" after escaping from the North Vietnamese, during which, despite serious injury, he evaded the enemy all the way back into South Vietnam, "earning the distinction of being the only prisoner to escape from North Vietnam" - only to be recaptured and imprisoned until March 1973.
Read on . . .
The true embodiment of the motto "Return with Honor," the US Air Force named their SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape) school building after Day. [Note: Yes, that is yours truly standing in front of it in the years-old photo at right.]
As Jason says, "This is the man who LA Times columnist Rosa Brooks calls an 'unprincipled, right-wing extremist'."
But Ms. Brooks isn't done with the nauseating spin and slander:
It's not hard to visualize the right-wing talking points that will emerge from this [panel]. The Swift boaters will be dusting off their 2004 scripts and reaching back still further to dredge up their Vietnam-era notes. Expect to see all the old myths revived: The antiwar left spits on returning troops and gives aid and comfort to the enemy. Oh, John Murtha, why do you hate our brave troops?
I would respond, but Jason has words, where I only have rage:
Again, this lazy-[redacted] nonthinker doesn't bother to buttress her reckless assertions with facts. For example, the attempt by the left to cover up spitting incidents and dismiss them as 'urban legend' has already been quite handily dispatched.[...]
Oh, and I can't say that John Murtha hates our troops. He just wants them to lose, by stripping them of needed funding in the heat of battle - funding which translates to such minor items as equipment, ammunition, reinforcements, reserves, and food.
Rosa Brooks is nothing but a small-minded runt of a writer, who, in the process of disparaging a panel entitled "The Left's Repeated Campaign Against the American Soldier" manages to serve up - drumroll, please - an ignorant smear campaign against America's most decorated living serviceman.
And shame on the editorial page directors who let this tripe slip by.
The Los Angeles Times should publish a retraction and apology to Bud Day.
[emphasis added]
Absolutely correct. If the mere act of running a Senate campaign based on national security issues against a (Democrat) Vietnam veteran was enough to create the firestorm of media and politician condemnation that it did, then this willful slandering of a true American hero - who was both a POW and a Medal of Honor recipient - deserves nothing less than a full condemnation from every politician who actually cares about America and about those who have served, and who continue to serve, the most benevolent, most free, and most righteous nation this world has ever seen. Ms. Brooks not only needs to issue a full, prompt, and humble apology, but she also deserves to be fired by the LA Times -- immediately.
If the Times has an ounce of conscience, they will disavow Ms. Brooks's comments immediately, if they do not go further (as they should) and remove her from the payroll. Furthermore, Senator Kerry and Representative Murtha need to repudiate this slander of a fellow Vietnam veteran - as does every other Democrat politician who claims to care about America and her troops (and for whom Ms. Brooks claims to speak).
The clock is ticking. We are waiting. Surely the Left will defend a veteran and a real hero (who does not share their political views) as quickly, and with as much gusto, as they will a less-distinguished one of their own.
Surely they will repudiate this hackish attempt to marginalize non-Liberal servicemen and to ridicule the idea that the Left would ever slander the troops, which consisted (in typical lefty fashion) of a slandering of the most highly-decorated living American serviceman.
Surely they will do the right thing in this situation.
Won't they?
*Per Dan McLaughlin: "Using one's own words and actions against them."
*Jason does point out later that "[t]his is not a huge factual error, as Day DID appear in a Swift Boat ad during the 2004 election. Day also heads an organization called The Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation that a lot of the swiftboaters joined. They didn't join because not because Day was a lunatic, though. They joined because he's Bud Day. You won't find anyone more respected among veterans - real veterans - and advocates for veterans, than Bud Day. Anywhere."
...it is the President who salutes.
'Nuff said.
I have copied-and-pasted your comment and that of Socrates onto a Word doc just so that I can keep it for future reference.
Having never served in the military per se, I don't know a whole lot about the Medal of Honor or other medals.
I am sure proud of the fact that Col. Day considers himself a conservative. It makes me even prouder of the fact that I'm a conservative.
Who are the liberals' heroes? Cindy Sheehan? Molly Ivins?
Besmirch Not Thy Betters. A snippet:
It would be as difficult, and as fruitful, to attack Mother Theresa for harlotry as to attack his integrity for a quick political score. As she shunned both lucre and carnality, the implication that she used the latter to gain the former would expose the one making the charge for transparent malice. Those awarded the Medal of Honor are accorded, unlike all other citizens, a free pass similar to hers with regard to being a judge of character, at least character in military service, in no small part because they define it.
--
See the Academy
to say about this other than that woman is a leftist pig.
Bud Day is an amazing man. Hubby thinks so very highly of him and just hangs on his every word every time he has the opportunity to hear him speak.
Sadly, our country will never grasp what the Bud Days, Gail Halvorsens, Joe Jacksons, and scores of other heroes have done to keep this country strong and free. And sadly, I don't know that our young soldiers, sailors, and airmen that are doing the same today will ever be appreciated for the incredible sacrifice they have made on behalf of all. Even leftist pigs like Rosa Brooks.
_____________________________________________________
The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas-a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated.-Reagan
From:
Letter From MOH Recipient Col. Bud Day
http://www.nopunditintended.com/2004/08/letter_from_moh_recipient_col_bu...
excerpt:
Until Lt. John O' Neil, himself a Swifboat commander, spoke out before the 1972 elections against Kerry's outright deceptions, there was no one from the Swiftboat scene that could contradict Kerry's self serving lies. I was a POW of the Vietnamese in Hanoi in 1971, and I am aware that the testimony of John Kerry, the actions of Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden, and the radical left; all caused the commies to conclude that if they hung on..they would win. North Vietnamese General Bui Tin commented that every day the Communist leadership listened to world news over the radio to follow the growth of the anti-war movement. Visits to Hanoi by Jane Fonda and Ramsey Clark gave them confidence to hold in the face of battlefield reverses. The guts of it was that propaganda from the anti-war group was part of their combat strategy. While the Commies were hanging on, innumerable U.S. Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Air Foce members were being killed in combat. Every battle wound to Americans after Kerry's misdirected testimony is related to Kerry's untruthfulness. John Kerry contributed to every one of these deaths with his lies about U.S. atrocities in Vietnam. He likewise defamed the U.S. with our allies and supporters. His conduct also extended the imprisonment of the Vietnam Prisoners of War, of which I was one. I am certain of at least one POW death after his testimony, which might have been prevented with an earlier release of the POWs. My friend and room mate Senator John S. McCain denounced the Swiftboat video by John O'Neil. I have a different take on the Swiftboat tape and disagree with my good friend John.
That piece is clearly labelled "Op-Ed", so it's not fair to attribute its views to the LA Times. Your subject line, opening line, and some of the text, are misleading in that respect.
There are three types of newspaper columnists. There are those who have their submissions accepted and published, there are those who have a regularly appearing feature and are paid by productivity, and there are those who are on permanent staff with the newspaper.
Ms. Brooks is the latter. See the bottom of the column if that's in doubt. Oh, and even if she wasn't, a paper's responsible for what it prints.
-Jeff (a columnist)
Jeff,
Newspapers, and the LA Times in general are loosing readership. I'm one of those readers that don't buy the paper. I read the few bits that I am interested in on line, and look at the Fry's electronic ad ether there or at a site that experts it.
I don't get excited by what appears in the LAT anymore, it's good fish wrapper.
_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!
Ms. Brooks,
Your article "The Lunatic Right Returns" is absolutely shameful. Besides getting your facts incorrect (Col. George Day was never a member of a Swift Boat unit, among others), you then slander a group of veterans who have given their all in service to this country. Col. Day, for example, is a Medal of Honor recipient. Mary Jane McManus's husband was a POW during Vietnam. And Carlton Sherwood served with distinction as a Marine during Vietnam. None were 'Swifties.'
But then you go further. You seem to act as if these heroes have no right to speak up on their views regarding the current war in Iraq. You say that:
"Remember Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the right-wing goon squad whose defamatory insinuations helped sink John Kerry's presidential campaign?"
I get it. It's OK for John Kerry to run on his miniscule (and misleading) record of service, but when people actually pose questions regarding that service record, we're led by you to believe that they are hit squads? I praise John Kerry for the fact that he went to Vietnam, but there are legitimate questions as to how he garnered three Purple Hearts in four months without barely a scratch on him and not a single hour of hospitalization. Following his return home, he acted in a manner which should be disgraceful for any member of the military, comparing our troops to the armies of Genghis Khan and accusing them of being murdering rapists. He went to Paris on his own to 'negotiate' with the North Vietnamese. Seeing as how he was still a member of the Naval Reserves at the time, his actions in 'negotiation' serve as enough reason for him to have been dishonorably discharged, if not tried for treason. (And, no, I'm not acting out my own fantasies-if you look up the list of court-martialable offenses in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, you will find that in there).
These men and women, though, simply ask questions, and it doesn't matter how long or glorious their service record may be-you will trash them until you can trash them no more in order to score political points of the cheapest kind. From this veteran's perspective, you should be displaying something which very few journalists do-shame. Remember the way that the Left reacted after the campaign between Saxby Chambliss and Max Cleland? Of course you do. While Chambliss went over the line in some areas, his questions were legitimate, and yet people tried to paint him as evil for calling any part, word, or thought of a military veteran into question.
Yet let that veteran be on the other side, and you yourself will try to run them over while they are on the tracks. Next time, try to be less hypocritical. Critique them on the facts, if you will. That is fine by me. But leave the slanders out of it. You degrade yourself, your paper, and our veterans in the process.
J. Nicholas Haynes
Former Fire Controlman 3rd Class, USN, 1999-2005
Fides non in bonus intentions , tamen in bonus factum
For more common sense conservatism, visit the Show Me Conservatism blog.
I served 22 months in Vietnam. I served 20 years in the Regular Army. without reading more than one paragraph of the Swift Boaters allegations, I Independently studied every single document which John Kerry or the DOD released to the public, including his officer fitness reports. Being very familiar with the "damning with faint praise" techniques used during that era to rate substandard officers, here are my conclusions:
1. The So-called "official" navy record of kerrys alleged most heroic action during his two weeks or so in combat was an after action report conveniently written by Kerry himself when the duty officer who should have been present to write it was called elsewhere and Kerry took that opportunity to falsify the record of what really happened.
2. Kerry deserved none of his purple hearts-at least one of them was given for a minor injury caused by friendly fire. I know of not one single officer with whom I served who would have applied for or accepted a purple heart under those circumstances.
3. Every single officer fitness report shows him to be a self-serving incompetent who was too dangerous and dishonest to lead men in combat.
That is why I proudly became a contributor to the swift boat effort to defeat Kerry. I am a firm supporter of John McCain then and now, but he did disappoint me with his failure to research the Kerry issue completely. On the other hand I do understand his reluctance to publicly condemn someone who, on the surface, was a fellow Vietnam Vet, and a fellow Senator. I felt the same reluctance before I independently did the research for about three months.
The proof is in the endless, loud assertions of the heros who happen to be Democrats. Often it's phrased as "how dare you attack a decorated hero" and then the term "chickenhawk" is flung around.
Starting from the premise that by the natural laws of the Cosmos it is impossible for a Republican or anyone remotely connected to the party to be heroic, this type of combat veteran is at best ignored or more usually heaped with filth. Oliver North would be a good example.
Contradiction or hypocrisy are not really the issue, the issue is diseased brains of which an additional symptom is calling normal people lunatics.
Being of unstable, even volatile condition, it's almost understandable that such degenerate creatures would explode when the main reason, the created identity, of the shadow of the man they were hoping would help disgrace and damage America, was stripped of the mirage that hid the inner void of his person. No one wants to be reminded they're dumb enough to vote for whatever cardboard cut out the other schizo's nominate.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
and got an automatic response thanking me for my post. She says she's "too busy" to read all her e-mail, but yadda,yadda,yadda.
The LAT has become a sinking stone in the LA news market, and it's days are numbered. I give it five years before it goes belly up, largely because of numbnuts like Brooks.
Seems to be the lefts gameplan as they retreat ever further from reality.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Jeff, I didn't even read your article. I'm sure it's a fine piece of work, but I didn't need to. Frankly, none of us needed to. Because, sad to say, we've seen all this before.
Rosa Brooks didn't care to get her story right about Bud Day, and neither did the LA Times.
Let me repeat that: One of America's signature newspapers and one of its featured columnists apparently are quite comfortable with just letting fly on an American military hero in print.
I don't think this was a mistake. But, if it was, I suspect that neither Brooks, nor the LA Times editorial staff, nor the readership audience that both target, care.
Bud Day is a military man. As such (and I'm projecting the suspected unspoken thoughts of Brooks and the LAT braintrust here), he's per se suspect. His "valor" is of no significance. Couple that with his support of Republicans and conservatives, and he now becomes unclean. Thus, he deserves whatever gets said about him and loses any claim to be respected. Regardless of that tinkly thing around his neck.
We've seen all of this before. Again, and again, and again.
I must admit, I'm a little conflicted by this. Jeff, I hope I'm not leaving the wrong impression here. Disgusting articles like Brooks' need to be challenged, vigorously and constantly. The LAT should feel the same level of heat over this that the WaPo did over Toles' cartoon and Arkin's speaking from his heart.
But, we shouldn't expect anything to change. Arkin's still at washingtonpost.com, and Toles is just as firmly ensconsed on the WaPo editorial page as ever. Brooks had the chance to see all the furor over previous military bashing/slighting pieces by the MSM. Yet she went ahead and wrote this anyway. And the LAT editorial board let it be printed.
We can only conclude that Brooks enjoyed writing this piece and the LAT liked what it said. Apparently the LAT leaders have decided that people who are ready to talk/read trash about American military heroes are the kinds of people it wants to market their paper to. That makes them different folks from you and I. But, that's just the way it is.
Ok, this is turning into a bit of stream-of-consciousness. (I feel a diary entry coming on). I applaud Jeff for unloading on Brooks and the LAT.
But, we really shouldn't expect anything to change. They're not listening over there. We should accept that sad but apparently true fact.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Look at Bud Day swiftboating Kerry in the Swiftvote website:
http://www.swiftvets.com/article.php?story=20041027075323715
Bud Day compared Kerry to traitor Benedict Arnold, and accused him of "outright perjury".
And to bring up the medals around a person's neck in order to exonerate him from attack is hypocrisy, because medals don't don't stop conservatives to relentlessly attack Jack Murtha, who also has medals around his neck.
Its wrong to compare Kerry to General Arnold. General Arnold was a great hero of the revolutionary war until he was attacked anonymously by Pennsylvania's governor Reed. John Kerry was never a hero.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
And you justify his actions implying that a Governor set him up? Interesting.
Congress said that
Even George Washington demonstrated thats what he believed.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Lee Edwards, A conservative historian from the Heritage Foundation, wrote a book about Arnold titled "A Tale of Two Patriots", calling Arnold what he was: A traitor, and justly crediting with being a hero before turning traitor.
Check out Edwards' summary: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16787
Encarta encyclopedia says:
Benedict Arnold), American military leader, who distinguished himself during the first phase of the American Revolution ), but later betrayed the American cause.
Encyclopedia Brittanica did not need more than 5 wordsd to describe his life:
American army officer and traitor.
And I could find many, many more history books stating he was a traitor.
He was a hero first.
Kerry never was a hero just a traitor.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
There is no legitimate record that would indicate Kerry was anything but a coward who took the first flight home with all of 3 bandaids to his credit. Then, he became a traitor. Now he is a coward, traitor and, thanks to GWB, a LOSER!
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
You must be referring in part to a false claim by Dr. Louis Letson, who said he treated Kerry for that injury, but there is documentation of Letson EVER treating Kerry.
Letson also spoke on hearsay in his affidavit, meaning he didn't see anything;but that “the crewman with Kerry told me there was no hostile fire, and that Kerry had inadvertently wounded himself with an M-79 grenade.” but the two crewmen who were with Kerry that day deny ever talking to Letson.
Also a crewman who was in the boat right behind Kerry said ""There was a lot of firing going on, and it came from both sides of the river,".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21239-2004Aug21.html
These and more Swiftboat lies can be read in factcheck.org, an organization that uncovers both right and left wing lies, and that said that Navy records and witness that contradict the Swiftboaters, who were paid by a Republican.
didn't fool enough of the people even once of the time. However, I am sure he takes some comfort in the fools he fooled.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
John Kerry's own statement that he met with the enemy in Paris, while same enemy was killing Americans in SE Asia,
is all one needs to know about John Kerry.
" I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh's points it has been stated time and time again,"
Read the whole testimony here.
As for factcheck and the Washington Post articles, John Kerry has never released all his military records to the general public so I don't know how these sources could claim they have reliable information. There is one reason that could explain why a person running for the highest position in our government
would not want to release their military record. Someone thought it would cost them more votes than they would gain.
I thank God every day for the bravery of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in coming forward to save this great nation
again in 2004, and for every person(democrat, independent, Republican, or just concerned citizens) who donated the funds to spread their message thru out our country.
And to bring up the medals around a person's neck in order to exonerate him from attack is hypocrisy, because medals don't don't stop conservatives to relentlessly attack Jack Murtha, who also has medals around his neck.
That's comparing the triumph of climbing a flight of stairs to that of climbing Mt. Everest barefoot.
Kerry did commit perjury.
Kerry was responsible for extending Col. Day's stay as a POW. He is a traitor, a liar, a pompous buffoon, and should receive only our contempt.
Jack Murtha is just a small, corrupt ex-Marine, and there is reason to doubt that his medals were actually earned. Murtha got his for falling asleep in a ditch in battle. Bud Day got his medals for risking his life in conspicuous valor above the call of duty. Those three standards: risk of life, conspicuous valor, and above the call, are not just words, they are three levels of heroism that Bud Day has displayed that Jack Murtha never will.
--
See the Academy
Jack Murtha certainly does not appear to be supporting his country, as he works tirelessly to give America's enemies what they want; another American defeat.
To just mention somebody's medals is not enough. You do good in cherrypicking honored veterans, separating anti-Iraq war Democrats like Murtha from Republicans such as Day, in order to make your point.
The subject of this diary is Bud Day's treatment at the hands of Rosa Brooks and the LA Times. What say you about that?
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
...besides the fact that they served in Vietnam. Any?
And it was Ms. Brooks who "cherrypicked" Day, making the giant mistake of including him in the group she was railing against.
Do you have any ability, whatsoever, to simply say that her treatment of him was wrong? Any?
John Murtha is sitting here trying to find various ways to deny our troops in a battlezone the necessary supplies they need to fight.
I don't care if somebody's pro-war or anti-war, it's beyond the point. When you do what Murtha tried to do, you lose any respect you might otherwise be due.
You can't compare Murtha to Day -- and it's not because one now opposes the Iraq War (after having voted for it)`and one supports it. It's because Bud Day never worked to deny soldiers in combat things like body armor.
Bud Day wasn't and isn't. One is in Congress, the other isn't. One is a Medal of Honor awardee, the other isn't.
Johnt's basic rule # 7, when making comparisons first sort out the differences.
The primary criticism of Murtha has been on policy. Allowing for military service he has advocated policies which can be construed as nothing else than defeat, which is no way to end a war, regardles of how you feel about it. Inevitably this takes some of the luster off his past. " War hero advocates defeat" doesn't quite cut it as an approach or headline.
"to mention somebody's medals is not enough", you said. But that mop flops both ways. Kerry is the one, and with the guidance of perennial loser Bob Shrum, who was running as a war hero, as a lieutenant formerly in the Navy. Recall, they totally emphasized it. "to mention somebody's", etc and quite so!
Given the above, and I'd be happy to add more, your comment about cherrypicking is much misplaced and ill advised.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
even got temporarily banned for insinuating that those without service ribbons ought not insult the service record of those who have them in abundance. But the moment Murtha embraced Code Pink publicly, those miserable excuses for human beings who have spent the last three years protesting greeting our war wounded outside Walter Reed with war protests, all that went out the window. What virtues Murtha possessed several years ago, namely concern for service personnel and an intimate knowledge of military affairs, have long since disappeared, as evidenced by the aforementioned lovefest w/ Code Pink and his repeated misstatements about publicly available information on the present conflict. I will respect COL Day until the end of my days. John Murtha managed to forfeit his virtually inalienable entitlement to a similar esteem.
John "I'll pander to make the whole world love us (except the 38 countries I'm pretending didn't join us on our invasion of Iraq)" Kerry
Don't forget that he also promised to "capture and kill the terrorists wherever they are". That simple statement implies violating the sovereignty of all 60 nations where Islamist extremists are know to have meaningful operations.
--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.
Really, her entire premise is just absurd -- that this somehow represents the conservative movement embracing a lunatic right-wing fringe. There is such a thing as the lunatic right-wing fringe...but this simply isn't it.
If anybody's embracing a lunatic fringe, it's the left -- doing such things as canceling nationally televised debates because of pressure by its nutcases, among other things we all know.
But her last paragraph reveals so much. She writes:
All this is bad news for the conservative movement, which will only become more marginal if it continues to embrace its lunatic fringe. But it's probably good for progressives, who stand to gain the most from conservatism's self-destruction.
Really, Mizzz Brooks? I'm guessing that you'd like to see "conservatism's self-destruction" and something that would be "good for (ahem) progressives" (she gives herself away with that term).
That being the likely case, why write such a scathing column? Why not just let the lunatic fringe destroy the conservative movement rather than tip it off to its impending doom? Your fellow progressives would be upset with you, knowing that you were the one who helped mainstream conservatives realize that their movement -- which you all hate -- was being hijacked and sunk by nutcases like, well, Bud Day.
That any literate adult would attack Bud Day by name, under any circumstances, ever. Nobody has absolute moral authority in my book, but here's a guy who has more than probably any living man.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
He is owed, in perpetuity.
It would be as difficult, and as fruitful, to attack Mother Theresa for harlotry as to attack his integrity for a quick political score.
--
See the Academy