That "Party That Cried 'Wolf'" Addendum...

There's sort of an addendum to a comment I made in the article earlier today about John Boehner's admission that there's actually no immediate budget crisis.

I noted in the piece that an article I wrote for the Huffington Post in 2011 had been toned down by request of the editors.  They thought I had been too harsh in calling the Republicans on the good side of treasonous (in their blocking economic growth for the country on account of pure political expedience) and in an allusion I had made to terrorism.

I've received some questions about that occurrence. 

What I left out of the tale -- since it wasn't related to the point of the article this morning - is that one of my intentions with the 2011 article was for Democrats to take the lead on the issue.  Usually, it's been Republicans who leap to the forefront questioning the patriotism of liberal (something they've been doing for at least half a century, if not more, turning it into an art form during McCarthyism).  I thought that here was an issue that put lie to that.  Here was an issue that showed the very opposite, and that gave Democrats, liberals and progressives the opportunity to gain the better battleground position.  I knew I was just the tiniest of voices, but at lest the foundation would be set, and others could always take up the lead, big or small.

Instead, not only was I told to tone the article down, but the editors chose not to Feature it.  Now, this might sound little on the surface, but the reality is that over the previous two years, every single article I'd written had been Featured.  And that was over 100 of them.  Every one Featured.  They did let it be posted on my personal page, but being Featured makes the biggest difference in something getting a wide audience and falling through the cracks.

There's a point to all this, by the way, not just an updating of personal history.

The point is that just 13 days after not Featuring the article (that would have taken the forefront on the issue) because the editors felt calling Republicans being on the good side of treasonous was much too harsh, the Huffington Post had the following article as the banner headline on their Politics homepage --

At the time, Gov. Perry (R-TX) was running for the Republican nomination for president.  So, I get that what he said was news.  But it was all the more to the point that when having a chance to beat this to the front, and take the lead, the Huffington Post dropped the ball.

As I said earlier, the correct version of the article did get posted on Open Salon, but the readership there is paltry by comparison.  And that's not the point either.  The point is that two weeks after not featuring a liberal pointing the finger at Republicans, so that Republicans couldn't be up to their old tricks, there was a banner headline that allowed Republicans to do the very thing.

Believe me, I know well that my involvement in this was infinitesimal.  And had the article been left as is and also been Featured, it wouldn't have made one whit of difference in the world.  But you still hope that as general editorial decisions go, far better sense would prevail.  The Huffington Post usually does a very good job.  But they didn't on that day.

Yes, I know why the editors thought I was being seriously harsh in saying that Republican actions in Congress were on the good side of treasonous.  But the thing is -- it will come as no shock to hear that I think I was actually right.  And more polite than I wanted to be.  And I think history is proving that out.  And I think John Boehner's statement at the time is helping supply the evidence, your honor. 

And this is the original article that explains why.

And yes, I was annoyed.  And told them so. 

Y'know...I really don't think they cared much.  But I felt better about it...