Et tu, Brute'?

In the ongoing campaign of hit pieces from the Columbian against Sen. Don Benton and Commissioner David Madore, Lew Waters commented thusly:

Lew Waters · Top Commenter · Works at Stateside Associates Best Local Politics Blog

Is that an apology?

Or justification for gutter talk?

Sounds an awful lot like Hanoi Jane Fonda's "regret" for us seeing photos of her sitting at a Communist Anti-aircraft gun, but justifies everything else she did.

A simple, "I'm sorry, I was out of line" would have sufficed, for both.

Reply · 5 · Like · Follow Post · about an hour ago

Stuart's apology was, of course, an absolute non-apology.  The Columbian, equally, sees it as another approach to keep their mob inflamed.

The leftists reading it apparently weren't thrilled by Lew violating their sense of decorum, and they let their partisan, biased angst show through, because that's their excuse for allowing their hatred of Benton and Madore to shine through.

Having set this table again by publishing Stuart's non-apology, you can imagine Brancaccio, who has no problem dishing out criticism but has a big problem taking it, responded to Lew's cogent observation thusly:

 .
 

Lou Brancaccio · Top Commenter · University of Florida

Please keep it constructive Lew.

Reply · 1 · Like· 21 minutes ago

Imagine.

Perhaps the most destructive force on the scene today, demanding that Lew Water's accurate observation apparently fails to meet HIS expectation for what is, or is not, "constructive."

Odd, Brancaccio fails to be similarly restrained when it comes to his fellow travelers comments, which have frequently come up just short of demanding execution.

One wonders: does Lou Brancaccio read his columns... before he prints them?  Or Stephanie Rices personality-driven attacks?  Or those of his soon to be late and unlamented editorial page editor?

Here's a suggestion, Mr. Brancaccio:

If you're going to apply one standard to those wise enough to disagree with your take on this (or any of the many other issues most disagree with you on) what say you apply that SAME standard to EVERYONE... even those who foolishly agree with you?

I recognize that we'd rarely hear from either Rice or Laird under such a restriction, and, of course, we can reasonably expect that Laird will be his typically spiteful self in tomorrows column, "constructive" or no.

And then what will Brancaccio say?

Do I even have to ask?