Beg your pardon, Mr. Grinch, but Mike was quoting from a named source. I didn't choose his citation; he did. He quoted the Phillip Elliott AP article as the source. He did not credit the blogger as the source of the words, giving Mr. Elliot's imprimatur to the blogger's words. Not even in your version of the article did those words appear in the Phillip Elliott text. Instead of offering a fair summary of what Mr. Elliott did in fact say, Mike substituted somebody else's words for Mr. Elliott's much more evenhanded version of things.
It was a complete distortion version of Mr. Elliott's article.
Should Mike have wished to quote from the Radio Address and Monkey with the President's words, the offense would have been different. I had not heard the Radio Address, and wouldn't have been in fact surprised to hear the President make such remarks.
I was very surprised top find that the AP had placed such words in Boldface, which is why I checked on the reference in the first place. Boldface is generally reserved for giving emphasis to text, and journalists know enough to source whose emphasis the boldface reflects. I was not surprised to find that Mike had added his own boldface without noting his anti-Presidential editorial emphasis. I was surprised to find that Mike had chosen to put somebody else's words into Mr. Elliott's mouth, destroy the fairly reasoned set of points that Mr. Elliott was making, and then to substitute the unsourced blogger's words as though they had come from the professional journalist. I was also not surprised to find Mike claiming blandly in the posting after your comment, that I fault him for acting this way frequently, and suggesting that such behavior is perfectly aboveboard.
Only if you want to edit Mike's poetry to fit into a collection of Liberal voices against the Right and sign his name to it.
I am disappointed that you are disappointed in me about this, Mr. Grinch. I usually find you quite objective.