Read the whole thing, for God's sake

Unintentional insight today in the Washington Post online into how Howard "Mistah" Kurtz puts together his media notes column. Here's an excerpt discussing the strangely synchronized disenchantment of conservatives with George Bush:

Daniel Drezner , a disenchanted Bush supporter, cites some recent criticism of the prez by other conservatives and declares:

"Funny, these are the same guys who idolized him for the first five years of his presidency. What changed, all of a sudden? Certainly not Bush, he is still acting the same way he has his entire career.

"What's changed is that after five years of presidency, the elections are finally over. It is now safe to criticise Bush, because such criticism can't possibly matter any more - it can't affect his reelection chances.

... What we're seeing now isn't just too little, too late --- it's *intentionally* too little, too late. The criticism was intentionally postponed until it no longer mattered."

Here's the problem. Drezner never said that. It was said in an excellent contribution in the comment section to his post -- Drezner himself had taken the disenchantment at face value.

So how did Kurtz get it wrong? He cut and paste from the Washington Post's Blog of the Week Andrew Sullivan (.com) (not to be confused with Time Magazine's Blog of the Year, Powerline):

CONSERVATIVE BLOGS AND BUSH: A sea-change? Dan Drezner, who actually criticized this administration when it could have made a difference (yes, he even endorsed Kerry in frustration at the incompetence of it all), notices a change in right-wing blogs. Check out the comment section. Money quote there: [quote above appears]

Notice: Sully got it right -- but Kurtz just took a quick look at Sully's slot on the Washington Post op-ed homepage, and slotted it in. Now that's some quality journalism.

UPDATE: Dan notes Kurtz's error. Which remains uncorrected.