“Pretty damaging stuff,” the congressman had huffed as Republicans prepared to impeach the wayward president.

In the interests of historical perspective and full context one might have thought The Times would have pumped a sentence or two into its story about Sanford’s moral contortionism. The Times, if challenged, might offer all sorts of rationalizations for its failure to do so, but the reason that comes most readily to mind is that it fears renewed attacks from the right accusing it (horror of horrors) of liberalism.

The right uses this smear whenever someone disagrees with it, whether the subject is health care or double standards. If you really rouse the right wing’s ire, you’re a commie. Otherwise, if you merely insist on a little balance, you’re one of those unpatriotic liberals. Unpatriotic in right-wing argot means putting things in context, something The Times disdained to do yesterday.—DM