I would be a lot more willing to stomp on the throats of Fineman, Carville, Oliphant, Begala, et al., for standing by their friend Don Imus, if I hadn't seen lefty bloggers do the exact same thing during l'Affaire Marcotte last month (interestingly, Marcotte's former boss, John Edwards, was one of the few Democrats who said he felt Imus was entitled to a second chance). Hell, I'd have done the same thing, if one of my friends was in the same position. There is a time for saying difficult truths to a person you care about, and there is a time to stand shoulder-to-shoulder against the onslaught.

It's human nature, and it doesn't matter if your friend or loved one is a racist, an anti-Semite, an anti-immigrant, or an anti-Catholic bigot (and yes, I have had friends and relatives who fit in each of those categories; I don't force potential friends to take political tests, I just want them to take that s*** somewhere else). If a person is truly your friend, your first instinct will be to deny that bigotry is what defines them, then attack their more outspoken opponents (as Imus' buddies are now doing with Sharpton, and Marcotte's allies did with Bill Donahue), even make farcical arguments that what they said is "satirical" or a "joke."

But Imus is not my friend. Calling the Rutgers players, "nappy-headed hos" wastn't an isolated incident, and each of his Beltway Friends knew that. If they wanted to be a true friend to him, to give their loyalty to him some meaning, they had plenty of opportunities in the past to sit him down and tell him that his shtick isn't acceptable, and that it will get him into a lot of trouble one day. But apparently, Carville, Oliphant and the others didn't.

UPDATE: MSNBC axes Imus.