Slightly Defending My Slight Defense of Daniel Snyder

Over at Kissing Suzy Kolber, Unsilent Majority posted a thorough takedown of my late-night semi-defense of Daniel Snyder (which also doubled as a defense of his buddy Big Daddy Drew, whose post provided the fodder for my entry).
I said what I had to say last night, so I won't post a rebuttal to the rebuttal. If you dish it, as I do, you have to be able to take it too. And when you write a defense of Daniel Snyder (however faint the praise may have been), you have to know it's ripe for mocking.
I'll say that I think part of what I was saying was misconstrued, especially the line about Cerrato being a figurehead. Of course this just didn't dawn on me. What I was saying is that I'm realizing there's no reason to complain about Cerrato, as all Redskins fans do. He's not going anywhere and even if he does, nothing will change. The fact that he has a radio show on Friday? So what. It's better he do that than start getting ideas about which bingo games to raid for new advisors.
Most of the rest of the takedown is fair, is misguided. Unsilent mentioned my status when I wrote the post (fairly inebriated and at 2:30 a.m.), which was solid of him. He also emailed me to tell me he was writing the post and accepted my summarized claim that I hate Snyder, but at least he's no Bidwell. Again, much appreciated.
The only thing I'll take exception with is the selective quoting done by Unsilent in the KSK piece. Copying and pasting somebody's elses words and mocking them is as hackenyed as it gets. I would know, I've done it many times. I don't mind that part at all. But if you're going to pull my words for the express purpose of tearing them down, at least use all of them and not just the ones that further an agenda.
He feigns disgust at the folllowing lines:

"He no longer brings in massive free agent hauls. He likes stability in his front office. He didn't go for the splashy hire."

After each of those sentences he provides a differing example, which is fine. But then the next line of mine that he quotes is:

"But at least they showed signs of growth."

That's when he goes in for the kill and understandably so. Written in that order, those sentences provide much fodder for criticism. But that's not the way it was actually constructed. The next line I wrote after "the splashy hire" wasn't, "but at least they showed signs of growth" it was:

"Those are all things that people praised him for over the past two years. They all backfired in his face and proved to be poor decisions (they could use some o-line depth, the front office needed a shakeup and Jim Zorn was bland for a reason)."

Those words were conveniently omitted in the KSK post. Here's the way the original paragraph looked:

And why has Snyder learned nothing from his experiences? He no longer brings in massive free agent hauls. He likes stability in his front office. He didn't go for the splashy hire.
Those are all things that people praised him for over the past two years. They all backfired in his face and proved to be poor decisions (they could use some o-line depth, the front office needed a shakeup and Jim Zorn was bland for a reason). But at least they showed signs of growth.

Here's how it appeared on KSK:

And why has Snyder learned nothing from his experiences? He no longer brings in massive free agent hauls. He likes stability in his front office. He didn't go for the splashy hire.
But at least they showed signs of growth.

Big difference, no?
If you're going to bash someone, at least do it fairly. It's completely disingeneous to leave out the start of that paragraph, which sets up the exasperated "at least they showed signs of growth" line. I'm pointing out that the three "good" things I mention all failed miserably. Leaving out that sentence makes it seem like I believe that "stability in the front office" should be praised. Of course it shouldn't be. It's what I spend 75 percent of the text on this blog complaining about.
Look, I can't stand Daniel Snyder. I continually wonder how long I can root for a team he runs. But that doesn't mean the Redskins are the most helpless franchise in sports. Everyone used to wonder whether Steinbrenner would kill the Yankees, remember?
The post was written more in the defense of the Redskins as a whole. When an outsider rips the Redskins, I get defensive. It's OK if me or my friends or Unsilent or the Mottrams bash Snyder, because we have a vested interest in his success or failures. But if somebody else comes in and does so, I'm throwin' down.
I can call my friend an idiot. You can't. That's just the way it is.
My biggest feat is that Dan Snyder will one day turn me against the team I love. But at least I know he ultimately shares the same hopes for the team that I do. Sure, he also cares about making money (and flaunts this endeavor too brazenly) and presides over the worst stadium in football and alienates fans and reporters, but at least he wants to win. It's because he does that I still harbor a little bit of hope that one day he'll come around.