No tears, crocodile or other. I know the majoity of folks are quite young on this board so they might not know a time when politcal discourse was spirited but civil. Tip O'Neill comes to mind as a man who could fight hard for his policies but still enjoy warm relationships with his Republican foes. And Clinton- despite everything he kept working relationships with "enemies" like Bob Dole and Newt Gingrinch. I hope once this bunch has moved on we can get back to the idea that you can disagree with someone without smearing them.
And speaking of Smears, I must disagree with your defense of Ms Coulter-- certainly she is welcome to argue with the "Witches of East Brunswick (her name for them)" but does she really need to say that they are "enjoying their husbands' deaths" or call them names? They did indeed "Step into the arena" and I think it would be interesting to hear Ann Coulter talk about what she disagrees with them about. But she never does-- she calls names and smears. She even speculates that many of them were divorce bound before their husbands were killed. She's outraged that 9/11 widows would speak up about politics-- was she outraged about the steady stream of Speakers at the 2004 Republican convention who invoked their losses in the tragedy? If so, she remained silent about her outrage. Maybe she was too busy thumbing her thesaurus in preparation for her Democratic convention coverage: "....the corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie-chick pie wagons they call 'women' at the Democratic National Convention."
I know Ms Coulter lost dear friends in the terrorist attacks and I wonder how she'd respond if someone speculated graphically on the quality of Ted & Barbara Olsen's marriage before she was killed?
Updated On: 10/27/06 at 03:36 PM