Jer,

You'll have to excuse me for not replying sooner.  I wasn't ducking your invitation to respond, I was out of town for the last few days.  I suppose there's really not much left to be said on the Vick issue, the legal system has more or less sorted his situation out.  Needless to say, I wouldn't trade places with him...it won't be easy serving jail time, losing a lucrative career and being thought of as a pariah.  But I wouldn't go as far as saying I have much sympathy for him.  His willful acts of cruelty caused his downfall.  He was a very talented football player and seemed destined for stardom.  It's too bad he couldn't have put his free time and money to better use.

On the Imus issue, my point was not to suggest that he should have been fired sooner for saying something even more offensive than what he got fired for saying.  I was simply noting that Imus had a roster of beltway insiders who chose this opportunity to turn their backs on him.  It seemed a rather self-serving and dubious opportunity for these people to abandon ship given some of the comments they actually tolerated.  In this era of political correctness, people are bending over backwards to take offense over the most insignificant comments.  Do I think Imus' beltway pals should have condemned his remarks about Hillary Clinton?  No.  And I don't think they should have condemned those remarks if he had directed them at Laura Bush, Nancy Reagan or Rush Limbaugh.  I believe that people should vote with their feet...if you don't like what you're hearing on the Don Imus program (and I certainly didn't), change the channel...there are literally hundreds of entertainment choices on the radio airwaves, no one has a gun to your head saying you must listen to the Don Imus program (and thank God for that).  If he got canned because his ratings were in the tank, fine.  But I suspect Sharpton threatened Imus' advertisers and the advertisers chose to cave in to Sharpton's shakedown tactics rather than deal with nuisance lawsuits and negative publicity.  You may disagree, but Al Sharpton is a hell of a lot more than a simple Fox News Channel straw man designed to publicly torpedo the liberal position on issues. 

With regard to the Simpson trial, I think we're pretty much on the same page...with a few minor interpretive disagreements.  I believe that Fuhrman told Marcia Clark about the tapes.  Then Clark, believing that the defense would never be able to get the tape in, proceeded to call Fuhrman to testify.  However, once Ito improperly allowed Bailey to get the irrelevant/inflammatory question and tape into evidence, Clark tripped over herself to sell out Fuhrman, pretending she'd been sandbagged.  If she really wanted to distance herself from one of the detectives, she should have chosen Phil Vanatter...after all, he was the guy who took blood evidence home with him. 

But Jer, I have to say you disappoint me when you play dumb about the DNC talking points.  I've read some of your posts, and I know you're a lot smarter than that.  If anyone is sneaky about disseminating talking points to willing mouthpieces in the media, it's the DNC.  Just look at the roster of "mainstream" media members.  How is it that so many party operatives have landed positions as "objective" journalists?  Holy Dan Rather, Batman, where do I start?  George Stephanopoulis and Andrew "son of Mario" Cuomo on ABC.  Chris Matthews was a speechwriter for Tip O'Neill and Jimmy Carter.  Tim Russert worked for Moynihan.  Maria Shriver, anyone?  Douglas Kennedy?  These are just a few examples of the many partisan Democrats who have taken up positions in the mainstream media.  Each one has parroted DNC talking points presented as objective news...and has done so with very little cynicism or scrutiny.  You hear it in news stories...isn't a little strange that dozens of mainstream news organizations used the same word (gravitas) to describe Dick Cheney's contribution to the 2000 Bush Campaign?  How about the endless descriptions by Democrats and the media of Sandy Berger (a treasonous crook) as merely "sloppy".  How long did it take for the DNC and the "mainstream" media to concoct the pathetic "botched joke" explanation for Kerry's willful disparaging of American troops?  And how long did it take Keith Olbermann to go off the rails when reasonable people didn't buy that lame excuse?

I don't remember Rush Limbaugh saying what you indicated he said about Waco or about the former Senate Majority Leader.  You seem like an honorable person, so I'll take your word for it.  While I agree with much of what Rush Limbaugh says, I speak for myself...and he speaks for himself.  We all have better things to do with our lives than to constantly wring our hands over what someone on our side of the aisle said about a particular issue.  I'm an individual, I speak for myself.  Rush Limbaugh speaks for himself.  Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell speak/spoke for themselves (and for the congregation members who permitted these men to speak for them).  I'm not going to apologize for what they may or may not have said.  Nor should I.  I'm sure you wouldn't like it if I suggested you should condemn something that Al Franken, Jesse Jackson, Bill Maher, Dick Durbin or Keith Olbermann said recently.  Surely they don't speak for you.  If you want to endorse it or condemn what they say on particular issues, that's your business.

Anyway, Jer.  I think we've reached some common ground.  We certainly won't agree on everything, but I appreciate the compliment you gave me.  I return the compliment to you.  You have a thoughtful and respectful way of getting your point across.  I may not like everything that you say, but you have the class and the decency to speak your piece directly and without ad hominem attack.  I'm looking forward to future clashes.