Do some of those who automatically reject a writer's views, based solely on whether he agrees or disagrees with Republican policies of the moment, realize how their comments read to other people, just surfing by? Do they consider how such knee jerk reactions communicate the very worst possible image of Republicans in general, and supporters of the in group of the party in particular? Does anyone think that a totally closed-mind, whose views of personalities and issues at least appear to be driven by the interests of a particular faction of a particular party, resonates well with anyone not equally emeshed in the interests of that faction?
George Washington specifically warned against this factionalized party mindset. I would suggest that before anyone claims to be a spokesman or spokeswoman for Conservative values, they read Washington's comments, and reflect accordingly. (See Farewell Address.)
William Flax
Novak is a gloomy sort, and most of his columns are no fun to read because of this. But his knowledge of what's going on is formidable. We ignore him at our peril.
This particular column seems quite fact-oriented, and if true, it is dismaying. We cannot stick our heads in the sand about betrayals by our party's "leadership." When we do, it only invites more betrayal.