In one sentence you say it's not an attack, in the next you admit it's a blood sport. I can handle blood sports, FRiend.
Part of what animates me is that Free Republic is, as Jim Rob is reminding us more and more often, a place where we are people on the SAME TEAM discussing how to further the Constitutional conservative movement. Now, there is plenty of room for disagreement there, but it sure would help if you could distinguish between disagreements among team members on strategy and arguments - especially personal attacks - between antagonists. Remember that we always have an audience here.
The lurkers matter. This is something I've learned well in my (relatively) short time here.
Paragraphs exist for a reason. That's why those sentences were in separate paragraphs.
To O'Donnell supporters, any criticism of her was immediately labeled an "attack" irrespective of how deeply rooted in truth and logic that criticism may have been. Put another way, any critical comment was an attack. That's wholly unhealthy to any political movement, the conservative movement included.
The reference to "blood sport" was with respect to the scrutiny ANY candidate faces in a general statewide race. It's brutal. And, to people who were more than just casual political observers - like Rove - it was plainly self-evident that O'Donnell was going to disintegrate in a general election. He was right.
"Now, there is plenty of room for disagreement there, "
If that's true, we can't be afraid to criticize conservative celebrities, even though those celebrities say the right things. Saying the right thing is only part of the political equation that leads to victory.