[Trollstomper]

"I question the motives of those who seek to continue this campaign aaginst Norquist."

I question your motives for questioning my motives.

"And if it is bad judgement, why go public? Why create a public split with these public allegations? "

For umpteenth time: because serious experience policy and opinion leaders in DC and the movement believe this is a necessary tool. Simple as that.

"For all intents and purposes, your claims about Rove are just that"

Well I don't know what is obvious to you or how, but Gaffney and any number of us actually talk to Rove and deal with people who interview him, etc, and have corespondence, etc. What we know is what we know. Unless you want to assert we are lying. Or maybe "racists and bigots" too?
Again, rather than bragging about what you don't know, why don't you keep it to yourself rather than making bizarre assertions and implied insults out of the thinning air?

[hchutch]

"For umpteenth time: because serious experience policy and opinion leaders in DC and the movement believe this is a necessary tool. Simple as that."

Yeah, sure. A necessary tool for what? Destroying a reputation?

"Again, rather than bragging about what you don't know, why don't you keep it to yourself rather than making bizarre assertions and implied insults out of the thinning air?"

So, in other words, shuit up and let a hatchet job go on - one that is NOT necessary and would arguably hurt the conservative movement by removing one of its strongest activists.

Nick Danger and Bob J both have been around for a while. I see no reason for their judgement to be questioned, and I certainly think that their arguments in this case carry merit. And I do NOT appreciate you telling me to shut up because I will not join you anti-Norquist lynch mob.

The only bizzare allegations are coming from you.