With all due respect, I'll give the points that made me come to my conclusions and see where that leads us.
Foster said Thursday on his call-in radio show that he didn't like it when the RNSC did not consult with him before selecting a candidate and he didn't think they should have given all the money to one candidate. He said he thought they should have "spread" it around. (Ahem)
I inferred from your "(Ahem)" that you were suggesting that Governor Foster was hoping to profit personally from the NRSC contributions. I think it's clear from his comments that he believed that the NRSC shouldn't have been playing favorites among Republicans. Personally, I don't think he should have been playing favorites by endorsing any of the candidates, but I wouldn't suggest that he hoped to make a personal profit. Whether you intended it as "name calling" or just criticizing his behavior, I think the way you posted that comment left the impression that you believed Governor Foster hoped for personal gain. If I misunderstood your comment, I apologize. If I understood it correctly, then I'd like you to explain how suggesting that he was wanting personal gain isn't insulting.
He has no business in public life, he has neither the temperament nor the ability. This little, post election, hissy fit is but one more example of how very petulant and unsuitable he is.
Maybe you think that by some hair-splitting you can make a statement like this about someone and not call it "name calling." Technically, you haven't called Dr. Cooksey a "name," but your comments are certainly insulting. They are insulting to the candidate, and I think they would be insulting to anyone who worked hard to support that candidate. "Unsuitable" and lacking "the temperament" and "the ability" are hardly what I would compliments to someone who has been in public service.
If the truth be known, apart from simply being a loser, that is no doubt at the heart of his pout.
Calling someone a "loser" is not "name calling?"
If either of these two cry babies cared about doing what is best for the state and the country they would be doing everything they could to defeat Landrieu.
Calling people "cry babies" is not "name calling?"
You said that you don't believe that you engaged in name calling. Do you still think that you didn't engage in name calling?
The point of my original post was that criticizing these two men is not likely to win you any points with their supporters. Criticizing them with terms like "loser" and "crybaby" is certainly not going to win their support. Their people worked very hard, and I can understand their frustration with the feeling that those outside the state chose the Republican to represent us in the runoff. While I understand their feelings, I disagree with their hesitation in supporting the only conservative remaining in the race. However, I hope I can express that disagreement without suggesting that either of these men is basically unsuitable for public life.
The race against Dr. Cooksey (and by proxy, Governor Foster) is over. I believe that the best way to handle their comments and retain their supporters is not to answer what they say and certainly not to answer it by suggesting that either is a "loser." If you still believe that saying these things about these men will win their supporters to your side and gain more enthusiastic support for our candidate, then by all means you should continue. I'll be the first to admit that my advice isn't always right.
However, you couldn't have been more wrong as to the intended meaning of my "(Ahem)". Governor Foster is a wealthy man and I have absolutely no reason to believe he would do anything dishonest. I surely hope not, I voted for the man twice. I thought his explanation about the NRSC money was disingenuous and my impression was that it had more to do with Cooksey's inability to raise campaign money rather than as a matter of principle. So I stand by that statement.
You were not wrong about my comments regarding Dr Cooksey's behavior. They were not intended to be complimentary. His behavior was deplorable, publically disresepctful to Mrs Terrell and unbecoming for a man of his age and experience. IMO, his post election conduct illustrated perfectly why he ran a distant third. If Dr Cooksey were a gentleman he would have exercised a little more discipline and refrained from making those spiteful public statements about Mrs Terrell. He should have addressed his concerns and dissatisfaction privately to Mrs Terrell not to the press.
Although I used the words "loser" and "cry babies" to describe their behavior I suppose if one were determined to find split hairs one could define that usuage as name calling. So be it. Likewise I'm sure someone, somewhere might characterize their recent comments as winning or gracious in defeat but I would not.