"

et tu JamesMLane?? I was always told you were the persuasive one because of your cool calm reasoned responses and up until now I had no reason to doubt this and have always accorded you the respect of analyzing your arguments and either agreeing or disagreeing.

But you both shock and surprise me with a personal attack in your very fist sentence. To suggest that I'm some knee-jerk reactionary spoling for a fight with the left wing cabal is to caricature me in a grossly distorted way. I

'm here to remove POV. Period. Now, it is acknowledged by you and others that there are currently a preponderance of liberals in here doing the editing, although no one until you would be willing to admit that there was a left-wing cabal and a sinister one at that!  
(Remember, you can't say you were 'just joking' because, as we've learned from the liberal editors of the Ann Coulter piece, unless you SPECIFICALLY say 'I was joking' when you make your statment, it means you're as serious as AIDS- so I thank you for that illuminating revelation. It is duly noted.)

Anyway, it stands to reason that most of the POV I will encounter is going to be coming from the left. Do you dispute that or do you think this Karl Rove article is filled with right wing hyperbole?

As for your arguement - ""we have to interrupt his biography to go off on a side excursion, an article-within-an-article that discusses the subject he addressed..."" I can only say McCain...Black Baby Rumor...see above. lol! 

I find it hard to believe you can make that arguement with a straight stroke. It is PRECISELY that tit for tat meandering that is the HALLMARK of Ann Coulter and Karl Rove articles. I wish you'd use your persuasive powers to address the McCain push poll incident and Ann Coulters alleged love for terrorists instead of cherry-picking it in a realm where Rove might actually be vindicated.

So, I reject your argumentation for now. In fact, I've understood that Move-On's petition may have been specifically what Rove was referring to. Therefore to omit this information would be a deliberate attempt to leave that quote hanging out there and thus tantamount to POV by default.

And I think one 911 family group comments deserves another. Or, if you like, we can just use the conservative 911 family group's statements. Since we  don't want to make this article 'book-length' do we? 

Here's my bottom line: What's good for the goose is good for the gander. And what I've seen here since day one is one form of argumentation used to defend an article if it's good for the goose (democrat/liberal) and that EXACT SAME ARGUMENTATION trashed if it looks good for the gander (republican/conservative.) I hope you don't think I'm the only one who sees this. (Oh btw, when I make post these trenchant observations, I'm used to getting rebuked for 'getting away from content' or 'talking politics.' Funny, how your comments of the exact same nature never get that same rebuke.  Must be 'cabal club' privileges, huh? ) Take care Big Daddy. Ps I do like your style though.  I appreciate the sober analysis that generally exudes from your posts.  Even if I don't agree, I respect the approac you have   "