But when someone has been here a while and written a lot of comments and then does something that seems blam-worthy, I’d like to see them not blammed permanently, but given a suspension. Put their login on suspension for a month or so, if they come back afterwards, they’ll either have learned their lesson, or they can be blammed permanently later.

Just my $0.03.

And i think Neil started all this……..oppps

Hey – that’s pretty easy! Maybe I am a libertarian after all.

In all seriousness – I will accept Aaron’s vouching for his character, but in my opinion that is the exact thickness of any ice that is supporting him now.

‘becker, I was referring to bird’s schizophrenia in the re-produced email, not you.

But I will say this for bird, he never exhibited paranoid ideations!

I agree you have been consistent and right in your criticism of Bush’s refusal to take on the media attacks against him and that you have been consistently supportive in narrow areas related to national security.

First of all, again assuming it’s directed at me, I’ve not been “all over the lot”, I’ve been painfully consistent. I have supported the President;s foreign policies and opposed his domestic policies for the past eight years. I’ve consistently derided his Administrative appointments and I’ve consistently derided his support for his generally excellent judicial appointments. I’ve also consistently criticized his unwillingness to defend either his policies or himself from outright lies perpetrated by the Democrats and the media which has led to the perception that they are right and eventually to the place we are today, with the most liberal, most dangerous Chief Executive in the history of the Republic.

With respect to the man, I’ve also been consistent that I like Bush the man even though I think Bush the President is incompetent. I flat out resent the implication that I’ve “slandered” the President when, in fact, all I’ve done is point out that his performance in office has been, overall, a detriment to the fiscal health of the nation, and – because he’s laid the groundwork for the election of Obama – a detriment to the national security of the nation.

I agree that he’s kept further attacks from our shores, though largely because aQ has been busy recruiting martyrs for us to kill in Iraq. When the Democrats get through downsizing the military again and remaking the State Dept and our relations with the UN and EU, we’ll see just how safe we are. Like it or not, a large part of the legacy of GWB will be how much damage BO does to our national security apparatus over the next few years.

As for your final comment relating to praising him in attempts to look magnanimous and objective.”, you can stick it. I have no interest in an attempt to look magnanimous and you wouldn’t know “objective” with respect to this President if it landed on your head. There is nothing schizophrenic about recognizing a good man who is simply in a job that he is unwilling and/or unable to be successful at because he won’t stand up and fight for policies that are – in fact – right.

And, with respect to bird, I don’t much care one way or the other whether he gets reinstated. I have had no problem with anything he’s written before – although he is frequently all over the lot. I do think the comment to which this diary refers was an incredibly cheap shot at GWB and at military families. And I think his thousand word essay explaining the unexplainable is a touch over the top. That said, I’ll either welcome him back or get over his not being here with equal ardor. And if any of us are to “learn anything”, I would suggest the better models would be Martin, Jeff or streiff.

Free Bird!

mojo

That being said…the Mods have their take and his bit was pretty offensive…if he’s gone he’s gone and deservedly so in this particular instance…

My earlier appeal on his behalf is based on my history with him which fits well with your analysis here.

But like you said, you sow you reap….I of course was sowing a seed myself in my discussion with him and hoping to reap it at a later time. Making Republicans is not an overnight process.

You never really knew what his personal belief was or when his argument was being made in good faith. That stuff can be entertaining, but it don’t make you a lot of friends. You sow, you reap.

I am not trying to make a martyr out of Bird either, but I could not in good conscience let this lie when I knew that he was being sincere.

And while it may not be right to make him a martyr it is also not right to continue to make him into a villain post mortem.

There was nothing in the man’s comments on this blog that indicates this is anything more than weasel words.

What should be illustrative was that not a single mod, or even a single person on the post in questions, said “hey, whaddaya mean by that.” The reason is simple. We all knew exactly what he meant.

We’re going to miss his constant boosterism of the freedom of dope and the freedom of buggery but let’s not make the man a martyr. He worked long and hard to achieve his reputation an I really hope it was worth it.

It is when we rely purely on assumption and reaction that we fail to distinguish the serious from the sarcastic.

As I said in the diary and a few times in the comments, this is not an appeal to get Bird re-instated, just a defense of a friend’s character to those who may not have bothered to build the type of relationship that I did. I would hope that someone would do the same for me if at some point I made an ambiguous comment that could be read the wrong way.