« Here's the Answer. | Main | Rough Justice »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"She is bypassing the Legislature by using the rule-making process to provide benefits for domestic partners of state employees." WOW! Must be nice to make up the state rules to fit your own lifestyle.

At least there is one investigative reporter left at the Republic.

Of course, any blogger could have made the same request, I guess.

When will people in the public sector learn to never -- NEVER -- send anything in an email that they don't want made public.

If you need to make an a** of yourself (redacted for your protection), make a phone call. And then pray that it isn't being recorded.

Back in 1999, the Republic ran a front page article about what a mean SOB McCain is.

Out of fairness and journalistic integrity, I assume the Republic will run a front page story about what b**** Napo is, when she runs for the Senate.

Holy cow!

Do you think less colorful language will be used when the House is headed by Speaker Lopes?

Why is there no coverage of this outrageous behavior and language in the mainstream media?!?
Oh. Sorry. I forgot that no R's were involved.

It was in the republic, that's pretty mainstream.

Foul language is the refuge of those who lack the intellect or education to express themselves without it.

I assume Mr. Haener has some form of education...

"Foul language is the refuge of those who lack the intellect or education to express themselves without it."

Hey, if it's good enough for the Vice-President, it's good enough for me.

With regard to the venom and vitriol in the emails, the very fact the language is so vicious is telling about their motives and operations on this issue. What would cause one to be so angry about being more open in government and protecting children? Answering that question would be very telling about that and other issues.

The true temperament of Napolitano and her staff has been exposed here, but it is no suprise to those who have suffered under it for years.

Once again, you have failed to understand distinctions - using strong language and over using it - as in every sentence, in every tense and in every grammatical usage, that is the sign of a lack of intellect.

A well placed shocker can be very effective at times (Cheney). If you cannot form a sentence without one, it's time to check your IQ.(See above).

What happened to the top down call for "civility" from the Obama pulpit? Civility implies self-control, which includes an ability to chose words well. Foul language is the least imaginative form of communication. This exchange demonstrates either a loss of self-control or a lack of imagination.

Mr. Haener needs to unplug and refresh himself in some great literature for awhile.


Bravo (clap, clap, clap). Just when I think the heights of GOP hypocrisy can't get any higher, you go and reset the bar.

You're basically saying it's the sign of erudite mind when profanity is used as an exclamation point, but not as a comma.

I'd offer up a scene from "Planes, Trains, and Automobiles" as proof to the contrary:

Steve Martin: Then give me a bleeping automobile. A bleeping Datsun, a bleeping Toyota, a bleeping Buick. Four bleeping wheels and a seat.

Edie McClurg: I don't care for the way you're speaking.

Steve Martin: I don't care for the way your company left me in bleeping nowhere with keys to a bleeping car that isn't bleeping there. I didn't care to bleeping walk down a bleeping highway and across a bleeping runway to get back here to have you smile at my bleeping face. I want a bleeping car right bleeping now.

Edie McClurg: May I see your rental agreement?

Steve Martin: I threw it away.

Edie McClurg: Oh, boy.

Steve Martin: Oh, boy, what?

Edie McClurg: You're bleeped.

Oh, and Bill Clinton called - they want you on the campaign right away. They say you're their kind of people and can you get started on a new definition of "is" right away?

Oh, in full disclosure, I swear quite a bit. Although I prefer "g--d---" over the f-word. I've got no problem with profanity if used effectvely (the use in the e-mail is niether here or there for me). My problem is, as usual, with the hypocrisy.

I remember when all the Scolds sprang to Cheney's defense, well really it was a very coarse and angry thing to say to a very innocuous comment. It's like when Ann Coulter equated saying "Merry Christmas!" to "F--- You!" - nary a comment. When Kerry said it in "Rolling Stone", I believe civilization collapsed.

And these are the people we're supposed to be taking morality lessons from. Pass.

I didn't think you'd understand. And Clinton wouldn't hire me - I could define any number of words, but I wouldn't wear a blue dress...

Frankly, I'm not Cheney's keeper, so I didn't make it a point to come out and publicly condemn him; on the other hand, I hardly came to his defense. For me, to the extent that he felt that language to be appropriate, I feel he cheapened the English language, and showed a lack of courtesy, discretion, and intellectual creativity. Not enough to tar and feather him, but enough to feel disappointed in how he chose to present himself, and in how that reflected on his office.

So, Klute, since I myself was quite disappointed at the VP's language, you should love me, and be willing to "take morality lessons" from me, as I don't meet your "hypocracy" standard.


As long as we're keeping our standards consistent and not trying to provide political cover for anyone making up grammar rules, we're 5x5.

Unfortunately, I have to admit to a bit of prejudice here. I'm so used to conservatives telling me how Spitzer's hooker problem is different Vitter's hooker problem, or how Limbaugh's drug problem is different from Kennedy's drug problem, and how it's generally wrapped up in the "Christians aren't perfect just forgiven" (which, of course, is a courtesy never extended to Democrats), my intial reaction is to assume ethical inconsistency - which really speaks to the sorry state of politics in this country.

Of course, Cheney's comedy gold. I wouldn't be on tour right now if I hadn't been able to create an act around him. So, I'm all about letting Cheney be Cheney.

Your description of Governor Napolitano immediately brings President Bush and Vice President Cheney to mind. "Republicans are the party of open government."???? Unfortunately, arrogance and secrecy are not limited to any one party.

"However, I think the most outrageous thing about the email is that it demonstrates the disdain that the governor's office holds for legislators--especially those of her own party."

Hard to argue with this excerpt from Greg's post when one considers how the Governor went along with Republicans (against the fervent wishes of the Dem caucus) on unneeded tax cuts that have helped to fuel the current deficit...and a vouchers bill to boot.

With several references in this thread to the Clintons, let's not leave out Janet's propensity towards "triangulation." Although I have voted for her twice and applaud her efforts in most areas, it is one of her least attractive qualities. Furthermore, she has not been willing to use her substantial popularity to really change the priorities of state government because her political sense has told her that would be too risky.

Leadership has a choice - the 'art of triangulation' or the 'art of negotiation'.

The comments to this entry are closed.