Oh, now, now, Bricker, you are obviously a Republican. I’ve defended Republicans here - mostly you, I’m afraid, though not always - but that certainly does not make my demonstrated political leanings Republican.
Your defenses are far more oriented to “It’s a fair cop” than to anything else; you’re a defender of logic and a good argument, not a defender of the base of the argument.
In other words, you have no answer to that question.
Thanks!
If this is your standard of guilt, why aren’t you applying it to the OP of this thread?
I have. I acknowledged way upthread that it was a reaosnable view that Novak was a traitor.
Did you read the thread, by chance?
I also acknolwedge that there was a reasonable view that could see Ellsberg as not being a traitor, but Novak being one.
What other concessions would you have me make?
He’s trolling Frank. And baiting you. It’s what he does.
That there is no reason to denounce her as a hypocrite for not feeling like talking to you. There are other explanations.
Right. If Poster A has consistently criticized Republicans and defended Democrats, and Poster B has defended whichever side had the most complelling argument and logic, then which poster is more fairly characterized as likely to adopt a position based on political leanings?
And I thnk you’re reasonably even-handed, yourself, come to that.
Sure there are. I am merely saying I have a likely one - a rebuttable presumption. All it needs is to be rebutted.
You give me your honest view about Biggirl. How likely do you think it is that her conclusion about who is and isn’t a traitor between Novak and Ellsberg arises from the political leanings of each? Honestly - no bullshit. What do you think the truth is?
I have a likely one too.
Robert Novak was a loathsome, purposely traitorous, prick but, because I don’t wish to be one of the liberals who dance on the graves of such crapitrons, I will merely hope he had time to make peace with his Maker. He’d be hard=pressed to make peace with me, but brain cancer can contribute to his assholish behavior.
Did that strike the right balance between “respectful, though I loathe him” and “if I believed in a Hell, he’d be going there?”
Yes, calling someone a prick is one of Emily Post’s Top Ten Signs You’re Being Respectful. 
Sorry. I really didn’t think my wording was offensive, but your apparent umbrage forces me to recognize it as inartful.
Please allow me to withdraw the remark, and resubmit it, substituting the word “stated” for “demonstrated.”
I can’t actually put a number on it, but I seem to recall that I’ve expressed support for YOU a time or two.
And Scylla (although I’m not sure he’s actually a registered Republican, so it might not count). Anyway, I think quite highly of both of you, and you both hold high positions in the kaylasdad99 gallery of Estimable Dopers.
And, lest you suppose that I’m playing games here, I won’t claim a specific instance of supporting a public figure of the Republican persuasion, although I won’t rule out the possibility that it’s happened. Possibly I did it and suppressed the memory of the trauma. 
In a way I think I will miss Robert Novak. He was almost always up to no good. But at least it wasn’t ding-bat conservatism like we have now from O’Reilly, Limbaugh, and Beck. Novak was smart but just a bad boy.
Someone with even-handed political opinions should be able to say, “I can point to many times I’ve defended Democrats and Republicans alike.”
There is nothing even-handed in using Robert Novak and Daniel Ellsberg for comparison/contrast.
You really would have made a good Tory, Moto. Traitors to England included Washington, Franklin, Adams, and Franklin for starters.
'Twas Nixon sold out his countrymen and Ellsberg and The New York Times who let their countrymen know the truth.
So is Saigon in ruins under a different name – Ho Chi Minh City? And how did that Domino Theory work out?
OMFG! as the kids say.
I suppose that Fox News also regards itself as fair and balanced.
Please check to make sure that your self-awareness switch is on and that you are plugged in before calling for additional assistance.
Seriously, it may be unfair, but what I really remember you for are threads like this one here.
“Bricker? Oh he’s that guy who does things like distract from a pitting of the Douchebag of Liberty with some obtuse comparison to someone completely different.”
A paragon of ideological impartiality, yeah.
Because it’s usually pretty clear what is meant by “traitor”. It means “Republican”. All this blather about outing Plame is just window dressing.
The Ellsberg example (and stuff like Sandy Berger) show this clearly. If Novak were a liberal Democrat, you would care nothing and less than nothing about it. It’s not exactly RO; merely hypocrisy.
You don’t observe what Republicans do and then hate them. You hate them first and then look around for reasons. You claim you don’t, but you are lying - probably to yourself as well.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, that certainly settles that! Anybody have any questions?
Shodan, me thinks you are projecting too much.
Thanks – I, in turn, will apologize for the edginess of my reply; I see now that you didn’t intend what i thought you did.
Actually, I think Sandy Berger fits into a different category. Berger didn’t publicize any classified material. The best interpretation of his actions was that he wanted to have copies of the documents he’d be asked about so he could put the best possible spin on the Clinton Administration’s actions; the worst is that he destroyed evidence of some embarrassing mistake or error. Either way, it’s a jump to place him in the same group as someone who deliberately disclosed classified information to the public.
I’m partial to his thread complaining about the liberals’ “War on Christmas”, myself.