As someone who has been the object of a one sided, exaggerated, slanted and biased character assassination by the democratian, I can't help but be amused by the concern expressed by the rag over Jack's departure. For example:
These observations are absurd in every respect.
Please grant Jim his request for privacy so he can deal with his family's personal issues. He has taken the high road here by resigning his office and putting family first. I ask that people honor his request.
I have been down this road, as many in our community know. Ten years ago I walked away from public office to deal with a personal issue in my family, and like Jim, asked for privacy. Our community honored that request. In due time I was able to share the story publically of my daughter's drug addiction, but our family needed the time to deal with our challenges by ourselves. Jim and his family deserve nothing less, regardless of the issue that faces them.
Everything that Jacks has done here was done under the color of his office. He has no right or expectation of privacy concerning ANYTHING he's done while in office as a result.
Further, during the Dunn and Curtis debacles, I saw none of this one-sided concern... which is misplaced, as Jacks' actions here were done as a public official in public settings.
Censoring the public that has paid his salary to protect this democrat, particularly in the face of the efforts by this same rag to throw Republicans or anyone else... most of whom far more private individuals than Jacks... who opposes their agenda under a bus is what the democratian does best.
Treat EVERYONE the same. Write about Jacks the same way you ginzued Van Nortwick during the election cycle for example, you hypocrites.
And Lew Waters provided another example of this double standard.
All you leftists concerned about Jacks' privacy since he abandoned his constituents and quit?
Of course you feel the exact same way about.... Sarah Palin.... right?
Didn't think so.
What I'm asking for is that the rag and all you leftist defenders apply the same standard to Jacks... as you do to Palin.
As a result... covering for Jacks when you have absolutely NO reason to do so?
There is no excuse for that.