Thank you, Ann Richards...

Classy. Attacking someone who just died after a painful bout of cancer. Real classy.

Not an attack, just the truth.

I guess now we see what a gentleman you are.

I can't believe I am reading this.

This is tacky in the extreme.

I suppose it might be construed as an attack if you don't like Bush. It was not intended as such. I was simply pointing out how seemingly little things cascade. Many people at the time thought the veto would cost her the election, so she must be given credit for sticking to her guns. :-)

Putting politics ahead of humanity. How sad.

Oh, puh-leeze! I have a sneaking suspicion that many of your attackers had nothing to say when the likes of Ted Rall suggested, shortly after his death, that Ronald Reagan was roasting in Hell.

And BTW, a real attack would be to suggest that all of that malignancy finally caught up with her!

Unbelievably sad, James. Just when I thought no one could sink lower.

Well, I didn't embrace reactionary Liberalism.....

I'll apologize to Ann when I see her.

What a load of crap.

You can write an RIP about someone that includes the warts. So Jack didn't cloak his post in a bunch of nice words. He wrote it during the work day for goodness sakes and I don't think the point was to pen the obituary of Ann Richards.

Ann Richards died, and is now in the news again, and Jack mentioned an important, very specific, historical point that aligns with Jack's established concern with 2nd Amendment issues.

I guess the "sin" was not to overtly mourn or preface his remarks with something else.

But he didn't say he was glad she was dead. He didn't ridicule her or demean her achievements in life. He stated a cold fact.

Anyone who "can't believe" this post needs to remove the stick from their backside and get a life.

It's funny, Joe, how you guys lament the disintigration of civil political discourse and yet you can't seem to see when you cross the line and even when it is pointed out for you instead of apologizing gracefully you get defensive and go on the attack.

Zim, who's lamenting what now? I think what Jack said is quite ok. Nothing to apologize for.

If you want to argue the sky is blue, and Jack agrees, I won't accuse him of going "on the attack."

I think it's hilarious that "zimzo" is defending "civil political discourse" in relation to a post about someone who did her level best to lower the bar.

Good point James. But you realize this makes us "haters."

I'll paraphrase Peggy Noonan's comment about Clinton on this issue: "We don't hate [her]; we hold [her] in contempt. There's a difference."

Richardson's politics were contemptable.