About the Author
Opinion Archives
E-mail Scott
Scott's Links

Say it ain't so, Regina: Part III

By Scott Tibbs, April 26, 2005

Local Democrats continue their snit about my blog post from Friday, and the follow-up post. Some are claiming I have no "proof" that the City Clerk expressed gratitude that I was unable to speak in a public forum.

The proof was an eyewitness account that was relayed to me firsthand. That is considered proof in most courts. My acquaintance told me what she overheard during the Q&A session for Sharpton's speech. No one has (as of this writing) denied that the elected City Clerk expressed gratitude that one of her constituents was unable to speak in a public forum.

If the City Clerk didn't say what my source overheard, someone who attended the event with her could quickly put this matter to rest by simply saying so. Instead, the Left chooses to personally attack me instead of typing a simple "yes, she said it", or "no, she did not say it".

Others have claimed my acquaintance was "eavesdropping". How silly. Next thing you know, local Democrats will be claiming that things said on a public Web site are off limits to discussion in a public forum. The hyperbole dial goes up to eleven when I am called "beneath contempt" for commenting on something that an elected official said during a speech by a national figure.

Others have said it is a good thing I did not get to challenge Sharpton on the lives he destroyed during the Tawana Brawley case. (Sharpton libeled several men, claiming they sexually assaulted Brawley. One of those men wound up committing suicide. The entire case turned out to be a hoax.) I think it is unfortunate that are glad that I was not able to shine the light on this issue. Sharpton's willingness to publicize fabricated charges and destroy innocent men's lives goes to the heart of his credibility as a candidate and political figure.

Some complain that the Brawley case is old news. These same Democrats, however, had no problem bringing up President George W. Bush's service in the National Guard during the Vietnam War in last year's Presidential election.

Local Democrats talk a lot about dialogue. In fact, City Clerk Regina Moore and County Council member Sue West issued a joint press release that detailed plans for them (and other female elected officials) to get together for breakfast on a regular basis to promote dialogue.

So why would the City Clerk, someone who wants more public participation and dialogue, be happy that one of her constituents was unable to speak in a public forum? Is the desire for more public participation and dialogue limited to questions and commentary that does not offend Regina Moore?

The last few days have been a microcosm of what is wrong with American politics, both locally and nationally. When someone says something "offensive", personal attacks replace discussion, argumentation and logic. It is unfortunate that local Democrats have chosen demonization over dialogue.