Ain’t free speech wonderful! It still remains true: Don’t get in a fight with those that buy ink by the barrel!

God knows I’m no Waterston fan - it’s the unions and all that - and I must confess a sick admiration - for the way the Bee, once again, smugly and piously, transformed the political landscape by denying the electorate another choice.

Not since FSU started in on Stacy Johnson-Klein have I seen such a commitment to misdirection, obfuscation, unsubstantiated rumors, leaks, debilitating allegations, trickling out negative misinformation and speculation, one juicy item at a time, day after long day, week after week.

You guys are real pros, controlling the PR flow much in the same way that a political campaign does. The Nixon White House would have been proud of you. Karl Rove must be your patron saint. You could teach the Democrats and Republicans a whole lot about character assassination. (Maybe you have!).

"When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite." - Winston Churchill

Are you claiming any of the allegations are untrue, TC? If not, then the timing of the disclosures is a red herring. Either Waterston did the stuff he is accused of, or he didn't. If he did, then he is the author of his own downfall, not the Bee.

Whatever happened to that "personal responsiblity" mantra you conservatives used to preach all the time?

You do have a point Mike - generally conservatives are "big" on accountability and responsibility - occasionally, if rarely, even libs arrive at a correct conclusion - "a stopped clock is right twice a day."

But we are missing a critical point here: It’s not that Waterston is all that pure. He has been careless and naive. He would have been better off doing "things" differently. Much of what he has done has the "appearance of impropriety." (Legality is another question).

JUST LIKE MOST POLITICIANS!

The point is: He was singled out .... exclusively. It has all the marks of a deliberate, wilful political hit. Why him? Why not other politicians? Waterston is an amateur compared to some.

I hate to use the word, "collusion," but what else do you call it when there is apparent scheme between a media entity and "others" in the local political establishment that has only one goal, to destroy a man’s life, to take him out of the political picture. It sure is suspicious.

I suppose I ought to invoke the Rush Limbaugh rule here: "Follow the money trail - who benefits?"

Sorry, TC, I'm not jumping on your conspiracy bandwagon today. Next thing you know we'd be talking about black helicopters and tinfoil hats.

T.C., Mike D. is right.You never hear the liberals preaching about personal responsibility.They don't believe in it.Bob did the right thing by not seeking another term. That's one of the big differences between a conservative and a liberal. Liberals have no shame. What conservative can the Bee go after now? Mayor Autry?The Bee is reloading as we speak.How about a liberal this time for target practice. You mean there's not one you can go after?How did the Bee turn over all the dirt on Bob? By chance or were Bee employees actively searching.Someone has to decide who to chase.Who's MR.BIG down there?So many questions.Don't expect any answers.

"Nothing in politics ever happens by accident; if it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." (Generally attributed to FDR, sometimes attributed to Teddy Roosevelt or Lincoln).

"Mike D. is right.You never hear the liberals preaching about personal responsibility."

Do you often agree with things that other people never said?

Your usual rants about "liberals" aside, why do you guys seem to think the Bee hounded Waterston out of office? He stated that he is leaving "solely" for family reasons, nothing else. Are you implying that he was being untruthful?

A bit naive aren’t you? Every politician, Democrat and Republican alike, always leave (resign) for "family reasons." That’s a standard answer. It usually, starts with, "I want to spend more time with my family...."

It is possible that Waterston was nifonged!

Mike D. or Mike Duh?, of course he was being untruthful.Almost every member of the editorial board and asstd. columnists and reporters took a shot at him in the paper. I'm glad to see him make this decision. Seems like it was one of his better ones.

" follow the money " is a term that journalists have been using for centuries...you need to understand that R.L. is an "entertainer", who has no journalism credentials whatsoever, and has made a career keeping his fans ignorant about " the money trail."...

what's the price for a barrell of oil now? how's haliburton's stock doing? G.E.? G.M.?, general dynamics? Grumman? Boeing? Lockheed Martin?...and how's the average american doing? both political parties are scared to death the people will get wise to the plunder of the last 7 years.

I refer those who have questions about The Bee's articles on Supervisor Waterston to a column that Betsy Lumbye, The Bee's executive editor, wrote on the subject in July. Here's the link:
http://www.fresnobee.com/483/story/86167.html

Is Betsy MR.BIG, I read that in July and felt it only supported my assumptions. Why not print a list of every article, editorial and column related to negative stories about Bob along with the Bee people responsible and let the readers decide.It shouldn't be too much work if Bob wasn't singled out.

This is what we know: 1. Waterston was careless in his personal dealings; 2. His so-called "indiscretions" were released by the media in a systematic pattern; 3. The culture of our day demands "gotcha journalism" rather than "just reporting the facts." That’s all we know for sure!

The speculation revolves around these things: 1. Were Waterston’s actions illegal? 2. Was he the victim of a political hit? 3. Was there collusion between benefitting parties? 4. Was there an agenda that wasn’t readily apparent to the rest of us schmucks.

I admit that my suspicions are only speculation. But remembering that the Holy Trinity of law enforcement is: means, motive and opportunity, I must ask myself: Who had the means to bring down Waterston? Who had the motive to do so? Who had the opportunity? Following the chain of evidence and circumstances, doesn’t leave much doubt, at least in my mind.

But, as I’ve said before - it’s just speculation. Time will tell.