This page was last updated on September 6, 2004.

Don’t worry, I’m not going after a “good old days” piece.  The paragraphs below were at the end of the subject piece.

“My column a few weeks ago concerning my views on the political climate in this country brought many responses, some supportive and many negative.  The negative ones, as usual, didn’t deal with any of the issues.  Most attacked the character of individuals, including me, and of course their favorite target, former President Bill Clinton.”

[RWC] This is a real hoot!  A columnist who merely repeats liberal talking points writes, “The negative ones, as usual, didn’t deal with any of the issues.”  Does Mr. Piroli seriously believe he deals with issues?  If Mr. Piroli researched his political contributions as much as he appears to research his “good old days” pieces, his political writings would be a lot different or nonexistent.  I know; I exchanged a few e-mails with Mr. Piroli and his reaction to verifiable facts was to respond with more baseless talking points or to change the subject.

I also got a kick out of the comment about responses to him attacking character.  This comes from a man who in his columns has referred to President Bush and his administration as court appointed, dishonorable, dumb, incompetent, “geniuses” in a derisive context, liars, obsessive, and so on.  Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

“There was one letter to the editor that I really enjoyed.  The writer referred to my comment that I try to keep from writing political comments.  He said it short and sweet: ‘Try harder.’

“Good advice, which I probably won’t take”

[RWC] Gee, there’s a shocker.  Did Mr. Piroli really believe we were stupid enough to believe his line, “I try to stay away from political commentary?”  In my critique, I pointed out Mr. Piroli didn’t try very hard because he wrote four political pieces in the last four months.  That’s roughly 25% of his columns.  His Bush bashing goes back at least to 2002.

© 2004 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.