Chicago Sun-Times columnist/wife of the publisher Jennifer Hunter, fresh off an embarrassing defense of her characterization of trial lawyer James Ronca as a "staunch Republican," goes back to the well once again. This time, Hunter publishes a letter in which Ronca defends his "staunch" Republican credentials. After a couple of paragraphs of name-dropping and a claim that he has a picture of himself with Dan Quayle -- somewhere, we get to this:

Even though I am a long-term Republican I am not a fool. Naturally I opposed candidates like George W. Bush and Rick Santorum who have vilified plaintiffs trial lawyers. (Santorum was a particularly vicious hypocrite. His wife collected on a medical malpractice case much more than the limits he supported on other citizens.) I am proud of what I do and there is no way I would be stupid enough to support people who subscribe to the Karl Rove practice of shooting at the trial lawyers every chance they get. This was particularly true in Texas where trial lawyers were compared to bank robbers and gangsters in paid advertisements. Further I could never support Bush and would support his opponents because of the violence he has done to the law itself, especially with that embarrassment of an attorney general, Alberto Gonzales.

I also do not believe that I personally gave $2,000 to any candidate. I will check but I think the check came from my partnership and therefore would be split into three (a perfectly legal way to do it). Also, I have been a trustee of a trial lawyers PAC for over 20 years and if these smear artists would look, they would see that while, nationally, state trial lawyers associations lean strongly Democratic, Pennsylvania has been very balanced between Republican and Democrat and that is from the influence of me and some of my Republican colleagues. There are many Republicans who would readily come to my defense including the former (until last year) president of the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania Senate, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and a current member of the state Supreme Court.

This campaign against you and me is ridiculous and I think evidence of how the Republican Party works. They make an effort to pressure journalists to print what they want and avoid what the Republican Party does not like. No free thinking or free press is allowed. They smear everyone who opposes them from big fish like Joe Wilson to small fries like me.

That sounds a heck of a lot more like a trial lawyer who happens to be registered Republican than a "staunch Republican." Remember, despite Ronca's protestations, he was giving money to Ted Kennedy in the '90s, making him the only member of the "staunch Republicans for Ted Kennedy" in the entire nation. Heck, I guess that I'm a staunch Democrat, seeing as how I was registered as a Democrat for a couple of years back in the early '90s. Heck, I'm a staunch Independent too because I've been registered as an independent off and on for more than a decade.

Of course, then it gets better:

I am going to have some investigation done into the source and funding for this blog and I will give it to you. Maybe we can get you some information so you can write a Pulitzer Prize-winning article on the Republican conservative party sneak attacks on free press and free speech.

Back when I was a little journalist I dreamed of winning a Pulitzer, but I never thought that one day I could be the basis of someone else's Pulitzer. It's not really apparent which blog Ronca is referring to in his letter, but please let it be me. I'd love if Ronca could discover some funding source that would ... you know ... provide me some funding.

Ronca's complaint that people pointing out that he's not necessarily a "staunch Republican" based on his campaign contributions is tantamout to "sneak attacks on free press and free speech" sounds a heck of a lot more like something a whiny Democrat would say than a Republican.

Hunter closes the column/letter with a note that this is the end of the "conversation."

We'll see about that.

I'm putting out an open invitation for anyone at the Chicago Sun-Times to tell me, confidentially, what's been going on behind the scenes with Hunter and these columns. Have there been any editors who have suggested that maybe a correction or clarification was in order? Did the publisher, Hunter's husband, get directly involved, or is that unnecessary with the paper's editors? What's the overall opinion of Hunter among the rank-and-file?

You can send e-mails to hoystory -at- cox -dot- net. Everything will be confidential.