It's what I always heard "respect" should be.
From today's NYT on Reep convention themes:
Mr. Bush's advisers said they were girding for the most extensive street demonstrations at any political convention since the Democrats nominated Hubert H. Humphrey in Chicago in 1968. But in contrast to that convention, which was severely undermined by televised displays of street rioting, Republicans said they would seek to turn any disruptions to their advantage, by portraying protests by even independent activists as Democratic-sanctioned displays of disrespect for a sitting president. . . .
"I think the Democrats are going to have to be careful about not letting the protesters get out of hand," Mr. Gillespie said. "The line between the official Democratic Party and labor protesters, environmental protesters and antiwar protesters is fairly blurry, and I'm not sure they want to have Democrats engaging in violence in New York against our convention. It would seem disrespectful and antidemocratic."
Hey - here's an exercise, readers. Play Reep MadLibs. In that last graf, replace "Democraticy Party" with "Republican Party" and all the Dem interests with the various anti-Kerry Vets and play ou the same logic. Oh wait. All those obvious overlaps between the Swift Boat captains and the Bush's are coincidental and don't confirm any Bush orchestration of the attack. Duh. Sorry, I forgot.
Actually, I'm willing to concede that point - because people involved in one political organization are usually involved in many, similar groups with common goals. Our need to fake pure independence is the problem here. But if Reeps are going to try to goose Dems on their accusations of collusion, they'll have to take a gander at rhetorical fairness.