I honestly don’t understand why I’m spending any amount of time on this story at all, except for the fact that Andrew Sullivan gets himself Bitch-slapped by Mike Goldfarb of the Weekly Standard:
Does Andrew Sullivan read stories before he comments on them? In this case, I suspect he didn’t, otherwise he’s engaging in pure military-related fantasy. In response to this article from the Houston Chronicle reporting that Ron Paul and Barack Obama lead all candidates in fund raising among “donors identified as affiliated with the military,” Sullivan headlines a post “Whom the Troops Support,” with this stunningly self-indulgent conclusion (actually this is the whole post):
Just one indicator, of course: campaign donations from active service military members. And guess who’s first? Ron Paul. Second? Barack Obama. Those tasked to actually fighting this war get it, don’t they?
Except this isn’t about campaign donations from “active service military members,” whatever they might be, but “donors affiliated with the military,” which Sullivan might have noticed had he slogged through the whole first sentence of the story. In fact, the first “active service military member” and Ron Paul supporter interviewed for the piece is 72-year-old Lindell Anderson, a retired Army chaplain from Fort Worth.
Of course, Sullivan isn’t the only one who leaps before he actually reads. But you have to wonder how many of the left, of which Sullivan is unquestionably one, come to their conclusions similarly under informed. My take is the majority…
Goldfarb by the way, is becoming a regular read, around here.
Tags: Andrew Sullivan, Barack Obama, BitsBlog, BO, Campaign, fight, hate, Men, military, NY, Obama, oops, politics, Ron Paul, UN, W
October 19th, 2007 at 9:15
Ron Paul has been this year’s media version of John McCain of Two Thousand. In both cases the media desparely sought to create a candicacy that wasn’t. Sadly for the media Doctor Paul gives the medie even lessw with which to work than McCain did.
October 19th, 2007 at 10:41
Well, you’re correct, David, but there not being any substance there has never been a concern for the left; They have never, in my experience, argued their causes from the perspective of substance. The logical concusion to draw is they’re basing heir judgements of value on soemthing other than the substance of the thing.
Consider their inexplicable veneration of Jimmah Carter.
Similarly, consider the position Hillary Clinton holds in terms of what the left sees her as.
In both cases, (and in more than these) there’s no ‘there’ there.
Let’s break this out.
Will someone please explain to me, for example, what experience Hillary Clinton brings to the party?
I mean, 30 years of Bimbo erruptions may make you an expert at handling what could generously be termed public relations issues, but past that, what has she done that qualifies her for the post she now holds, much less the one she seeks? She’s never had a private sector job, never run a corporation etc… Anything she’s actually had any real responsiblity for, other than the monumental task of holding Bill Clinton’s image as salvagable, has been a monumental FAILURE. A quick look at the education system in Arkansas will give you a clue. (Hint: At the end of her tenure, there, the states education system went from a ranking in the high 30’s to dead last) This is the success she bases her career on? In the private sector, her most frequently asked question would be… “You want to super size that?”
Carter, similarly. What is his record as President? Double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, an economy totally in the tank, gas lines, 444 days of foriegn policy failure where radical islam got stronger… and in fact he is the very reason for what we’re cleaning up now… (And a half-hearted military failure, as well).
On what basis does the left consider either of these people valuable to anyone?
It’s certainly not on the basis of SUBSTANCE.