GordonUnleashed

Ron Paul and the Neocon Squirm

October 19th, 2007 by Steve

I’m not sure which is more fun, making liberals feel uneasy or watching neocons squirm. The latest round comes from the Weekly Standard, which criticizes a minor technical error made by Andrew Sullivan here (which Sullivan corrects here).

The short version of the story is that Michael Goldfarb went after Sullivan for suggesting that “active service military members” contributed more to the Ron Paul campaign than to the favorites of the neocon establishment.

Goldfarb is technically correct; one can’t tell (in every instance) from a FEC report whether someone is on active military duty or not.

Neocon poster boy and POTUS Bush had to proclaim his relevance the other day. When someone has to publicly state his/her relevance, he/she is no longer relevant. Now the Standard is weasel-wording Ron Paul’s military support in order to stay relevant, too.

It doesn’t matter how you slice it or dice it, the military loves them some Ron Paul.

Posted in Foreign Policy, Bad Media, Bad Republicans, Ron Paul, National Politics

3 Responses to “Ron Paul and the Neocon Squirm”

1. Name purposely withheld wrote on 10/19/07 at 9:32 pm :

   I know someone who was in a meeting with some folks from the Weekly Standard on 9/11, when the news of the attacks came. The WS people discussed how the attacks would be “good for the Republican Party.”

2. Craig wrote on 10/20/07 at 9:33 pm :

   Goldfarb is way off base.

   Paul’s biggest single donor employer in Q2 was the US Army. In Q3, the US Army was second only to Google, where he gave a well-attended speech, and where people make a lot more money.

   The US Army is nowhere near the top for the other candidates. For Paul to lead in military donations, even while raising half what Romney or Giuliani did makes it even more extraordinary. In Q2, when Paul raised on $2.4M, it was remarkable.

3. Paul Weber wrote on 10/21/07 at 12:51 am :

   Michael Goldfarb- The Fantasy of Ron Paul’s Military Support

   Your logic is faulty here, Michael Goldfarb, you wrote:

   “So yes, Andrew, those tasked with fighting this war do get it, which is why they aren’t donating to Paul.”

   Most likely they haven’t heard of Ron Paul, Like most Americans they are too busy, and also the media has intentionally ignored Paul.

   You insinuate that they know and disagree with Ron Paul…..by not donating??? They donate less to other candidates, so that means they disagree with them more “by your faulty logic”

   So much for non-biased journalism.

TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply