Mithridates
12-09-2007, 08:13 PM
Just noticed something weird on the blog here on the Univision debate:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/09/507149.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage
NBC/NJ's Matthew E. Berger adds Paul claimed that his anti-war stance has garnered him the most donations from the armed services and military veterans. He bases that on reviews of Federal Election Commission reports for the third quarter of 2007, and the amount of donations from people who listed military branches as their employer or listed themselves as a veteran. Using that scenario, according to pro-Paul blogs, Paul garnered $22,140 from military veterans, surpassing McCain, who had $16,675.The truth is, though, that many people don't list their employers or the fact that they are a military veteran, so the numbers may not be entirely accurate.
Why qualify the numbers with that last statement at the end? Also, does the author not realize that if the numbers are inaccurate that could also mean that Ron Paul has an even larger majority than the others?
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/09/507149.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage
NBC/NJ's Matthew E. Berger adds Paul claimed that his anti-war stance has garnered him the most donations from the armed services and military veterans. He bases that on reviews of Federal Election Commission reports for the third quarter of 2007, and the amount of donations from people who listed military branches as their employer or listed themselves as a veteran. Using that scenario, according to pro-Paul blogs, Paul garnered $22,140 from military veterans, surpassing McCain, who had $16,675.The truth is, though, that many people don't list their employers or the fact that they are a military veteran, so the numbers may not be entirely accurate.
Why qualify the numbers with that last statement at the end? Also, does the author not realize that if the numbers are inaccurate that could also mean that Ron Paul has an even larger majority than the others?