Nro

[jacksit]

Ron Paul's military numbers are getting mentioned on the National Review website.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/

[ThePieSwindler]

Seems like the somewhat try to marginalize it. Sure its a "small sample size" but so are most of the scientific polls! (note: so as to make sure i don't offend bradley in DC, i'm not saying the polls are inaccurate, im saying that they use a small sample size as well, so if that has validity, the military contributions should as well)

[DeadheadForPaul]

I'm surprised that Jonah Goldberg gave a relatively non-biased report on Dr. Paul...well, for him. I know a pro-war libertarian who worked/interned for him and this kid was radically supportive of interventionism as is Goldberg

[Sematary]

I just thought it sucked that he had to begin the piece like this:

I find this very hard to believe. I can certainly see Paul having disproportionately high military support. But this sounds way out of whack

[jacksit]

Yeah, the post is a mixed bag, but it's about as high profile a post in the conservative world as one can hope for.

[Sematary]

I sent this email to the author (just click on his name at the beginning of the piece)

Was it necessary to start your piece on Ron Paul with this?

I find this very hard to believe. I can certainly see Paul having disproportionately high military support. But this sounds way out of whack

Are you reporting the news or creating it?
Don't you think it's time that instead of disparaging Ron Paul, the media started to give him props for a job well done?

[jacksit]

umm.... it's a blog. they're commentating on events. the national review is generally a pro-war group. coverage is about the best we can expect, but a ton of nonpro-war conservatives still read them.

[Sematary]

umm.... it's a blog. they're commentating on events.

It looks like he's reporting facts but interjecting his personal opinion first. Ah well, I emailed him anyway.

[DAZ]

I find this very hard to believe. I can certainly see Paul having disproportionately high military support. But this sounds way out of whack

When confronted by facts that contradict the hypothesis, one has two choices. Dismiss the facts or dismiss the hypothesis. Somehow, Jonah Goldberg is trying to do a bit of both. I'm having trouble getting my head around that. The last bit from an anonymous reader about the numbers including civilian employees of the Armed Forces may have some relevance, but I seriously doubt it makes that much of a difference. A civilian who works for a branch of the military will most likely be in tune with the general attitudes of service members.

[LizF]

They're also discounting this by saying:

"And then there's this, from a reader:

Jonah,
the original report is a month old, and has been corrected to a still impressive 49.5% for Paul."

It was probably a typo (6/17 rather than 7/17) on the blog, but the NRO reader interpreted it as old news. Dumbass. :mad: