Can I call it…or what?
Here’s me last night:
The kind of stalkers who wear t-shirts like this are probably looking for something, anything, to dispute in Paul Krugman’s latest. That way they won’t have to deal with the substance of his column. My guess is that they’ll jump to good ol’ George Nethercutt’s defense.
Here’s Andy this afternoon:
With his unerring instinct for the deceptive cheap shot, Paul Krugman disinters the Dowdified quote from Congressman George Nethercutt. You can read the context of this doctored quote here. Here’s how Paul Krugman puts it:
Some Americans may share the views of the Republican congressman who said that progress in Iraq was “a better and more important story than losing a couple of soldiers every day.” (Support the troops!) But whether or not you think troop losses are important, there’s growing evidence that our Iraq strategy is unsustainable.
Here’s the original quote in full: “So the story is better than we might be led to believe â€“ I’m â€“ just â€“ indicting the news people â€“ but it’s a bigger and better and more important story than losing a couple of soldiers every day which, which, heaven forbid, is awful.” Does that sound like someone not supporting the troops or, in MoDo’s words, putting the casual back into casualty? Or does it sound like the Dowds and Krugmans distorting the truth again for cheap partisan advantage?
Maybe if Krugman just wrote anonymous emails to Andy, Sullivan would actually take up the substance of what Krugman had to say.
Thank again, probably not. That would require work.