On Friday's edition of Real Time with Bill Maher Wall Street Journal political columnist John Fund defended Sarah Palin's clear lack of knowledge of the Bush Doctrine by pointing out that during the debates, when questions were asked about the Bush Doctrine or Sarbanes-Oxley the moderator gave a brief explanation of what they were. Apparently John Fund believes that some of the candidates were not necessarily familiar with either, but that's really no big deal to Mr. Fund as it is also his belief that the Bush Doctrine is "not something that you're ("you're" referring to Presidential or VP candidates) supposed to remember off the top of your head at every single moment " Really? Is Fund stupid or just totally disingenuous?
As a public service, I will venture to explain to Mr. Fund why the debate moderators explained what these things are, in deference to Mr. Fund's inability to grasp the obvious, I'll use small words.
Okay, John, now listen carefully. The explanation by the moderator was for the benefit of the viewers, not the candidates. It helped the audience put the candidate's answers to the questions into context. Because let's face it, a lot of people in the audience are like Sarah Palin (and according to you, like you) not up on things like foreign policy or major legislation. Now here's the big difference, John. Those people, the one's watching who might not know what the Bush Doctrine is, are voters the people on the stage were candidates. Do you know the difference between a voter and a candidate, John? I know candidate is a big word, but I provided a link to the definition. Voters don't need to know what the Bush Doctrine is in order to do their jobs. The President and VP on the other hand, it would be a good thing for them to know. Do you know the difference between good and bad, John? I know they can be hard concepts to wrap your head around, kinda like the Bush Doctrine. Now all candidates can be voters, but voters who don't know what the Bush Doctrine is, like Sarah Palin, have no business being candidates because they don't know enough about the country or government to run it.
Fund also claimed that he wouldn't have known what was being referred to if he was asked about the Bush Doctrine. The Wall Street Journal's political columnist doesn't know what the single biggest foreign policy position of the Bush administration is? Is he stupid or disingenuous? Of does he just think that we're stupid?
Maher called Fund a cynic, and while I don't think that cynic was the right word to label Fund, I think Maher was right on target when he explained what he meant:
"A real cynic is somebody like you, like David Brooks who knows better but knows that the stupid people don't. They know what the dumb people don't, but they know that somebody like that can get over on the dumb people. "
Personally I think lying sack of sh*t is a a more appropriate label for the smug and disingenuous Mr. Fund. But if he is really as stupid and clueless as he claims to be, then perhaps the WSJ should consider replacing him with someone who has a better grasp of the issues that he's writing about.
Any politician or pundit or columnist who believes that Ms. Palin is not qualified or ready to be VP, who publicly states otherwise, has put party before country and is putting this country at risk. What does winning get you, if in the end we wind up with a President who is totally unequipped to lead this country or run this country should something happen to McCain?
I'm not talking about the Sean Hannity's and John Gibson's of the world who really are as stupid as they appear and can't differentiate between the truth and the lie. Guys like that don't have the ability to process or question anything. If it comes from the Republican side it's good if it comes from the Democratic side it's bad. They're simpletons, lemmings with microphones.
But for Mr. Fund to sit on the Real Time set and pretend that it doesn't matter if the VP candidate has a grasp of the foreign policy or domestic issues that are vital to our national interest is beyond irresponsible and reprehensible.
Bill Maher's admonished Fund on his "lie to the dumb and uninformed people" strategy claiming that Fund knows better, sadly I don't think he does. He'd rather have his party win an election than be sure that we have someone competent and prepared running our country.
Sounds pretty stupid to me.