I don't get it
Forward Montana has been the hot topic of Montana blogs of late. It’s a little odd, considering the main accusation with any actual substance is an anonymous comment. That comment is somewhat vague, directly contradicted by Matt (and no actual evidence has been offered by those making the same accusation), and seems mainly focused on relating a story about Matt being less than professional. It’s not impressive.
But what if it were all true? What if Forward Montana was actually largely funded by George Soros? What does that mean? It means a guy with a lot of money who funds progressive causes gave them money. Wait, that didn’t come out so sinister. Assuming the money was given legally and was disclosed as required by law, it isn’t.
I realize people don’t like his politics, but the hysteria is ridiculous. If you want to claim it makes FM a tool of some left-wing machine, take a look at what they’re doing. Really, if you dislike something Forward Montana is doing, by all means attack them. Carol attacks them for turning out people late to the polls. My goodness, how evil. It’s the right track, but it’s still weak.
To sum it all up, here’s what I’ve seen:
Accusation: FM is funded by George Soros.
Evidence: Random anonymous guy on the Internet says so.
Accusation: FM is a left-wing front group for out of state interests.
Evidence: They brought college kids to the polls late in 2006.
Accusation: FM’s funding is somehow shady.
Evidence: I’m not sure, but it seems to be based on anonymous guy’s comment and ideological or partisan disagreement with Matt.
I miss anything? I’m really not impressed.
Unfortunately, I let myself get sucked into all of this before I actually put some thought into it, as you just did.
And you’re certainly getting at the root of things here: Accusations are thrown at Matt… and mind you, they’re not exactly accusations of wrongdoing… but he is still pressed to respond to them.
In pressing him to respond to these accusations, it is hoped that it will IMPLY that what is accused is somehow wrong or against the law, though it certainly isn’t stated outright.
The most telling part of all of this is that Carol has absolutely, positively stayed out of the debate and the firestorm that her post caused. The firestorm was the POINT of the post, nothing more. She knew it lacked substance, and she doesn’t even bother trying to back it up.
It’s gutless and shameless hackery. I feel awful for having participated in any of it.
Thanks for summing that all up. You and Steve are, of course, very correct.
That has kinda been my question; it seems that those on the right have gotten very good at the “This is bad because it is supported by [insert name of infamous liberal/progressive/celebrity here]“. I have never understood that; ideas are good or bad on their own merits, not because of who supports and/or opposes them.
Nice clarification of the issues at the core here, Jeff. Thanks.