Snake Oil, Without Comment

One of the things that annoys me the most about Andrew Sullivan is his habit of doing posts like this one. Please note that Sullivan makes no comment -- by which most people would assume that he has no criticism, which translates in most people's minds as approval. I think he's just waiting to see the reaction before he takes a position.

This should be a no-brainer: Dobson is a reflexive liar, so we know, based on his comments, that Obama is not the most liberal senator, and will not be the most liberal president in history. If Dobson says the National Journal is non-partisan and highly respected, we know it's a radical right-wing propaganda organ. If he says that Focus Action will be attempting to uncover the real Obama, we know that they'll be pushing whatever made-up scandals they think will work.

And of course, it wouldn't be Dobson speaking without a defense of the family somewhere in there. It's almost at the point where he uses it like a "thank you and good night."

Now, why can't Sullivan point this out?

Footnote: It's relevant to a lot of what I post here, but this post by John Dolan at alternet sort of gives my philosophy of dealing with the radical right fringe in a nutshell: don't be afraid to call them on the bullshit. And ridicule them while you're doing it.

Update:

In case you don't believe me, read this post by Steve Benen at Carpetbagger:

As Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, among the votes Obama took that purportedly earned him the Journal’s “most liberal senator” label were those to implement the 9-11 Commission’s homeland security recommendations, provide more children with health insurance, expand federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, and maintain a federal minimum wage.

Obama himself criticized the Journal’s methodology by noting that it considered “liberal” his vote for “an office of public integrity that stood outside of the Senate, and outside of Congress, to make sure that you’ve got an impartial eye on ethics problems inside of Congress.”

Media Matters has also previously noted that the Journal admitted to having used flawed methodology in the publication’s previous rating of then-Democratic presidential front-runner Sen. John Kerry (MA) as the “most liberal senator” in 2003.

This really isn’t complicated. National Journal argues that some senators weren’t given scores if they missed too many votes. Obama missed a full third of the 99 votes used for the ratings, but that wasn’t enough to disqualify him from the rankings. Why not? Why not? Because National Journal’s arbitrary standards, known only to the publication’s editors, say so.

This is another one of Dobson's "reliable, respected sources." Respected by who? Right-wing snake oil salesmen.