Someone will have to explain to me why Eugene Kane, during arguably the most important presidential election in modern history, thinks it’s instrumental for readers to see him use column space to take swipes at a billionaire birther. Admittedly, Donald Trump isn’t among the most politically lucid of individuals, so the need to take him down a notch seems like nothing more than a personal taste for low hanging fruit.
Are we supposed to think that President Obama must be our guy because some crazies like "Trump the jesting birther" or "Dinesh D’Souza the right-wing ideologue" are criticizing him? Hand a paper like this to any college philosophy professor and she'll ding ya for a building a straw man and red herring so obvious that it would make Big Bird blush.
Here is how I see it. There is a conglomeration of polls that show we have a close election on our hands. Hanging in the balance are competing philosophies on important issues like tax reform, entitlement spending, and job creation. In addition, our nation is embroiled in a foreign policy mess that has failed to reason with radicals in the middle east -- most notably with a near-nuclear Iran; but more recently, a failure prevent "a few bumps in the road" from occurring in Libya.
If I’m not mistaken, the issue of Benghazi has been around a few weeks; and Kane has yet to address it in a thoughtful column or in a rapid-firing blog post. (By the way, welcome to Purple Wisconsin, Mr. Kane.)
It's doubtful Kane overlooked the issue for a lack of intellectual interest. Kane had no problems talking about Libya when presidential hopeful Herman Cain flubbed a question on foreign policy. Eugene’s response?
“I say it's time for the former pizza guy to bow out so the rest of us can get to the serious task of choosing who runs for president in the next election and who doesn't.”
What about the former community organizer from Chicago who flubbed the question about denying several mayday requests dispatched by former navy seals in Benghazi? Where in the chain of command did a bureaucrat decide it was acceptable to leave an ambassador behind? Obama’s answer? “We’re looking into it.”
Perhaps Herman Cain should have used the same answer. "Hey, I appreciate the Journal Sentinel's question on Libya, but we're looking into it." Perhaps then Eugene would have left him alone.
So, how about it Mr. Kane? Are you ready to flesh out the relevant issue of Benghazi-gate, or will you keep with the low hanging fruit?