The Anchoress has a spot on slam of the New York Times over the headline (and the story beneath it) that they printed on a political donation to Rudy Giuliani. What is weird about the headline are the words chosen to lead the story:
From the NY Times, of course: Anti-Clinton Donor Reported as Donor to Giuliani.
Not just a donor to Giuliani but – gasp – an anti-Clinton donor!
The writer, the ever-obsequious Raymond Hernandez has had his head remarkably far up Mrs. Clinton’s backside for years. But this headline, and the story, just cracked me up.
Have you ever read George Soros described as an “anti-Bush donor?” Nah. He was simply a donor! A concerned guy with money! And if he compared Bush to Hitler and stuff – well, that was just politics, right? He didn’t mean nuthin’ by it!
But this fella, Richard Collins…he is much different than Soros, or Jeffrey Epstein or Steve Bing or any of the other profoundly rich people who donated heavy cash to the Democrats specifically because they detested President Bush. They were just making political donations. Collins…he is a nefarious anti-Clinton donor!
It’s one of the things that has fascinated me over the past ten years – the press’ seeming perspective that there are Clintons and Clinton supporters…and then there is the rest of the world, which contains – among other things – anti-Clintites.
Those are very, very bad people, the anti-Clintites. The don’t simply dissent, they actually focus their dissent on the god and goddess in particular. Let them be identified!
All you anti-Clinton people – thou anti-Clintites – come forth, and be so labeled! Your branding will begin after lunch!
I guess I better clear the calendar for my branding. But the funny thing here is the way the headline reads. As The Anchoress points out, when have you ever seen that type of terminology used? Kerry donors were not described as "anti-Bush". (That they might have been best described as "unreasonably optimistic" or "foolish" is beside the point).
