Reading a post on http://www.dakotawarcollege.com/ regarding Joel Rosenthal's poor treatment of former South Dakota Republican Party Executive Director Patrick Davis made me wonder where Joel's analysis comes from. I found the culprit at:
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120208699551139387.html?mod=blog
One thing that I find conspicuous about this article is the way that they couch Patrick Davis' and his resume (Although Rusty looks forward to the day he will have a drawing of himself in the Wall Street Journal.) They seem to insinuate that he has had very little political expierience with this statement:
"Mr. Davis spent a career running traditional campaigns and independent efforts by interest groups. After college, he accepted a $20,000-a-year job with the 1992 reelection bid of President George H.W. Bush. After Mr. Bush lost, Mr. Davis couldn't find a political job in Washington. He worked for two years in sales at Crate & Barrel. Eventually, he began working for an arm of the Republican Party that oversees campaigns for the U.S. Senate, then for an anti-abortion group in South Dakota." ;courtesy of the Wall Street Journal.
As Patrick has show at: http://dakotawarcollege.com/?p=3531
He has had a much more involved career than the Wall Street Journal seems to indicate. Patrick didn't go from Crate and Barrel to a career of working for working for "an arm of the Republican Party that oversees campaigns for the U.S. Senate, then for an anti-abortion group in South Dakota." He was the Executive Director of the Republican Party of South Dakota. Following this employment he left in 1999 to become a Regional Political Director with the National Republican Senatorial Committee. In 2003 he became the National Political Director for the NRSC, during the 2004 Election cycle; overseeing an increase of four seats in the US Senate. He then formed Patrick Davis Consulting, LLC. Joel does an accurate job of reporting this, but Patrick deserves better.
I feel that the Wall Street Journal does a great disservice to Patrick, insinuating that his career has been so inconsequential. Patrick has carried water for the elephant on more than one occasion; and I think that he deserves the credit that he is due. He has worked harder than most, and should be recognized for it.
Patrick has shown that he is a Republican workhorse. Any attempt to define him otherwise is a smear job that is undeserved.
Even though I disagree with his choice of candidate, I still recognize the fact that he has done work he deserves credit for. Usually I look to the Wall Street Journal as a bastion of journalistic integrity. I think they have done a great disservice to some one that I consider a great Republican. Shame on you to anyone who wants to profess otherwise.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment