The New Republic magazine thought it would be a wheeze to try and rubbish Ron Paul by denouncing him as an anti-semite, race-hating hypocrite. The race for the White House is going to get dirty. But dirt is something, and truth is another. If a candidate lies, then OK. Fair comment. But digging around in a magazine run by others, that's a whole lot different.
If The New Republic and the writer of the piece, James Kirchick, want to manipulate opinion, then they are perfectly at liberty to do so. I saw Kirchick on TV and he seemed pretty pleased with himself, but he could not say that Ron Paul said or thought these things. He just attributed remarks of others to Ron Paul. It's just lazy journalism!
If Kirchirk thought about it, he could suggest anything on this blog or a whole host of others was Ron Paul's very own thinking. Of course it is not. It is just me putting over a point. If someone said something rather nasty within an organisation, does it mean that the whole organisation thinks the same way? The answer is NO!
This is Ron Paul's reply via Reuters.
Ron Paul
new republic
My Conservative Home article (unedited version)
-
This century has seen a great growth in the powers and reach of so called
independent public sector bodies. The four main parties in Parliament
usually ch...
5 hours ago
.jpg)
0 comments:
Post a Comment