The New York Times featured a decent front page article on Ron Paul, which is probably as good a look at the candidate as you're likely to find from a major news outlet, since most of them seem hellbent on pretending the man doesn't exist (although maybe a slightly more flattering, less biased headline would have been "The Pro-Peace, Pro-Life, Pro-Freedom-, Pro-Health Candidacy..."). I may not agree with every position he takes, but I agree with a lot of them, and more importantly, I admire the way he sticks to his guns and doesn't toe the party line (something I used to be able to say about John McCain). And while I realize the chances of him being nominated are next to none, I'm not sure how the Times can get away with publishing lines like "Ron Paul will not be the next president of the United States." and call it unbiased journalism. Thanks for trying to predict the future, Times. Next time leave the fortune-telling to carnival workers and at least pretend to have some journalistic credibility. That said, it's still a pretty good article.
I'm realistic enough to know that it will take an incredible turn of events for Paul to receive the Republican nomination, which I why I firmly believe the presidential primaries are going to be far more important to vote in than the actual presidential election.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment