No, she said explicit that she wasn't calling him one but wanted to give him an opportunity to refute the charge from others--which was good because Dr. Paul hit that one out of the park!
No, she said explicit that she wasn't calling him one but wanted to give him an opportunity to refute the charge from others--which was good because Dr. Paul hit that one out of the park!
No, she said explicit that she wasn't calling him one but wanted to give him an opportunity to refute the charge from others--which was good because Dr. Paul hit that one out of the park!
That's what she said, but I can't help but call B.S. on that, because I googled "Ron Paul" and "flake." The only references I could come up with led back to this same story. CNN is beginning to use FOX News' dirty trick of attributing false quotes to unnamed sources, and using these to manufacture false consensus.
I do agree though that Ron did a good job of turning it around!
I found it rather odd for her to say some people call him that. She should know that there are those of us who I've read just about every article there is about Ron Paul out there. We would know if he had been called that, and I for one have never read that anywhere. Either she isn't worth a crap as a journalist because she doesn't use proper research OR she isn't worth a crap as a journalist because she's a biased sack of ... Either way. Worthless journalist.
No, she said explicit that she wasn't calling him one but wanted to give him an opportunity to refute the charge from others--which was good because Dr. Paul hit that one out of the park!
I'm convinced that a common journalistic technique is to ask people around the office to say certain things so that the journalist can then honestly write/say "some say _______" or "this reporter has heard _______" to anonymously qualify a statement. Hell, if I were a journalist (and if I had no scruples) that's the way I'd do it.