article: "GOP Eyes Governors For 2012 Race" (RP simultaneously praised and insulted)

[emazur]

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/politics/Governors-Eyed-as-Likeliest-2012-GOP-Candidates-52925887.html

What does it say when the Senatorial committee suggests that virtually no one from their own ranks -- besides a tired old man who has already run for president twice and lost -- could possibly be a serious contender in the next election? And are there truly no congressmen worthy of consideration besides lovable Libertarian loon Ron Paul?

As you can see, he gets high praise by being called the only one worth of consideration, but slanted it by saying "loon". If they had said "lovable Libertarian-Republican renegade Ron Paul" it would be much better.

I suppose on the whole it's positive though - I'm actually surprised they bothered to mention his name at all.

[dr. hfn]

i'm sending them an angry email, assholes. wat kind of journalism is this two faced bullshit?! Letter i sent to them as an editorial error:

Why was Dr. Ron Paul referred to as a "loon" in a recent article? Why do you compliment the man and then throw a cruel insult out like that? Would you call him a loon to his face? This is disgusting journalism, and don't even get me started about Peter Schiff's "interview" with Lawrence O'Donnell. Is all media owned by GE like this?

[rprprs]

Your take on this article is much more generous than my own. I see NO compliment here. The author is not saying that Paul is the only congressional candidate worth consideration. Rather, they find it to be incredulous that the Senatorial Committee has suggested so. The author's personal opinion is that Paul is a two-time loser, a tired old man, and a loon. The use of the word "lovable" does little to mitigate what is, once again, another hit piece. :mad:

[dr. hfn]

Your take on this article is much more generous than my own. I see NO compliment here. The author is not saying that Paul is the only congressional candidate worth consideration. Rather, they find it to be incredulous that the Senatorial Committee has suggested so. The author's personal opinion is that Paul is a two-time loser, a tired old man, and a loon. The use of the word "lovable" does little to mitigate what is, once again, another hit piece. :mad:

send them an email, maybe send it to their top executive

[Elwar]

Good piece of journalism by the MSM loons.

[fatjohn]

Your take on this article is much more generous than my own. I see NO compliment here. The author is not saying that Paul is the only congressional candidate worth consideration. Rather, they find it to be incredulous that the Senatorial Committee has suggested so. The author's personal opinion is that Paul is a two-time loser, a tired old man, and a loon. The use of the word "lovable" does little to mitigate what is, once again, another hit piece. :mad:

The two time loser and old man is McCain he is referring to, because he's referring to a senator. Then they begin with who is worthy for consideration that isn't a governor or a twice time losing old senator and then conclude that there is no one but the lovable libertarian loon (maybe an insult but what a nice alliteration) Ron Paul. You probably didn't bother to send hatemail for something worse then this before didn't you?

[emazur]

The two time loser and old man is McCain he is referring to, because he's referring to a senator. Then they begin with who is worthy for consideration that isn't a governor or a twice time losing old senator and then conclude that there is no one but the lovable libertarian loon (maybe an insult but what a nice alliteration) Ron Paul.

That was my take as well

[rprprs]

The two time loser and old man is McCain he is referring to, because he's referring to a senator. Then they begin with who is worthy for consideration that isn't a governor or a twice time losing old senator and then conclude that there is no one but the lovable libertarian loon (maybe an insult but what a nice alliteration) Ron Paul. You probably didn't bother to send hatemail for something worse then this before didn't you?

I stand corrected. My apologies for misreading the article.
I'm not sure I understand your question re: hate mail, but, no, I didn't send any in response to this article.