(Admit it. You've missed this.)
So I'm just about to go home tonight when I get an email from a beloved Chalicesseur, who has breathlessly forwarded me that "Ron Paul met with White Supremacists" thing from a couple of weeks ago, declaring it "proof" that Ron Paul is NOT a good guy. (Emphasis hers. Ok, the scare quotes were mine. The capitalization was hers.)
Ok, first of all, here's the NY Times correction apologizing for relying on that peice of malarky.
If y'all have at any point forwarded the unverified smear, it would be good of you to forward the correction to the same people.
I'm pretty curious why "Oh, nobody's ever noticed that a Congressman who is running for President regularly meets with white supremacists" from one source, who happens to be a Nazi*, was so believeable in the first place, but several people I like and the NY Times believed it unverified, so I guess I'm missing something there.
If I sound crabby about this, it's because I'm really sick of the way liberals are treating the guy. No, he's not perfect. But I can't imagine why smearing Ron Paul is in liberalism's best interest given that IMHO he sucks least of all the Republican candidates, yet if he were the nominee lots of Republican voters would stay home on election day. I would say either one of those is reason enough to leave him alone, yet I'd say both are true and STILL liberals can't stop smearing him.
I mean, watch the man in action.
(No, seriously, do.)
Why are liberals so excited to tell lies about a guy who so obviously pisses off Mitt Romney?
Don't y'all have anyone better to attack than the only Republican who voted against the war? Hint.
who dislikes Richardson least of all the Democratic candidates, FWIW.
*I do not toss the term around lightly as a random smear. The guy whose words the NYT and lots of other people took as fact is an actual national socialist.