Looks like slate.com hit piece to me. I don't have much of an opinion of the guy. I'd rather he was the presidential nominee, tho.
Everything negative about your preferred candidate you've always termed hit pieces, over the years, even when they come from your fellow Republicans. Every random negative article you find and post about the candidate you don't want to win is the God's unvarnished truth to you. Seems weird. I have no theory here to explain this.
Not my candidate. Mine is Gary Johnson. If you read what I said, I wish Pence was the nominee rather than Trump. Anyone but Trump, get it? And your link still is a hit piece. Probably written by Hiliar's campaign, in fact.
Yeah, I'm sure the executive editor of the National Review is writing for Hillary's campaign. You take it hard when your own party member pans your party's campaign.
I clicked on your link bait. It is a hit piece. I already showed barfo how his PBS "fact check" article was excerpts from a DNC talking point memo (DNC was hacked, the memo was on the WWW). So yeah, I think the press publishes stuff Hiliar's campaign writes for them. If he is a republican, he's a liberal one.
Aside from the National Review, his credits look like he works/worked for a who's who of left wing politics. Odd that he'd work for TNR and National Review, as they're quite at opposite ends of the spectrum. I am glad you agree that Gary Johnson is my candidate.
Did you? I must have missed that. I do remember you being surprised that two different people could independently point out the same obvious fact. Maybe that's what you are thinking of. barfo
