But what’s even more interesting to me is the following sentence from the LA Times article:
Ryan, a rising Republican star despite last week’s vice presidential loss, frequently invoked his Janesville roots during the campaign.
How has the author of this piece determined that Ryan is “a rising Republican star despite last week’s vice presidential loss”? Has the author measured the trajectory of Ryan’s Republican star both before and in the one week after the election and determined that the trajectory continues to rise? And if so, how does the author know it is “despite” the electoral trouncing? Maybe it is because of the electoral trouncing.
What the fucke ever happened to journalists questioning assumptions, instead of just credulously repeating them?