Political Journalism At Its Finest

It is fucken hilarious that blue-eyed granny-starver Paul Ryan and his grim rage-drunk rich asshole running-mate got fucken *destroyed* in Ryan’s own goddamn motherfucken home town.

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?