Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
As much as I try to avoid this kind of thing — “liberal MSM!” — this just can’t go unremarked. On Face the Nation, National Journal‘s Ron Fournier — who is, by my lights anyway, a pretty good reporter — showed that he has a problem understanding what “independent” means:
JOHN DICKERSON, FACE THE NATION: Ron, you’ve covered the Clintons since the mid-’80s.What’s your take on it?
RON FOURNIER, NATIONAL JOURNAL: I don’t — I don’t disagree with anything you’re saying, but it’s not the only issue. Covering politics isn’t just about who’s winning and losing and who’s going to win or lose. The same bigger issues involved [sic].
Look, I’m a swing voter, an Independent voter. I’ve known and respected her for a long time. A year ago, if you had asked me, hey, would you consider working for Secretary Clinton, I’d say, yes, I’d think about it. Six months ago, if you had said, hey, would you vote for her, I’d say, yes, I’m likely going to vote for her.
Um, okay, that’s not a “swing” voter, or an independent or an undecided or anything. That’s a Democrat. If a year ago, before any Republicans were in the race, you’d have seriously thought about quitting your job to work for a specific Democratic candidate, that’s what being a Democrat means. If six months ago you would have voted for her — before any Republican had jumped in — that’s not what an independent would do.
Nothing wrong with it. But I wish reporters like Fournier would stop lying to themselves and face facts: They’re Democrats.
Later, he adds this:
I don’t know if I can trust Hillary Clinton anymore and it doesn’t make me happy to say that.
But we all know what this means. It means he’ll vote for her anyway. Or for another Democrat.
Because he’s a Democrat.