Manu Raju vs. reporting | a Twitter conversation


Manu Raju vs. reporting

Manu Raju of Politico offers the deceptive "Lamar Alexander: Voters want senators who 'get a result'" ( ). Raju makes it sound like Alexander won his reelection battle despite his support for amnesty, yet Raju doesn't discuss that part of Alexander's campaign was to mislead about what he supports.

All all you do is read Raju's report, you'd never know that Alexander tried to mislead voters about his stance on amnesty.

On the one hand there's "Senator Lamar Alexander Releases Ad with Dubious Statement about His Record on Immigration" ( ).

On the other hand, there's Raju who writes things like "The day after coasting to the GOP nomination in Tennessee, Sen. Lamar Alexander said in a phone interview from Nashville that while conservative voters are less open to bipartisan consensus than when he first became governor in 1979, Republican deal-cutters should aggressively defend their records - rather than run away from them... Despite facing a tea party threat in a conservative state, the 74-year-old former Education secretary continued to periodically break ranks in the Senate, namely over backing the controversial immigration bill last year. It was his support for that bill — which conservative critics derided as “amnesty” for the 11 million undocumented immigrants — that drove influential conservatives like radio host Laura Ingraham to put their muscle behind Alexander’s main foe, state Rep. Joe Carr... But Alexander said his victory showed that Republicans could defend their records even in conservative strongholds like Tennessee."

Obviously, Lamar Alexander - at least in the ad discussed at the link above - wasn't defending his record as Manu Raju says. Instead, Alexander was running from it, even if you won't learn that from Manu Raju's report.
Related pages: politico
This is a Twitter conversation between @24AheadDotCom_ and these users:
If any of these users reply, it will be added to the list of tweets below. If you see no replies below, they have not replied.