Skip to comments.Blue Truth, Red Truth (More grist for the mills of the gods of politics)
Posted on 09/19/2004 6:30:11 PM PDT by quidnunc
America has long been a house divided. But the two sides have never been further apart. One side lives in the world where President Bush, whose bold wartime leadership has made America safer, survived an ambush last week from that liberal lion Dan Rather, who tried to swing the race with a bunch of phony documents trashing Bushs National Guard service, only to have the charges blow up in his face.
The other side lives in the world where Rather, the Tiffany networks honored heir to venerable newsman Walter Cronkite, spoke truth to power, made a true if perhaps flawed case that Bush shirked his duty more than 30 years ago, and is by implication unfit to serve as Commander in Chief today.
Each side has a color that corresponds to the election map. For Republicans, Red Truth holds that Rather has at last taken his place alongside other disgraced liberal icons, who have recklessly disregarded the standards of journalism to try to bring this President down. For Democrats, Blue Truth sees Rathergate as a sideshow; the problem with the mainstream media is not that they are biased but that they are lazy and have given Bush a free pass from the start. Red Truth looks at Bush and sees a savior; Blue Truth sees a zealot who must be stopped. In both worlds there are no accidents, only conspiracies, and facts have value only to the extent that they support the Truth.
(Excerpt) Read more at timecanada.com ...
Another entry in the Dictionary of Redundancies.
There are truths and there are lies!
More relativistic nonsense. Never mind taht every credible expert in the country has discredited the CBS tripe.
"What is truth?" . . . asked a Famous Liberal.
In the latest doublespeak move on the part of the left, "nuanced" has become the word to describe moral relativism, and the refusal to admit the existence of hard facts, which, as this article ably demonstrates, has become the central argument of the left's rhetoric.
No dude, there are as Arnold would say, "Drue Liesss"
Well, we all know that, in blue country, that would depend on what the meaning of is, is, wouldn't it?
Perhaps Humpty-Dumpty is beyond repair.
Good article. Thanks for posting it.
But the guys on the 'blogs' don't play that game. For them, either a typewriter was used, or a typewriter wasn't used. Either standard settings in MS Word produce hundreds of remarkably accurate overlays, or they simply don't. It's what both sides should call - the truth.
It's not that there's a conservative or liberal truth. It's that liberals have decided that the 'truth' is what you say it is. And it's only 'idiots and crazies' who would dare challenge the current 'truth', spoken by idiots and crazies.
What? What are you talking about? Freedom is slavery. It isn't a true if perhaps flawed case, it is a forgery and a lie made up out of whole cloth to smear an innocent man for the worst possible purposes. About a matter that was and is irrelevant to the issues before this nation in the first place.
There is no "blue truth". Blue truth is a round square and a misunderstanding. There is truth, and they won't face it or deal in it or restrict themselves to it. They prefer fantasy, because only fantasy can justify their hatred of their own country and their lust for unmerited power. There is no equivalence here. People who think that Bush is a decent man and doing an OK job whatever flaws and improvements there may be, are rational human beings living in the real world of actual facts. People who think Bush is Hitler and the world will end if he is not deposed are raving madmen. There is no equivalence in the matter.
A rational person might disagree with any number of Bush's policies and have others to suggest, well thought out and sincerely meant to be good for the country, not just a way of fading whatever Bush is doing or a way to fool the people into voting for them. But that is not what the Democratic party is presently doing. And any rational person can see this. Even democrats can see this. Ask Zell Miller, or Ed Koch, or Joe Lieberman, or Sam Nunn.
"But some Kerry advisers think he has missed an opportunity to rally voters to his cause using the Net. 'I don't think this campaign really understands the new technology,' says one. 'Yes, they raised money with it, but they don't see it as an organizational tool.' The reason, he says, is that the team still steers by the stars of the New York Times and the TV networks. Senior adviser Mike McCurry reads the Daily Kos and a few other blogs, but most Kerry aides don't and instead rely on one staff member to provide an overnight summary. The Internet is not their medium. 'It's not where they live. It's not how they talk to each other,' says the adviser. 'The Kerry camp hasn't moved. It's where campaigns were 20 years ago. They are going to do it the way they did it in '88 for Michael Dukakis. They are going to do it on TV, but broadcast television is damned near irrelevant for the rest of the cycle. Things move too fast now.'"
Ha ha ha, and Kerry and all the other lib dmes and media sycophants always insult the President by claiming Bush supposedly 'doesn't read the newspapers,' ha ha ha. They're so out of touch and incompetent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.