Saturday, August 21, 2004

Useful Fools and Useful Tools

Reader reaction regarding my recent post on the the Star Tribune's blatant distortions about the defeat of Max Cleland. First, James Phillips from Folsom, CA:

I've got nothing to add to your "Mythmaking at the Star Tribune" post, notwithstanding the fact that I have been drinking. 

I just want to say that your simple straight-forward post would make wonderful journalism.  The "Saint Max" myth has been vexing me since he got his ass righteously whipped.  I could understand an honest argument about whether or not homeland security employees would be allowed to be organized labor, but the Dems won't engage in that argument because they are pansies see (told you I'd been drinking). 

Seriously, I think the Dems know in their hearts (I'm a Republican lawyer, so I would not know about having a heart) that most Americans would value safety and security over union membership.  Thus, they must canonize St. Max and lie about his defeat.

I agree with James, he has been drinking again. And he's right about Cleland, the Democrats cynical exploitation of him is almost as bad as what they're doing to poor Patty Wetterling this campaign season. Have these people no shame? (No!)

Local writer Gary Larson also writes in on this topic:

Nifty item you did on the Conrad de Fiebre's ill-premised  opinion showing up in his Max Cleland story. Reveals (again) the partisanship of this reporter in the ol' Party organ.   I complained civilly, rationally, to the new Reader Rep about de Fiebre's stating falsehood as "fact," without, of course, any response from her.  Not that I expected a correction.  
I did a column in March about how Strib tail-twisted  truth to make it appear the "Rs" are "questioning" Cleland's--and Kerry's-- patriotism, when that's simply not the case.  It's a canard, a myth de Fiebre repeats.         
So, you see,  the Strib is merely up to its old tricks, except now on its news pages as well,  courtesy of Conrad de Fiebre instead of Deputy Editor  Boyd.  How tawdry.  But then, we knew all that, didn't we?  Cheers!

1 comment: