It entails disregarding a large amount of evidence to the contrary by people in a better position to know than those disseminating these insinuations (such as conservative commentator Stanley Kurtz, who suggests the nefariousness of CAC).
The NYT had a good quote:
Sorry, I had responded to this in my previous post, but somehow when I was editing myself I managed to lose what I'd written.
I just wanted to comment on the use of italics to emphasis that Stanley Kurtz is
conservative, followed by a quote by the NYT, with no corresponding
liberal to identify it.
I have listened to Mr. Kurtz, and he does not resort to insinuations. He presents the facts, as he found them documented in the papers, notes, board meeting minutes, etc. of the CAC. Frankly, I have a great deal more confidence in this documented evidence than I do in the words of the "people in a position to know" - who also happen to be people who have a vested interest in presenting a sanitized rendition of the story.
Which, actually, brings up another point. Until just a few years ago, I would have described myself as a died-in-the-wool Democrat. I was raised by liberal parents, grew up in liberal NY, went to a liberal college, read all the liberal newspapers, and, like all my liberal friends laughed at the audacity of "Faux News" when they reported obvious "conservative propoganda" as if it were
news! (which is to say, the conservative side of the story, which to us was, of course "propoganda" - the liberal side of the story was the "truth".)
My paradigm shift came as a result of my realization that I can actually trust conservative sources more than I can liberal. I find them much more likely to be intellectually honest, and less likely to resort to bias as a means of distorting the truth. (I have a theory that this is related to the conflicting views of "relative truth" vs. "absolute truth".)
