The Democratic Rules For John McCain

If we had a press that applied the same rules to John McCain that it has to Democrats as of late...

You'd hear every Democratic strategist on the talking head shows, and direct questions to the candidate himself, about how he is America's Worst Senator for Children. And sure, the number is a function of McCain missing so many votes - so what. That's basically how Sen. Obama's National Journal ratings were conceived, and as long as that is a fair data point, then so should this statistic from the Children's Defense Fund. "Sen. McCain, why are you considered America's Worst Senator for Children?"

We'd have constant questions asking McCain to renounce or reject or oppose or renouncereject or just say no to the support of John Hagee, a Biblical end-timer who believes that God caused Hurricane Katrina for its gay pride parades, that Muslims are programmed to kill nonbelievers, and that we must hasten the Rapture by invading every country in the Middle East. McCain should be asked about every single one of those statements and whether he explicitly supports them. I mean, I know Hagee's not black, but you'd think his rhetoric of hate would be held to the same standard as Louis Farrakhan.

...my preference would be that all of these side issues be put in the proper context, and substantive reporting be prioritized. But you know, level playing field, and all that.

The Russert-ization of the 2008 Race

The Tennessee GOP does an almost verbatim imitation of the Very Serious Journalist from Buffalo (he's a regular guy, y'all, he's from Buffalo!).

ANTI-SEMITES FOR OBAMA

NASHVILLE, TN - The Tennessee Republican Party today joins a growing chorus of Americans concerned about the future of the nation of Israel, the only stable democracy in the Middle East, if Sen. Barack Hussein Obama is elected president of the United States.

“It’s time to set the record straight about Barack Obama and where he really stands on vital issues such as national security and the security of Israel,” said Robin Smith, chairman of the Tennessee Republican Party. “Voters need to know about two items that surfaced today which strongly suggest that an Obama presidency will view Israel as a problem rather than a partner for peace in the Middle East.

On Sunday, Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan on Sunday likened Obama to a new messiah, calling him “the hope of the entire world.” That’s the same Louis Farrakhan who has a history of making openly anti-Semitic statements, calling Judaism a “gutter religion,” and suggesting that crack cocaine might have been a CIA plot to enslave blacks.

Farrakhan, addressing 20,000 people at the annual Savior’s Day celebration in Chicago, praised the Democrat presidential candidate, calling Obama “The hope of the entire world that America will change and be made better.”

He also compared Obama to the founder of Islam, remarking that both had a white mother and black father, according to the Associated Press. “A black man with a white mother became a savior to us,” Farrakhan said. “A black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from her fall.”

Obama, (pictured dressed in Muslim attire in a 2006 visit to Africa) has on the campaign trail pledged to rapidly remove American soldiers from Iraq regardless of the resulting instability and the creation of opening that would be filled by Islamic extremists, like Al Qaeda, in Iraq’s government and military.

Obama has pledged to hold a Muslim Summit to determine Middle East policy with the very leaders that have as their goal to remove Israel from the map, referenced Jews to be “dogs” and “pigs,” among other vile references.

(Dressed in Muslim attire, ay? That's a new one. At least they're honest about what they're trying to do.)

There are additional smears, but the key one from which it all springs is the one legitimized and mainstreamed by Tim Russert in a public forum last night. Beyond the snickers over whether "renounced" or "rejected" is the proper term of opposition, the reality is that Tim Russert last night made anti-Semitic smearing of a Presidential candidate fair game.

Read the chair of the TN GOP's response to the outcry over their press release:

Smith said today that [...] the state GOP will continue to use Obama's middle name. That's no different than saying "Hillary Rodham Clinton" or "Richard Milhouse Nixon," she said.

"John McCain has to be elected. Robin Smith doesn't," she said. "We have a duty to inform the Republican base."

She said Farrakhan is known for "hateful, anti-Jewish, anti-Israel statements" and when the Nation of Islam leader "essentially endorsed" Obama, "it called out for our statement."

"A duty to inform." "It called out for our statement." There is no material difference between this defense and what Tim Russert would say if challenged on his choice of questioning. The circle is now complete. Not only is Russert a mouthpiece for the GOP, but GOP mouthpieces are mouthpieces for Tim Russert.

The only proper course of action is for Tim Russert to resign, without delay, for setting back journalism to somewhere in the William Randolph Hearst era.

...I'm seeing CNN right now reporting on "what Obama's pastor said" and "Jewish-American concerns," complete with pictures of Farrakhan and scary supporters dressed in robes. Actually, the only concerns are from the GOP, worrying about what new ways to pitch this story to the media so they'll cover it for the next nine months. Actually, I guess they're not too worried at all.

Tim Russert Needs To Go On Dancing With The Stars

That way he'd truly understand what a laughingstock he has become.

I would say it was borderline to bring up the issue of Farrakhan at all. But perhaps since it’s getting some media play you bring it up just for the record, for Obama to address.

That’s not what Russert did. He launches into it, gets into a parsing issue over word choices, then tries to find reasons to read into the record some of Farrakhan’s vilest quotes after Obama has just said he denounces all of them. Then he launches into a bizarre series of logical fallacies that had Obama needing to assure Jews that he didn’t believe that Farrakhan “epitomizes greatness”.

As a Jew and perhaps more importantly simply as a sentient being I found it disgusting. It was a nationwide, televised, MSM version of one of those noxious Obama smear emails.

I touched on this last night, but really, 10 minutes on national television on Louis Farrakhan? In 2008? And he's only one of the African-Americans who will be dragged out for Barack Obama to have to reject or renounce or whatever.

I don't know what to do about Tim Russert: he's actually respected in his field, which reflects badly on the whole field, of course. But it needs to happen. A good public humiliation will do the trick.

Richard Cohen: Loser

Lest you think that the media is just reporting on the "racial identity" issue instead of actively goosing it, read Richard Cohen's horrible column today, which insinuates that Barack Obama is somehow Louis Farrakhan's best friend and they have tea parties together, or something. Nowadays, according to the press, now only surrogates' statements come from the mouth of the candidate, but the writings of the magazine of the candidate's ministry. Now, Obama denied the insinuation in the column, but what was notable is that Cohen tried to play it both ways, clearly stating that he didn't believe Obama shared the beliefs of his minister, but throwing the smear out there anyway just in case.

This is really something. Cohen says that Obama is voting "present" on the question of whether he agrees with Wright's assessment of Farrakhan -- thus insinuating, without quite saying, that Obama has not taken a position on this.

But earlier in the very same column, Cohen actually quotes a top Obama adviser, David Axelrod, explicitly saying that Obama disagrees with Wright about Farrakhan. Presumably you are meant to forget this fact by the time you get to the end of the column. This suggests that Cohen doesn't think very much of his readers, wouldn't you say?

Maybe Cohen thinks that Axelrod's description of Obama's views doesn't count. Maybe what Cohen means is that until Obama climbs to the roof of the Apollo Theater and denounces Farrakhan with a bullhorn, he's voting "present" and refusing to share his real opinions of him. Whatever. If so, did Cohen even try to interview Obama for this column, so that he could, you know, ask Obama what he thinks? There's no indication that he did. I emailed Cohen to ask him whether he did this. We'll see if he answers.

Cohen says: "I don't for a moment think that Obama shares Wright's views on Farrakhan." Okay, so what's the problem, then? Why did Cohen write the column at all?

This is often an element of the way the media treats race. Unless black people fully repudiate the most extreme and militant views, even if they have little or no relationship to those views, then they are practically equivalent. Richard Cohen has no idea what Barack Obama believes about Louis Farrakhan. But he has no problem associating the two. This is despicable.