Jonah Goldberg -- The Media Plays the Race Card
This election is going right down the toilet, and it's mainly the media's fault for it. After having come out of the closet fully in support of Barack Obama, they have done their level best to push the agenda of this election. Worse yet, they're prone to jumping to conclusions that aren't even close to the truth. Now, Jonah Goldberg notes the media is convinced that should Obama lose this election, the only explanation for his loss is that we're all a bunch of racists:
The news media have been shamefully stoking the idea that the only way Barack Obama could possibly lose the presidential election is if American racists have their way. Indeed, the fact that Obama isn't leading in polls by a wide margin "doesn't make sense ... unless it's race," says CNN's Jack Cafferty.
Slate's Jacob Weisberg says Obama is losing among older white voters because of the "color of his skin," in an article subtitled "Racism is the only reason McCain might beat him."
Many journalists are so convinced that racism is the only possible explanation for an Obama loss that they are beginning to see any effective anti-Obama ad as an attempt by John McCain to "viciously exacerbate" America's "race-fueled angst," in the words of one New York magazine writer.
For example, a McCain ad (citing the Washington Post) noted that Franklin Raines, the Clinton-appointed former head of Fannie Mae who helped bring about the current Wall Street meltdown, advised the Obama campaign. Time's Karen Tumulty proclaims that because Raines is black, McCain is "playing the race card."
Why, she wants to know, didn't McCain attack Obama's even stronger ties to the even more culpable former Fannie Mae Chairman Jim Johnson, who had to resign from Obama's vice presidential search team because of his sketchy dealings with mortgage giant Countrywide Financial? "One reason might be that Johnson is white; Raines is black," suggests Tumulty.
Or another reason might be that the McCain campaign was saving that attack for its very next ad, which is what happened.
According to numerous critics, McCain's "celebrity" ads featuring Paris Hilton and Britney Spears were nothing but tawdry race-baiting because they subliminally played on white America's fear of black men violating the delicate flowers of white American womanhood. You'd think a cognitive warning bell would have gone off the moment anyone started suggesting that Paris Hilton and Britney Spears are icons of chastity.
This spectacle is grotesque. It reveals how little the supposedly objective press corps thinks of the American people -- and how highly they think of themselves ... and Obama. Obama's lack of experience, his doctrinaire liberalism, his record, his known associations with Weatherman radical William Ayers and the hate-mongering Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.: These cannot possibly be legitimate motivations to vote against Obama, in this view.
Let me be perfectly clear here because I don't want people coming back and claiming that I'm agreeing with the media. Are there people in America who won't vote for Obama because he's black? Sure. Some people lived in a different era (a la Obama's spin on Jeremiah Wright, and his racist rhetoric), and those prejudices are hard to break. Will it be the majority of people in America?
Not even close, bub.
The majority of people we know of that are against Obama winning haven't cited his race. They haven't cited the faulty assumption of him being a closet Muslim. They haven't cited anything other than his issue stances, and his inexperience. The people we speak with are intelligent, and aren't prone to prejudiced misgivings, rumor, or innuendo. They tell us he's wrong on how he views the economy. They worry about the amount of spending that he'd increase the federal budget by (approximately $1 trillion a year; at the very least, about $700 billion if he can't get his universal health care passed). They question his stance on the war, and his continued calls for an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq. His ideas regarding a troop surge in Afghanistan are half-assed, at best. Even military experts have stated that such a surge, similar to that in Iraq, won't work thanks to the amount of tribal areas ravaged by the Taliban and al Qaeda. We needed the tribes in Iraq to help with the Awakening Councils. We have no such support structure in Afghanistan.
There is also the problem many people have with regard to his ideas of diplomacy. No sensible American wants to see him sitting down with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, or Kim Jong-Il. Well, at least not without us being in a strong diplomatic position, and only after they have capitulated to our demands. (That's not imperialism, folks. That's just common sense.) We're already getting Blackberry texts asking us how Obama would handle the fact that the NorKs have kicked the IAEA out of their plutonium reprocessing plant, shut down all surveillance equipment, ejected inspectors, and are in the process of crash-starting Yongbyon. Our response thus far is that we don't know for sure, but we're pretty sure he would have already been on the phone begging Kim to stop, a la Jimmy Carter and the Ayatollah in '79.
Racism won't be his undoing, not matter how hard the media pushes this meme. It's his radical ideas, his questionable ties to radical individuals, his stance on issues that concern this nation, and his relative executive inexperience. The man hasn't lifted anything heavier than a pencil in his life, and has ridden the Chicago Machine political rails to his position in the US Senate. His political experience is suspect given his rise. He has climbed the political ladder, and never paused on a rung long enough to gain some sort of serious experience.
This is what the majority of voters in America will have in their minds when they vote against him. It has nothing to do with the color of his skin. Sure, some may have that in their mind when they go to the polls, but the majority don't. We know because we have talked to a good deal of people. Oh, and what of those Obama supporters that we've switched? We won't brag that we've converted hundreds. But the dozen or so that we have converted changed their minds when we explained where he stands on certain issues. The biggest issue for those people was the economy, and they're appalled to hear what he has in store for this nation should he be elected. THOSE people supported him because he was the first African American candidate for president. That was tough for them to admit, but when push came to shove, they did admit it.
We wish the media would be so transparent, but they aren't. They're coming up with any excuse to protect him because they see he has a legitimate chance to lose this election. By this time, they admit, he should have a 15 point lead on McCain. Today Rasmussen has Obama leading by two, 49% to 47%. That's got to have his shills in the media worried; at the very least, they should be concerned. Things don't look good for Obama, and they know it. This is why they're already making excuses that don't hold water.
Publius II
The news media have been shamefully stoking the idea that the only way Barack Obama could possibly lose the presidential election is if American racists have their way. Indeed, the fact that Obama isn't leading in polls by a wide margin "doesn't make sense ... unless it's race," says CNN's Jack Cafferty.
Slate's Jacob Weisberg says Obama is losing among older white voters because of the "color of his skin," in an article subtitled "Racism is the only reason McCain might beat him."
Many journalists are so convinced that racism is the only possible explanation for an Obama loss that they are beginning to see any effective anti-Obama ad as an attempt by John McCain to "viciously exacerbate" America's "race-fueled angst," in the words of one New York magazine writer.
For example, a McCain ad (citing the Washington Post) noted that Franklin Raines, the Clinton-appointed former head of Fannie Mae who helped bring about the current Wall Street meltdown, advised the Obama campaign. Time's Karen Tumulty proclaims that because Raines is black, McCain is "playing the race card."
Why, she wants to know, didn't McCain attack Obama's even stronger ties to the even more culpable former Fannie Mae Chairman Jim Johnson, who had to resign from Obama's vice presidential search team because of his sketchy dealings with mortgage giant Countrywide Financial? "One reason might be that Johnson is white; Raines is black," suggests Tumulty.
Or another reason might be that the McCain campaign was saving that attack for its very next ad, which is what happened.
According to numerous critics, McCain's "celebrity" ads featuring Paris Hilton and Britney Spears were nothing but tawdry race-baiting because they subliminally played on white America's fear of black men violating the delicate flowers of white American womanhood. You'd think a cognitive warning bell would have gone off the moment anyone started suggesting that Paris Hilton and Britney Spears are icons of chastity.
This spectacle is grotesque. It reveals how little the supposedly objective press corps thinks of the American people -- and how highly they think of themselves ... and Obama. Obama's lack of experience, his doctrinaire liberalism, his record, his known associations with Weatherman radical William Ayers and the hate-mongering Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.: These cannot possibly be legitimate motivations to vote against Obama, in this view.
Let me be perfectly clear here because I don't want people coming back and claiming that I'm agreeing with the media. Are there people in America who won't vote for Obama because he's black? Sure. Some people lived in a different era (a la Obama's spin on Jeremiah Wright, and his racist rhetoric), and those prejudices are hard to break. Will it be the majority of people in America?
Not even close, bub.
The majority of people we know of that are against Obama winning haven't cited his race. They haven't cited the faulty assumption of him being a closet Muslim. They haven't cited anything other than his issue stances, and his inexperience. The people we speak with are intelligent, and aren't prone to prejudiced misgivings, rumor, or innuendo. They tell us he's wrong on how he views the economy. They worry about the amount of spending that he'd increase the federal budget by (approximately $1 trillion a year; at the very least, about $700 billion if he can't get his universal health care passed). They question his stance on the war, and his continued calls for an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq. His ideas regarding a troop surge in Afghanistan are half-assed, at best. Even military experts have stated that such a surge, similar to that in Iraq, won't work thanks to the amount of tribal areas ravaged by the Taliban and al Qaeda. We needed the tribes in Iraq to help with the Awakening Councils. We have no such support structure in Afghanistan.
There is also the problem many people have with regard to his ideas of diplomacy. No sensible American wants to see him sitting down with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, or Kim Jong-Il. Well, at least not without us being in a strong diplomatic position, and only after they have capitulated to our demands. (That's not imperialism, folks. That's just common sense.) We're already getting Blackberry texts asking us how Obama would handle the fact that the NorKs have kicked the IAEA out of their plutonium reprocessing plant, shut down all surveillance equipment, ejected inspectors, and are in the process of crash-starting Yongbyon. Our response thus far is that we don't know for sure, but we're pretty sure he would have already been on the phone begging Kim to stop, a la Jimmy Carter and the Ayatollah in '79.
Racism won't be his undoing, not matter how hard the media pushes this meme. It's his radical ideas, his questionable ties to radical individuals, his stance on issues that concern this nation, and his relative executive inexperience. The man hasn't lifted anything heavier than a pencil in his life, and has ridden the Chicago Machine political rails to his position in the US Senate. His political experience is suspect given his rise. He has climbed the political ladder, and never paused on a rung long enough to gain some sort of serious experience.
This is what the majority of voters in America will have in their minds when they vote against him. It has nothing to do with the color of his skin. Sure, some may have that in their mind when they go to the polls, but the majority don't. We know because we have talked to a good deal of people. Oh, and what of those Obama supporters that we've switched? We won't brag that we've converted hundreds. But the dozen or so that we have converted changed their minds when we explained where he stands on certain issues. The biggest issue for those people was the economy, and they're appalled to hear what he has in store for this nation should he be elected. THOSE people supported him because he was the first African American candidate for president. That was tough for them to admit, but when push came to shove, they did admit it.
We wish the media would be so transparent, but they aren't. They're coming up with any excuse to protect him because they see he has a legitimate chance to lose this election. By this time, they admit, he should have a 15 point lead on McCain. Today Rasmussen has Obama leading by two, 49% to 47%. That's got to have his shills in the media worried; at the very least, they should be concerned. Things don't look good for Obama, and they know it. This is why they're already making excuses that don't hold water.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 9:12 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home