"The problem that we have with this president is that we don’t know [Obama]. He was not vetted, folks. … He was not vetted, because the press fell in love with the black man running for the office. “Oh gee, wouldn’t it be neat to do that? Gee, wouldn’t it make all of our liberal guilt just go away? We can continue to ride around in our limousines and feel so lucky to live in an America with a black president.” Okay that’s wonderful, great scenario, nice backdrop. But what does he stand for? What does he believe? … So we don’t know. We just don’t know." -- Michael Steele, RNC Chairman
Bollocks. There isn't really that much doubt as to what Obama believes, unless one is trying to suggest that he's a closet Muslim or a secret Marxist or the actual culprit behind framing Roger Rabbit. I realize that conservatives no doubt consider Obama's relatively favorable media treatment as proof positive of media bias, though it's not as though he's the only person who gets exceptionally good media coverage--Newt Gingrich, for example, ought to be a political leper when one considers his utter failure at pushing any of his major proposed reforms, as well as abysmal popularity, multiple adulteries, etc. Instead he's the toast of D.C. The "liberal" media cannot get enough of him. No doubt another symbol of white liberal guilt, I suppose.
I can tell that the conservative establishment is going to spend at least the next two years screaming about media bias, hoping that the propagandistic effect of this yelling will undermine confidence in the news media, which they somehow believe will be a path to victory, I suppose. Once people see the "real" liberalism they'll run for the GOP hills, the theory must go. I do wonder if conservatives even have an idea what said evil, real liberalism believes in. Presumably, to conservatives, the media doing its job means reporting specious rumors about Bill Ayres writing Dreams From My Father and other unsourced nonsense that might or might not even be possible, let alone true. I talked to a number of conservatives during the campaign who felt the media was going too easy on Obama despite protracted newscycles on Jeremiah Wright and "Bittergate", both of which should have been one- or two-day stories at the most, as there was nothing beyond the surface, but conservatives evidently felt that the media should have been digging deeper--that the media should have asked whether Obama heard said messages, whether he responded to them, whether his kids listened in, etc. Conservatives seem to think that the media isn't asking the right questions, not considering that the media has strict rules on sourcing in publishing an article (with the possible exception of Politico). Assuming that the ideal for the wingnuts would be for The New York Times to become indistinguishable from The Corner, this is merely a sign of the right's tendency to treat wild, unsubstantiated rumors as worthy subjects of exploration and, more broadly, the end of truth and reason as the guiding lights of the right, supplanted by wild-eyed faith and innuendo. None of this is new, I suppose, but it isn't good.
But, ultimately, I don't expect these people to be convinced. A few more electoral defeats will be necessary for any reform to occur, I suspect. What is rather sad is the descent of Michael Steele, who I always felt was something of a lightweight but who I suspected was at least a decent and fair-minded--if very conservative--public figure who understood that the nastiness of present day conservatism was driving away a lot of potential voters. Steele was obviously a tokenistic choice, much like Sarah Palin initially was, and both had obviously not been terribly informed about the currents of the political debate. In retrospect, it seems only natural that, though both seemed to be initially at least somewhat honest, independent, and reasonable, that both would wind up going the full wingnut, as traveling up the stream without a paddle tends to be a losing proposition. Something very similar occurred with Mike Huckabee, who went from a more religious version of Teddy Roosevelt (not a great metaphor, but not entirely a bad one, I think) to someone denouncing the USSA of Barack Obama. This is an important and revealing trend--appealing and promising candidates simply cannot survive the GOP without adopting the nastiness wholesale. Reformist Republicans in particular are no doubt disappointed with both Steele and Palin--the former now sounds little different than his competitor who played the "magic negro" song and the latter seems unlikely to even get a second term as Governor of Alaska, let alone stop Obama in 2012. Is it any wonder that Jon Huntsman would just throw up his hands and accept an Administration job? No doubt he'd rather keep some semblance of integrity and humility, instead of being tossed into the Republican sausage-grinder.
