OK, it’s official–I’ve had enough.  This whole bruhaha started when former Mike Huckabee campaign chair, Chip Saltsman, gave his staff members, as a private Christmas gift,  a CD of political parodies from the Rush Limbaugh show, written and performed by Paul Shanklin.  Because the CD had one track (out of 41 tracks) on it titled “Barack The Magic Negro”, Saltsman promptly was called a “racist” by the MSM, the lefty blogs, and by some members of the RNC.   In fact, AOL Political Machine blogger, Tommy Christopher, has stated in a column that Chip Saltsman has “given the gift of racism” and that our own Erick Erickson has “presented an outright defense of the racist song”.  Here is Erick’s response to Tommy.  However, now that I have had a chance to digest this whole exercise in silliness, I would like the opportunity to address Tommy Christopher myself.   So, here goes:

Dear Tommy,

My wife emailed me this: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/movies/19wond.html?emc=eta1

Here’s the  summary:

“It’s a Wonderful Life” is a terrifying, asphyxiating story about growing up and relinquishing your dreams. Was this what adulthood promised?”

I doubt that there’s a human being on the planet who hasn’t seen this movie, with the possible exception of a few tribal groups deep in the Amazon.  The author of this review puts a completely selfish and cyincal spin on the story.  He goes on at length about how horrifying the movie was to him at 15, much fun the town looks like after it’s degenerated into Pottersville, and the empty look in the eyes of Ernie the cabbie as he drives George around the changed town.  He also points out that at a couple of times in George’s life, he lashes out at those closest to him.

This was once of the most self-centered, small-minded articles I’ve ever read.  I’m horrified.  The point of the movie is that when we sacrifice our own desires to a greater good, the rewards are worth the  price, even if they’re something we take for granted.  George subordinated his wanderlust for the sake of his family and his town, and he did it of his own free will.  Yeah, he chaffed at it, and it turned into rage at a couple of the lowest points in his life (primarily so that the character would be more interesting), but then he sucked it up and “did the right thing”.

As for how much “fun” Potterville looked like, and the blank look on Ernie’s face, they’re one and the same;  all the vice and glamour was nothing but a facade for the empty misery of life in a town without values.

That was once of the most selfish, self-centered, small-minded articles I’ve ever read.  I’m horrified.

The point of the movie is that when we sacrifice our own desires to a greater good, the rewards are worth the  price, even if they’re something we take for granted.  George subordinated his wanderlust for the sake of his family and his town, and he did it of his own free will.  Yeah, he chaffed at it, and it turned into rage at a couple of the lowest points in his life, primarily so that the character would be more interesting; we need to know that he’s chaffing and that the dreams of the young man have never been forgotten.  But then he always sucked it up to Do The Right  Thing.

As for how much “fun” Potterville looked like, and the blank look on Ernie’s face, they’re one and the same;  all the vice and glamour was nothing but a facade for the empty misery of life in a town without values.

The character of George represent every family man in the world; I saw my father in him the first time I saw this movie, and I’m usually pretty dense about these sorts of things.  I’m truly stunned that a writer who has a son of his own hasn’t figured this out. 

This author is an example of a generation that never seems to stop harping on how we ”change the world”, and he works for a newspaper that’s relentless in it’s desire to see the government used to FORCE people to do what it sees as the right thing, and yet he can’t seem to understand the moral in a trite little movie about personal sacrifice, or the nobility of an “ordinary life”.

Ludwig van Beethoven was born on this date in 1770.

Please celebrate the birth anniversary of this cultural giant.

Newsweek has caused a stir over its recent cover story “The Religious Case for Gay Marriage,” which attempts to make a mockery of the Holy Bible, but really only showed the author’s complete ignorance, reading comprehension and lack of depth. The author, Lisa Miller attempted to fight “fire with fire” by quoting and, it is assumed to be, interpreting the Bible’s New Testament scriptures to prove just how ambiguous Jesus’ words were on marriage – any marriage.

OK, it’s official. Maureen Dowd is the worst New York Times op-ed columnist of the 2008 election year. Folks, that’s a big accomplishment because, as you all know, she had some pretty stiff competition from the likes of Frank Rich, Bob Herbert, and Nicholas Kristof. So, without further delay, please allow me to explain exactly what Maureen Dowd did to merit her award.

First of all, Maureen Dowd wrote a column yesterday that was literally about how white people and black people are talking for the first time in DC, because Barack Obama won—and she even mentioned how she asked her black mailman if he was excited because of Obama’s victory (I’m not making this up). Now, I don’t know about Ms. Dowd and her friends, but I’ve been talking to African-Americans my entire life, and would have continued to do so with or without an Obama win.

Now, in last Wednesday’s column, the day after Obama’s victory, Ms. Dowd wrote a column stating that Hillary Clinton showed “covert racism” by telling the superdelegates that “He can’t win”, with regard to Obama. That’s funny–I thought that every politician in any sort of primary (Republican or Democratic) would argue to the voters and superdelegates that “I can win and my opponent can’t”. Before the financial crisis, I thought that Obama couldn’t win because of his inexperience and his shady connections. Does that make me a racist? I guess it does according to Maureen Dowd. Furthermore, I remember Obama telling voters during the Democratic primary that he could beat John McCain and Hillary couldn’t. Does that make Obama a sexist? Oh, but the best part (and by best, I mean worst) of her column was when Ms. Dowd stated that many general election voters had shown overt racism by telling The New York Times that (and I quote her directly), “President Obama would turn the rose garden into a watermelon patch, that he’d have barbecues on the front lawn, and that he’d make the White House the Black House” (again, I am not kidding). Now, of course, Ms. Dowd provided absolutely no links, or even direct quotes from any specific voters for that matter–she just carelessly threw out these horrific accusations. On a side note, what’s really funny, is that the only person that I remember ever talking about the White House becoming the Black House was rapper and Obama supporter Ludacris, but I digress.

However, the column that clinched the award (of worst New York Times columnist) for Maureen Dowd was actually one written back on August the third titled, “Mr. Darcy Comes Courting”. In this particular column, Ms. Dowd first states that the reason why working class women, who voted for Hillary, weren’t going for Obama is because he is “too cool” and that “they prefer mac and cheese” (again, I am not making this up). Then, Ms. Dowd goes on to compare Barack Obama to Mr. Darcy, a character from the great Jane Austen novel “Pride and Prejudice”, who is known for his haughtiness. She further asks if Obama can “overcome his pride” and if “America can overcome its prejudice and elect the first black president”.

What these columns demonstrate is that Maureen Dowd is absolutely obsessed with race. I mean, she must look under her bed every night before she goes to sleep in order to make sure that the racist boogie man doesn’t come get her. Most importantly, though, what’s so incredibly pathetic is Maureen Dowd’s view of her fellow Americans, and of America itself. Ms. Dowd obviously thinks that most Americans that don’t run in her Manhattan/D.C. cocktail party circuit are racist, low class, mac and cheese eaters.

By the way, Maureen Dowd is not alone in her low opinion of American voters. I recently wrote a diary about how Bob Herbert falsely accused both Hillary Clinton and John McCain of running “southern strategies” (and thus implying that their supporters were racists), and I also recently wrote a diary about how Nicholas Kristof falsely accused Republicans (and Redstate in particular) of trying to “otherize” Obama in order to appeal to racist voters. Oh, and Frank Rich wrote an outrageous column back in October where he accused the McCain campaign of “playing the race card” and of “inciting vigilantism” simply because they brought up Obama’s connections to Bill Ayers and Franklin Raines (the former CEO of Fannie Mae). Falsely accusing candidates, as well as voters, of racism is beginning to become a real nasty habit over at the New York Times editorial page, but I digress.

Now, another point that I think needs to be made with regard to Ms. Dowd’s ridiculous column comparing Barack Obama to Mr. Darcy, is that Barack Obama is NOTHING at all like Mr. Darcy. First of all, yes, Mr. Darcy is indeed handsome and arrogant (like Obama), but he is also extremely serious, uncharismatic, solemn, and, dare I say, somewhat morose–Barack Obama is none of these things. Don’t get me wrong, Mr. Darcy is one of the great literary figures of all time; however, if I were a politician, I would not want to emulate him. (Note to future politicians—if pundits are comparing you to Mr. Darcy, it probably means that you are unelectable and that you are going to lose). Not to mention, Mr. Darcy would probably have absolutely no use for Barack Obama’s hopey-changey rhetoric—he would find it extremely silly.

Moreover, even the title of Ms. Dowd’s column, “Mr. Darcy Comes Courting”, is all wrong. Mr. Darcy doesn’t intentionally court anyone—he thinks it’s beneath him. When the heroine of “Pride and Prejudice”, Elizabeth Bennet (played superbly by Keira Knightly in the movie), first meets Mr. Darcy she can’t stand him. I also think that it’s important to note that when Mr. Darcy finally gets up the nerve to tell Ms. Bennet that he loves her, he literally tells her that, “You’ve bewitched me”—this conveys to me that Mr. Darcy wasn’t looking for love (i.e., he wasn’t purposefully “courting” Ms. Bennet).

So why is understanding the intricacies of Mr. Darcy’s personality important? Because if one understands who Mr. Darcy is, then one could reasonably conclude that Maureen Dowd hasn’t even read the book or seen the movie—she is just a pretentious hack who wants to be seen as quoting the right books or Oscar nominated pictures, and supporting the trendy candidate in order to impress her vacuous circle of friends (Jane Austen frequently wrote of her type). However, the other hypothesis could be that Ms. Dowd did indeed read the book, but she still has absolutely no understanding of who the characters really are.

Now, reflecting on Maureen Dowd’s God-awful writing has had one good side-effect in that it has made me think about what Jane Austen characters both Barack Obama and John McCain really resemble (please allow me to go off on a tangent here). Redstate poster Lizzie has stated (in the comments in my diary about Bob Herbert) that John McCain reminds her of Colonel Brandon (beautifully played by Alan Rickman in the movie), the under-appreciated but honorable soldier in another Jane Austen novel titled, “Sense and Sensibility”. I tend to agree. Furthermore, Barack Obama actually reminds me of Mr. Willoughby, the handsome, charismatic, narcissistic snake-oil salesman, in that same novel. Sure, Mr. Willoughby is charming with his spiffy equestrian boots, his cool sideburns, his flashy yellow carriage, and his pocket sized copy of Shakespeare’s sonnets that he carries around (if Mr. Willoughby were alive today, instead of quoting Shakespeare he would say “Yes we can”, but I digress), but you just know that he’s going to break poor Marianne’s heart (played superbly by Kate Winslet). And, when Mr. Willoughby does smash Marianne’s heart to smithereens and she’s left babbling in the rain like an idiot and collapses with a fever, it’s good old dependable Colonel Brandon that shows up to rescue her.

(Below are two youtube videos. The first video shows scenes from “Sense and Sensibility”—Mr. Willoughby is shown at the beginning of the video, and Colonel Brandon is shown toward the end. The second video shows scenes from both “Sense and Sensibility” and “Pride and Prejudice” set to country music (I know, it sounds cheesy, but it’s awesome). Mr. Darcy (from “Pride and Prejudice”) is the solemn looking fellow shown dancing with Keira Knightly. I embedded both videos so that I wouldn’t be making some vague literary references to people who haven’t read the books or seen the movies. I think that these videos will give you a good idea of who these characters actually are.)

Anyway, for me, watching this election was a lot like watching “Sense and Sensibility”. Just like I knew that Mr. Willoughby was going to break Marianne’s heart, I know that Barack Obama is eventually going to break the county’s heart, because they have fallen in love with a man that they don’t really know all that well. I also know that in the end, it will be up to men, like John McCain, to pull us out of the rain by stopping Obama from spending obscene amounts of money, implementing huge tax hikes on businesses during a recession, and pulling the troops immediately out of Iraq–which could risk igniting a regional war.

Reflecting on Maureen Dowd’s race-obsessed rants has also made me realize one other thing—that men like Colonel Brandon usually don’t win elections. Yes, I agree with Byron York in his excellent column when he stated that, “What sank McCain’s presidential bid was a set of the worst conditions to face any candidate in decades, in combination with an opponent who was not only a better campaigner, but also a favorite of the nation’s media establishment”. Not to mention, The Washington Post even admitted that they indeed had a pro-Obama bias (the hell you say!). And, I agree with Charles Krauthammer in his interesting op-ed when he gives the autopsy of McCain’s campaign as follows—“The patient was fatally stricken on September 15th—caught in the middle when the roof fell in (at Lehman Brothers, according to the police report)—although he did linger until his final rather quiet demise on November 4th”. I also agreed with our own Civil Truth in his excellent diary when he said that Hank Paulson might have cost McCain the election. And finally, I agree with Mark McKinnon when he explains in his well-written column that only 9% of the voters thought that the country was on the right track; therefore, it’s kind of remarkable that McCain was able to garner 46% of the vote—especially after the financial crisis hit so close to the election (which Brit Hume said was the “perfect way to blow up the McCain campaign”). However, I must add that men like Colonel Brandon (and John McCain) have a tough time winning elections against men like Mr. Willoughby. Mr. Willoughby is shiny, charismatic, uses pretty words, and is great in a thirty second sound bite. Colonel Brandon is honorable and dependable, but boring to the MTV/Facebook crowd and to the media. In the book, Mr. Willoughby was revealed as a snake-oil salesman just in time, and Colonel Brandon got the girl (or in our case, won the election). But alas my friends—reality rarely works out like it does in the books or the movies. Furthermore, I’d be willing to bet that, even 200 years ago, if Colonel Brandon ran in a hypothetical election against Mr. Willoughby, that Mr. Willoughby would probably win.

So, what now? Well, I have no regrets about supporting John McCain. He fought hard for us against insurmountable odds, just like he did as a POW in Vietnam. Did he make some mistakes? Sure he did (suspending his campaign, some might say not going after Wright, not focusing soon enough on his economic message). However, Obama made his share of mistakes as well (“Above my pay grade”, the Berlin trip, the O’possum seal, playing the race card, Joe Biden instead of Hillary, “Spread the wealth around”). But, as Byron York pointed out in his column, the difference is that, due to the political circumstances, McCain had absolutely no room for error, but Obama did.

Furthermore, John McCain made me especially proud that I supported him when he stood up for his supporters when CNN’s Dana Bash, in an interview, tried to imply that his supporters were all somehow racist, because a confused older woman referred to Obama as an “Arab” at a rally (see video below). McCain gave the exact same Brandon-esque answer to Bob Schieffer during the debate. (It was really nice to hear someone refer to me as a “patriotic American” after people, like Maureen Dowd, had been referring to me for the last year as a “racist mac and cheese eater” just because I thought that Obama was unqualified to be president). Oh, and Obama gave a very Willoughby-esque answer in that same debate when he stated that McCain supporters said “kill him” at a rally, knowing full well that the rumor had been debunked by the secret service, but I digress.

So, in conclusion, yes, I confess to being a tad bit down that McCain lost the election (even though I admit to being mildly amused by reading Maureen Dowd’s hilariously bizarre columns). However, like our own Gamecock wisely said, “We only have one commander in chief”. I wish President-elect Obama the best—even if I didn’t support him. And, like our own c17wife said in her beautiful diary, “Duty is ours, outcomes belong to God”. I have done my duty by voting for who I think was the best man to be president of the United States. Again, I have no regrets. Tonight, I will drink a glass of wine and I will watch “Pride and Prejudice” and “Sense and Sensibility”. I will relax. I will exhale. I will watch beautiful actors in fabulous hats (I’m all about the hats). And, I will have my happy ending—even if it’s only in the movies.

This diary was cross-posted on The Minority Report.

Read More →

This video perfectly depicts how Obama supporters have infested the political landscape of the 2008 election. I literally have nothing else to add, except that this video is brilliant.

As some of Redstate’s regular readers are aware, I have previously written diaries about Frank Rich and Nicholas Kristof. Well now, in part three of my series titled “Get to know a New York Times Columnist”, I will dissect Bob Herbert.

Yesterday, Bob Herbert wrote a column that I felt needed a response. He started out by complaining about MN congresswoman Michelle Bachman (mind you, most Americans probably have no idea who she is) stating that she thought that some members of congress aren’t pro-American enough. Then, in a total non-sequitur, Herbert went off on a tirade about how the ACORN scandal is a “phony” scandal and implied that John McCain was inciting violence by even mentioning it in the final debate (I am not making this up). Well, this was all just too much for me, so I posted a comment on The New York Time’s website; however, my comment never appeared (gee, I wonder why). So, since The New York Times didn’t want to post my comment, I decided to post it right here on Redstate, but with more details and links than I could have used in my original comment on The New York Time’s website. So, here goes:

Mr. Herbert,

There is so much wrong with your column that I don’t even know where to start. First of all, you state that the ACORN scandal is a “phony” scandal. Oh, so that’s why the FBI has been investigating ACORN for voter fraud in more than a dozen different states–because it’s a “phony” scandal and the FBI likes wasting their time. I get it now. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Not to mention, you site such a credible and objective source (The New York Times editorial page) in order to back up your claim that this is indeed a “phony” scandal (laughing as I type this).

Second of all, I recently wrote a diary for Redstate here, where I write in detail and use multiple sources in order to explain that, yes, ACORN is indeed a corrupt organization, and, yes, Obama’s connections to ACORN run deep and back quite a while. (I also suggest reading Dan McLaughlin’s diary about ACORN—the link is in my diary).

Third of all, you imply that John McCain was deliberately inciting violence against ACORN members by simply mentioning in a debate that ACORN has been charged with committing voter fraud (which it has) and of undermining our democracy. However, you do realize that these so called reports of violent threats come from members of an organization that is charged with illegal activity, but I digress.

Now, do you realize that there have been ACTUAL acts of violence against McCain supporters committed by Obama supporters (the links are below)? But, I guess that doesn’t really matter because, after all, they are just McCain supporters–right?

Obama supporter assaults woman holding a McCain sign

Obama supporters throw molotov cocktails at McCain sign in a yard

Hilarious yard sign

Moe Lane’s diary about a vandalized home and RV

Steph C’s diary about a home in FL being shot with a pellet gun

Oh, and it’s not just McCain supporters who have been the victims of the “thuggish tactics” (to quote Jaun Williams) of Obama supporters. Linked below are four different videos of first hand accounts of voter fraud and outright bullying and intimidation by Obama supporters, toward Hillary supporters, during the Democratic primary. (If you only have time to watch one of the videos, then I suggest watching the third one.)

We Will Not Be Silenced–part one

We Will Not Be Silenced–part two

We Will Not Be Silenced–part three

We Will Not Be Silenced–part four

By the way Mr. Herbert, can you please explain to me why the media is still busy performing a colonoscopy on Joe the Plumber, or looking into Sarah Palin’s obstectric records, but are ignoring the people in the above videos (or Bill Ayers for that matter)? Do you honestly think that if Obama supporters had these kinds of stories to tell about Clinton or McCain supporters that the media would be ignoring them?

And finally, Mr. Herbert, during the Democratic primary, you falsely accused Hillary Clinton of racism and of running a “southern strategy” against Barack Obama.

Next, in an embarrassing stint on “Morning Joe”, you falsely accused the McCain campaign of running a “southern strategy” against Obama with their Paris/Britney ads. Then again, you did seem to hallucinate and see The Washington Monument, which wasn’t even in the ad, and you confused the The Victory Column with The Leaning Tower of Pisa, but I digress. Below are the two videos of your performance on “Morning Joe”.

Anyway, my point is that, just as your delusions made you see two objects in the McCain ad that weren’t really there, your delusions have made you see a racist “southern strategy” being employed by anyone who dares to run against Obama. Did it ever occur to you (or to your editor) that expressing your delusions might have the potential to incite violence–or, at the very least, divisiveness? I’m not trying to sound melodramatic here, but I don’t think that you realize exactly how poisonous it is to falsely accuse a candidate of doing something as evil as running a southern strategy, or of deliberately inciting violence. I have a question for you Mr. Herbert. What kind of voters are drawn to a candidate that runs a southern strategy and deliberately incites violence? Answer—stupid, racist, evil voters. So, when you accuse a candidate of running a “southern strategy” or of deliberately inciting violence, you are basically communicating (whether you realize it or not) to impressionable young people, ideological Obama supporters in the media, and far-left lunatics that, “Hey, it’s OK to bully and threaten old ladies at caucuses, it’s OK to stalk and harass a plumber for asking Obama a simple question, it’s OK to vandalize McCain supporters homes (and possibly set them on fire), and it’s even OK to physically assault a woman carrying a McCain sign. These people aren’t supporting McCain (or Hillary in the primary) because they have some difference with Obama over a specific policy, or because they are worried about Obama’s lack of experience. These people are supporting McCain because they are bad people. They are not like us.”

Mr. Herbert, as a New York Times columnist, you have the power to influence millions of people; however, with that power comes awesome responsibility. But, throughout this election season, you have abused your power and behaved incredibly irresponsibly by “otherizing” (to quote Nicholas Kristof) people who don’t support Barack Obama. So, Mr. Herbert, my question to you is, are you even the least bit ashamed of yourself?

Sincerely, Susannah

Read More →

In today’s New York Times, columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote an op-ed about how Republicans are trying to “otherize” Barack Obama by playing up rumors of him being a secret Muslim or even the anti-Christ. In his column today, Kristof listed Redstate (along with Jerome Corsi) as one of the Republican institutions that was attempting to “otherize” Obama with the secret Muslim/anti-Christ rumors. Kristof even placed a link to the Redstate giftshop on his blog about his column. Well, even though I am really busy with my pediatrics rotation (and I should be studying instead of blogging), I just couldn’t bite my tongue. I responded with a comment of my own. My comment is number 159 on Kristof’s blog about his column (the second of the above links); however, I’m pasting my comment below:

-First of all, I am a Redstate blogger and I can tell you that anyone who remotely insinuates that Senator Obama is a Muslim is automatically banned from the site.

Second of all, I recently wrote a diary for Redstate (that was at the top of the most recommended list for a week) in which I went out of my way to debunk the “Obama is a secret Muslim” rumor, and I called Jerome Corsi a crackpot. The link is below.

Frank Rich is an Awful Person

Third of all, as I previously stated in my diary, yes, something like twelve percent (you say thirteen) of Americans believe that Obama is a Muslim, but sixteen percent of Americans believe in Bigfoot, and eight percent believe that Bigfoot is a Muslim (OK, I made that last part up). In other words, if Obama loses, it’s not going to be because voters believe the stupid “secret Muslim” rumors–it will be because voters believe that he is an inexperienced neophyte with unsavory friends.

And finally, Nick, you stated that, “Just imagine for a moment if it were the black candidate in this election, rather than the white candidate, who was born in Central America, was an indifferent churchgoer, had graduated near the bottom of his university class, had dumped his first wife, had regularly displayed an explosive and profane temper, and had referred to the Pakistani-Iraqi border”.

OK, well let’s imagine for a moment that there was a hypothetical white candidate that had started running for president after he had less than two years in the Senate (and had no real accomplishments), and he had attended a racist, anti-American church for twenty years. Now, let’s suppose that this white presidential candidate was running against a black opponent who had over twenty very accomplished years in the Senate, and was a war hero to boot. Who do you honestly think would win? I, personally, think that the white candidate would get creamed by the more experienced, more presidential black candidate.

— Posted by Susannah

Anyway, I felt the overwhelming need to speak up, because I thought that Kristof was falsely accusing all of us at Redstate of trying to “otherize” Obama when, if anything, Redstate has been hyper-vigilant about chastising and banning anyone who remotely implies that Senator Obama is a secret Muslim or the anti-Christ (I feel silly just typing that). So in conclusion, I felt that Nicholas Kristof was trying to “otherize” us over here at Redstate by implying that we are a bunch of bigoted racist hicks and conspiracy theorists who believe everything that we read on the interwebs. Again, I just had to speak up.

Read More →

I’m sure that you all remember the so called “disastrous” Senate race of former Virginia Senator George Allen back in 2006. However, it is extremely difficult to run a successful race of any kind when the mainstream media (particularly The Washington Post) is literally waging a jihad against you, but I digress. Anyway, you all are probably wondering what George Allen and Barack Obama have in common? The answer is that they have more in common than you might think and, if you all will bear with me, I will gladly demonstrate the similarities between their two races, and yet, how their treatment from the main stream media was so drastically different.

In 2006, immediately after the Republicans lost the congress to the Democrats, Frank Rich wrote this op-ed here. In it he called George Allen “an awful person”. One of the reasons why Mr. Rich refers to Allen as “an awful person”, is because Allen didn’t openly discuss the fact that his mother was Jewish. Frank Rich even referred to Allen’s mother as a “closeted Jew” in his offensive column. Never mind the fact that Allen’s mother saw her father dragged away by the Nazis in the middle of the night, so when she came to America, she never even told Allen that she was Jewish (and she converted to Christianity) until a local reporter asked him about his mother’s Jewish ethnicity during his 2006 Senate run (the reporter, Peggy Fox, said that his mother’s Jewish ethnicity was about “honesty”). The Washington Post even explains that Allen’s grandfather was arrested and imprisoned by the Nazis in this column here, in which they also try to justify themselves for calling up Allen’s 83 year old mother and harassing her about being Jewish and seeing her father arrested. The Post even tried to defend their repulsive behavior by stating that, “There are reasons to ask a candidate, especially one who has presidential aspirations, as Allen does, about religion and ethnicity”. Now, keep in mind, at the time, George Allen was just a candidate for the Senate—Barack Obama actually is a presidential candidate. So, by using The Washington Post’s logic, do you all think that any reporter is going to ask Obama about his Muslim stepfather (who, according to this article here, seems like a really cool and interesting guy) or father during a debate? I seriously doubt it—he or she would never work again (and rightly so I might add). Furthermore, do you think that The Washington Post is going to call up Obama’s eighty-something year old grandmother and ask her if Obama was ever a Muslim (Obama is a Christian, I am just making a point)? Of course not! It would be despicable. However, if the above behavior would be despicable if done to Barack Obama, then why wasn’t it despicable when it was done to George Allen? Is the media allowed to be despicable to people that they don’t like, but not to people that they do like? The double standard is shocking.

Now, about Barack Obama. First of all, I want to begin by stating that Jerome Corsi sounds like a bit of a crackpot according to what I’ve read from Peter Wehner and other sources (I wouldn’t waste my money on his book). I, personally, heard Corsi say on Hannity and Colmes the other night that “Obama has extensive connections to Islam”. Well, I looked into Corsi’s claim and found out that Obama had only minor Islamic influences during four years of his childhood (from ages 6-10). Obama’s father was raised a Muslim in Kenya (but by all accounts was an atheist), but Obama only met him once during his entire life, according to Wikipedia. From ages six to ten, Obama lived in Indonesia with his Christian mother and Indonesian stepfather, named Lolo Soetero, who, by all accounts, was hardly what one would call a devout Muslim. Obama attended a Catholic school for two years, and then attended a predominantly Muslim public school (NOT a “madrassa”) for two years where he studied the Koran (so what–so do many scholars, professors, exchange students, and CIA agents). Then, at the age of ten, Obama attended Punahou school, a Christian school in Hawaii (where he lived with his grandparents who were from KS), and stayed there until he graduated from high school. Furthermore, Senator Obama has been a Christian for most of his adult life. Therefore, Mr. Corsi’s characterization of Obama having “extensive connections to Islam” is an extreme overstatement–unless Mr. Corsi’s definition of “extensive” is vastly different than mine. Here is a video from Inside Edition covering Obama’s years in Indonesia, and here is an LA Times article that’s also about Obama’s time in Indonesia.

However, according to Frank Rich’s journalistic standards—or lack thereof—if George Allen’s mother is a “closeted Jew”, then Barack Obama must be a “closeted Muslim”. (Hey, none of you lurkers better freak out on me. I am making a point about what a sleaze Rich is—I am not making an accusation about Senator Obama.) In other words, Frank Rich has the same journalistic standards as Jerome Corsi–no, take that back. Jerome Corsi has higher journalistic standards than Frank Rich, because at least he uses footnotes.

Anyway, The Washington Post recently wrote an op-ed titled “Par for Mr. Corsi”, in which they discussed what a crackpot Corsi is and how offensive it is that Corsi was so willing to pry into Obama’s family’s religious beliefs, and cast aspersions that Obama was somehow keeping a secret. I completely agree with them. However, I wonder if they realize what complete and total hypocrites that they are, considering that that’s exactly what they did to George Allen.

On a side note, I just wanted to state that if Barack Obama does indeed lose the general election, it won’t because some voters thought that he might be a “secret Muslim”, as so many pundits have opined. (It will be because voters think that he is an inexperienced neophyte who has unsavory friends.) Yeah, yeah, I know that, according to some polls, something like 12 percent of Americans think that Obama’s a Muslim. However, I also saw a poll the other day that said 16 percent of Americans believe in Bigfoot and that eight percent of Americans believe that Bigfoot is a Muslim (OK, I made that last one up). Anyway, my point is that there will always be a small percentage of conspiracy theorists in tinfoil hats who believe anything that they read on the “interwebs”—and I’d be willing to bet that most of them probably don’t even vote (or if they do vote, they will probably vote for Ron Paul).

Now, I’m sure that we all remember Senator Allen’s so called “Macaca Moment”. I linked the video here just in case someone, somewhere, has yet to see it. I’m sure that all of you heard that it was meant as some sort of racial slur used by French Tunisians, and that Allen supposedly learned it from his mother (who was a French speaking Tunisian). However, does anyone know what the word “Macaca” actually means? Well, I took the trouble to look it up right here on Wikipedia. The word “Macaca” was a slur used by French colonist in North Africa for the Congolese natives. Well, if any of you really looked at S.R. Sidarth (the Jim Webb campaign aide whom Allen called “Macaca”), I don’t see how anyone could have mistook him for Congolese—or even North African/Moroccan (however, the word “Macaques” was the slur used for Moroccans). To me, Sidarth clearly looks Indian (but then again, my sister-in-law and my best friend are Indians). So either Allen knew what the slur meant, and how to use it, or he didn’t—he couldn’t have kind of known what it meant.

Furthermore, Dana Milbank of The Washington Post, along with a multitude of other pundits, even speculated that Allen’s mother taught him the word “Macaca”. Is it just me, or is that a serious accusation to make against Allen’s mother (that she would deliberately teach her son a racial slur) without any proof? Amanda Carpenter discusses this accusation (among other things) in a really excellent column that successfully documents The Washington Post’s witch hunt against Allen.

And finally, the word “Macaca” is actually the Latin genus for the macaques monkey. Many argue that Allen somehow knew that the word “Macaca” was the genus for the macaques monkey, and that even if he didn’t learn it from his French speaking mother; he somehow knew what it meant, because—I don’t know—maybe Allen moonlights as a zoologist? I mean no disrespect to Senator Allen, but he doesn’t strike me as someone who has a running knowledge of primate taxonomy. Hey, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe George Allen secretly studies zoology so that he can come up with creative ways to slur his opponents’ campaign aides, but I doubt it.

Finally, I want to make it clear, that I don’t approve of Senator Allen, or anyone for that matter, calling anyone “Macaca”. It was definitely rude, boorish, and ungentlemanly behavior on Allen’s part, and he was right to apologize. However, I think that it takes it a bit too far to think that Allen and his mother were part of some racist conspiracy deliberately using zoological jargon. Besides, Allen looked directly into the camera (it wasn’t like he was caught on a hot mike or was secretly tape recorded like Obama was with his infamous “Bitter comments”), so I have to doubt that he honestly knew that the word “Macaca” was some sort of racial slur. Bottom line, only George Allen can honestly tell you what he really meant by “Macaca”. Anyway, Kathleen Parker has a really good column here about what she thought really happened with “Macaca”.

However, what is really interesting about the whole “Macaca” fiasco is the depth of coverage that The Washington Post chose to give it. According to Amanda Carpenter (in her excellent column which I previous linked to), The Washington Post ran a total of 30 news stories (10 on the front page), 10 editorials, and 4 style columns about “Macaca”. Yes, that is a grand total of 44 columns about “Macaca”. The Washington Post actually ran more columns about “Macaca” than they ran about Hamas. I mean, is it just me or is that a little extreme?

Now, let’s look at Senator Obama. Gee, I wonder if he has had any “Macaca moments” of his own? (I would define a “Macaca moment” as the mask slipping—i.e., an embarrassing Youtube worthy gaffe or sketchy close associations that reveals something about the candidate.) No, Senator Obama hasn’t had any “Macaca moments”. Oh wait, except for telling his opponent that she was “likeable enough” at a debate here, refusing to shake his opponent’s hand at The State of the Union Address here, calling PA voters “Bitter gun and Bible clingers” here, his pastor of 20 years being found out to be an anti-American racist here, and a visiting priest at his church proving that his church was a racist organization here. Oh and, here is a column, written by Jim Geraghty, that does an excellent job of documenting a bunch of sexist statements, that could also be called mini-“Macaca moments”, that Obama and his surrogates made about Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primary. Hypothetically speaking, could any of you imagine what the media would have done to George Allen (or any conservative male for that matter) if he had made any of those statements, about a female opponent, that Obama had made about Hillary? Yeah, that’s what I thought you would say—they would have crucified him. Anyway, I am not a betting woman, but I would be willing to bet, in this case, that The Washington Post probably didn’t do 44 stories on all of Obama’s “Macaca moments” put together. In fact, the boys over at Powerline wrote a column here about how The Washington Post was going out of its way to not cover the Reverend Wright controversy.

Oh, and on a side note, when the Reverend Wright controversy first broke, I remember the media as a whole, not just The Washington Post, going out of their way to suppress the story. In fact, I remember Anderson Cooper literally apologizing for having to cover both the Reverend Wright and the Father Pfleger controversies by asking, “Is this really important?” both times when each story broke. Furthermore, I also remember Time magazine’s Joe Klein telling Clinton surrogate Lanny Davis that he was “spreading the poison” when he brought up Reverend Wright on Copper’s show 360. (Lanny Davis discusses Klein’s comment in his op-ed for the WSJ here.) So, if Lanny Davis was “spreading the poison” by simply mentioning the Reverend Wright controversy, then I guess that The Washington Post must have been shoving a cocktail of hemlock and arsenic down all of our collective throats with its 44 articles and columns about “Macaca-gate”.

And finally, there was George Allen’s n-word controversy during his 2006 Senate race, a story which was originally broken by Salon (a liberal magazine). When the Washington Post reported on it here, they simply mentioned that Dr. Ken Shelton, along with two of Allen’s other teammates (from his college football days), had stated that they heard George Allen use the n-word in college over thirty years ago. However, Amanda Carpenter pointed out (in the column that I previously linked to above) that 17 other teammates of Allen’s swore that they NEVER heard Allen use the n-word—but, The Washington Post column only mentioned two teammates that denied ever hearing Allen use the n-word. Surprise, surprise. Furthermore, The Washington Post also states in that column that Dr. Shelton also accused Allen of cutting off a deer’s head and shoving it in an African-American family’s mailbox. However, Carpenter also points out that the two police officers who would have had jurisdiction in that area during the early 1970’s said no such complaint was ever filed. One of the two officers was quoted as saying that the story “was probably a myth”. Again, The Washington Post column on Allen fails to mention this little factoid—I am shocked.

Now, to be fair, The Washington Post did run a grand total of ONE column about someone accusing Jim Webb (George Allen’s opponent in the 2006 VA Senate race) of using the n-word in this column here. Not to mention, the accusation against Webb was far more severe than the one against Allen, because Webb was accused of driving to an African-American neighborhood, with his friends, and pointing guns at blacks just to scare them. However, I clearly remember Chris Matthews relentlessly discussing Allen’s “n-word problem” every night on Hardball, during the 2006 election, but I only remember Matthews discussing Webb’s” n-word problem” for one night (and the accusations against Webb were way more damning than the ones against Allen; however, the accusations against both men lacked any corroborating evidence and were entirely based on thirty year-old hearsay).

On a side note, Amanda Carpenter also reports (in the column that I linked to previously) that Jim Webb’s Jewish primary candidate, Harris Miller, accused Webb of printing and distributing anti-Semitic fliers about him. Carpenter has a copy of one of the fliers in her column (and I must say that it does look extremely anti-Semitic), and she reports that The Washington Post did not run one front page story about the Webb flier. Hypothetically speaking, could you imagine what The Washington Post would have done to George Allen if a Jewish opponent had accused him of printing anti-Semitic fliers about him? Yeah, that’s what I thought you’d say—they would have crucified him, but I digress.

Now, I’m sure that all of us, at one time or another, heard the internet rumor about Michelle Obama supposedly using the disparaging term “whitey” in Trinity United Church of Christ (home of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright). Let’s pretend The Washington Post had dug up someone who said that they overheard Michelle Obama use the term “whitey” fifteen years ago in Trinity Church, without offering any other corroborating evidence (video, tape-recordings, etc.). That would be despicable! The entire story would be based on fifteen year-old hearsay (sorry, my husband’s an attorney), and it would be shoddy journalism to say the least, if not outright libel and defamation of character. Furthermore, it’s not really too difficult to find some self-indulgent, narcissistic, twit who will say anything in order to get his or her fifteen minutes of fame. However, it is OK to dig up someone who supposedly overheard George Allen use the n-word over thirty years ago, without offering any corroborating evidence? Whatever. Now, I realize that it was reported that George Allen used to hang a Confederate flag in his home (during the early 1990s), so some in the media automatically assumed that Allen was a racist and so it was, therefore, OK to run stories on him based entirely on hearsay. Well Barack Obama attended a racist, anti-American, anti-Semitic (they did give an award to Farrakhan after all, and Reverend Wright did say that Israel was a “dirty word” in this video here) church for over twenty years. Does that make it OK to print unsubstantiated rumors about him and his family? I think not, but I don’t think that it’s cool to print unsubstantiated rumors about George Allen either.

So, in conclusion my friends, this diary is not really about George Allen or Barack Obama. They are neither here nor there. This diary is about how both men had “Macaca moments”, both men have had family members from different religious/ethnic backgrounds, and both men have had “race problems”. However, I believe that I’ve produced overwhelming evidence that the media (in particular, The Washington Post) treated both men in drastically different ways. (Please forgive me if this diary is a bit long, but it deals with the sensitive topics of race and religion, so I wanted to make sure that I properly researched and documented everything.) This should be a serious lesson to us all. Some in the media are legitimate journalists. However, some are “awful” people who will write and say sexist garbage about a former First Lady (see Gereghty’s column), will accuse a US Senator of using the n-word based on thirty year-old hearsay, will harass an eighty-three year old woman on the phone and refer to her as a “closeted Jew”, and will bury stories about candidates that they are in the tank for. We should not turn our backs on them.

Read More →