Media narrative must never let media or liberalism be discredited

By Mike DeVine, Legal Editor for The Minority Report and The HinzSight Report

Now that the Democratic Party has apparently chosen its nominee for President, savvy liberal reporters like, Richard Cohen of The Washington Post are already writing pre-mortems, understanding (like Gamecock has crowed since 2006 re any likely leftist his former party was sure to choose and has crowed since 2007 when we discovered the Obamanation) that Barack Obama cannot and will not be elected President.

Of course the so-called mainstream media is in the tank for Barack Obama of 20-year pew-parked butt in the Trinity (Minister Farrakhan, Reverend Wright and Father Pfleger) United to hate white people and America Church fame, complete with hardball leg tinglings and cries of racism should anyone question, i.e. accurately quote campaign surrogates and advisors.

Speaking of cries of racism, Cohen is out early with the claim that Obama will lose due to the racism of the American (read white Republicans) people, (never mind that the best evidence they can offer is supposed racism in the DEMOCRAT primaries) but he slips up in the process and echoes Gamecock and Hugh Hewitt:

I acknowledge that some people can find nonracial reasons to vote against Obama -- his youth, his inexperience, his uber-liberalism and, of course, his willingness to abide his minister's admiration for a racist demagogue (Louis Farrakhan) until it was way, way too late. But for too many people, Obama is first and foremost a black man and is rejected for that reason alone. This is very sad.

Hugh Hewitt opines:

This is, of course, nonsense. Obama has won the nomination by running as a hard left, anti-victory tax raiser with a circle of radical advisors, mentors and friends. He will lose the general because he really is a hard-left, anti-victory tax raiser with a circle of radical advisors, mentors and friends.

[RACISM UPDATE]

Cohen's reference to a vague poll question as to whether race was "a factor" is very weak evidence to support his claims. Respondents could easily have interpreted that question as asking if the racism exhibited by Obama's friends and supporters was a factor.

Moreover, John McWhorter, a prominent black author and Obama supporter refutes claims of significant racism among the American electorate:

Racism in Retreat

A year and a half ago, often I was sweetly dismissed when I said that Barack Obama was possibly on his way to the White House and would certainly trounce Hillary Clinton for the nomination.

"You don't know what they'll do to him," they'd say. As often as not, the idea was that America could not seriously support a black man for its highest office.

I didn't get this. The America I live in today does not seem as deeply stamped by bigotry as these people seemed to think. It seemed as if, on this topic, I was talking to people who had woken up after 25 years and didn't know how the country had changed. Couldn't they see that this man's color was only going to help?

Well, here we are. Are there some bigots? Of course. Did they, or any purported instance of "racism" during the campaign, keep Barack Obama from the nomination?

His victory demonstrates the main platform of my race writing. The guiding question in everything I have ever written on race is: Why do so many people exaggerate about racism?

This exaggeration is a nasty hangover from the sixties, and the place it has taken as a purported badge of intellectual and moral gravitas is a tire-block on coherent, constructive sociopolitical discussion.

Here's a typical case for what passes as enlightenment. On my desk(top) is an article from last year's American Psychologist. The wisdom imparted? To be a person of color these days is to withstand an endless barrage of racist "microaggressions."

Say to someone, "When I look at you, I don't see color" and you "deny their ethnic experiences." You do the same by saying, "As a woman, I know what you go through as a racial minority," as well as with hate speech such as "America is a melting pot." Other "microaggressions" include college buildings being all named after straight, white rich men (I'm not kidding about the straight part).

This sort of thing will not do. Why channel mental energy into performance art of this kind?

Some may mistake me as implying that it would be okay to stop talking about racism. But that interpretation is incorrect: I am stating that it would be okay to stop talking about racism. We need to be talking about serious activism focused on results. Those who suppose that the main meal in the aforementioned is to decry racism are not helping people.

[END RACISM UPDATE]

Besides projections of racism, what else is going on here with Cohen?

Cohen is smarter than the average liberal, more objective and more concerned about his credibility. But make no mistake, the MSM is working off a template they have used since at least 1980 if not 1972.

Ever notice how most all of their between election polls show Democrats ahead until a few weeks or days before elections? Carter in ’80, Mondale in ’84, and Dukakis in ’88 all held large leads over the Republican that vanquished them. Gore and Kerry led as well in 2000 and 2004 respectively.

The MSM uses polls to try and make their wishes come true, but near the end they seek to rehabilitate their reputations with accurate polls.

Moreover, they never admit that Democrats lose because of their liberal policies and what passes for “values.” Oh no. They must never admit that their leftist God is impotent.

Hence, McGovern lost because Eagleton underwent shock therapy, and not because he wanted to lose a war.

Carter lost because Michael Deaver framed good photo ops and Reagan said “there he goes again”, and not because Carter wrecked the economy and lost Iran.

Mondale lost because Reagan joked that he would not hold Mondale’s “youth and inexperience against him”, and not because Mondale promised to raise taxes.

Dukakis lost because George H.W. Bush and Republicans (after Gore) put a black man’s face in a TV ad, and not because Dukakis opposed the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance by grammar school children.

Gore lost because the Supreme Court stole the election (via a lawsuit he filed after breaking America’s tradition of over 200 years of not reneging on a concession), not because he eschewed Clintonism, ran as a populist, had a personality breakdown in three debates and lost his own home state.

Kerry lost because he was “swift-boated” (eye-witness fellow military officers told the truth about Kerry’s publicity tour in ‘Nam), and not because he promised to subject American sovereignty to an “international test” and to give Osama bin Laden an O.J. Simpson-like trial, Judge Ito presiding.

No.

Liberals never lose because of the failure of the liberal policies, both foreign and domestic, for the last forty years.

No, it’s always a debate “moment” on TV, or another event, on TV.

What matters most is that liberalism not be discredited, what happens on TV is deemed significant and dispositive, and that Americans understand that they are racist, bigot, sexist homophobe rubes.

Americans are just too stupid to vote their best interests ya’ know.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns

The Minority Report and The HinzSight Report

Race 4 2008

"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson