My own conviction about the Trashing of Obama comes from everyman’s core of unprovable truths: gut instinct. I read and, as much as necessary to augment my own preconceived notions, listen to the bleating of such luminaries as Gingrich and Limbaugh. Early on, almost immediately, I decided their assault on the President was more racial than political; that is, the motive was political, but the attack itself was and is predominantly racial.
Ouch. Disturbing image: “bleating luminaries.” Sorry.
They were the first major media figures to attack the President personally. Public pipsqueaks like Jonah Goldberg had been doing it all along, of course, but the electorate generally pays little attention to them. When Gingrich and Limbaugh joined the chorus, however, the situation changed. (Whether they were sicced on the President by people like Richard Mellon Scaife, or conspired together to attack him, or followed independent instincts which took them on parallel courses is immaterial just now.)
The first question which comes to mind is this. Why does the American electorate give the tiniest bit of a tinker’s dam about the opinions of two egomaniacal blowhards? Perhaps E J Dionne has has the answer.
A media environment that tilts to the right is obscuring what President Obama stands for and closing off political options that should be part of the public discussion.
Yes, you read that correctly: If you doubt that there is a conservative inclination in the media, consider which arguments you hear regularly and which you don’t. When Rush Limbaugh sneezes or Newt Gingrich tweets, their views ricochet from the Internet to cable television and into the traditional media. It is remarkable how successful they are in setting what passes for the news agenda.
Now that G and L have cleared the way, the pipsqueaks are getting attention as well: their previously-ignored blather has been certified by circulation in newspapers and on TV news shows.
Years ago, I worked in “television news.” The name became an oxymoron. I left.
That is why Frank Gaffney can write, and the Washington Times will print, such drivel as this.
[T]here is mounting evidence that the president not only identifies with Muslims, but actually may still be one himself.
(In isolation, there’s nothing wrong with such an accusation; as many of you know, some of my favorite people in the whole goddam world are Muslims. In context however, Gaffney makes this a threat to America.)
That is why Victor Davis Hanson can attack Obama by complaining of racism on the part of his nominee to the Supreme Court.
Most of the furor surrounds statements on race by Sotomayor herself: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Sotomayor was clear enough. In a broad discussion about sex/race discrimination cases and their history, she stated that judges’ ethnicity and gender make them better or worse at what they do.
If you need help deconstructing bullshit, ThinkProgress has the goods on Gaffney, and hilzoy at Obsidian Wings straightens out the Sotomayor tangle.
I’m not done with this yet. More later.
The deep-seated issue in these people’s minds is that a man who in their eyes should be serving the drinks at the White House by virtue of his skin color is actually running the show. The same is true of the Sotomayor issue, their objection to her appointment is that she is Latina, and therefore in their eyes ought to be cleaning their house, watching their kids, or doing their laundry.