The Washington Post's Next Macaca Marathon Is Well Underway

In 2011, the paper used the same macaca tactics against both Rick Perry and Marco Rubio, each with diminishing results. The latter attack involved the Post descending into Birther-land as well, as Moe Lane wrote at Red State in October of 2011:

And now we have this silly little hit piece on Marco Rubio’s story regarding his parents, which is not just so inaccurate that it’s being smacked down by other newspapers; it’s so inaccurate that it’s being smacked down by the newspaper’s own columnists. The problem? The guy who wrote the article – which implied that Rubio habitually lied about when his parents fled Cuba without actually giving proof that Rubio habitually lied about when his parents fled Cuba – is himself an apologist for the Castro regime (h/T: Erick Erickson) who was apparently willing to use Birther agitprop* (I have another word for it, but it’s unprintable). Actually, the real problem for the Washington Post is that Marco Rubio is a young, engaging, excellent rhetorician and politician who has inexplicably picked the wrong party to belong to; couple that with a certain bitter frustration that their side’s young, engaging, etc. etc. who they helped elect President in 2008 has turned out to be neither an excellent rhetorician or politician and you can understand their actions. Well, that and the chimerical nostalgia of how the paper was able to change the news in 2006.

Seriously, guys? The first step to fighting an addiction is to admit that you have one.

Why start now? The Post's addiction to the Macaca meme has done wonders for its bottom line. (Shrinking it down to where the once-illustrious paper was bought this month for walking around money by Jeff Bezos, that is.)