Why the press hides Obama's lies
Ever since the first sound bites of the execrable Reverend Wright hit the airwaves, it has been obvious that Barack Obama is a less than candid human being. It was impossible to believe that a man who had spent twenty years in Wright’s pews did not have a pretty good idea of the minister’s vile views. You would have had to have been deaf and dumb not to. And Wright was the inspiration of Obama’s books!
Yet when the candidate was confronted by the press about this, he denied knowing about Wright’s excesses and made a speech that was hailed by the media as a monument in race relations equal, some said, to Dr. King.
It was at that precise moment I knew we were living in a media-constructed lunatic asylum. That didn’t take a rocket scientist, I can assure you, only someone with a modicum of common sense. But it only got worse. When Wright predictably “acted out” and let loose with one of his racist screeds of the very type Obama pretended never to have heard, the candidate blithely pushed the minister under the bus with barely a peep from the compliant press.
About that time I learned of his putative relationship with William Ayers, the unrepentant Weatherman. I was assured by the New York Times and others that this was of no consequence, that Ayers was, in Obama’s words, just “some guy in the neighborhood.”
The more we learn of Obama’s ties to Ayers the more complex and disturbing they become. It is unlikely that we will ever know the extent of them, certainly not before the election. Most of what we do know does not come from the Times or the Washington Post of vaunted Woodward & Bernstein fame, but from Stanley Kurtz of the National Review, who has been following this story of the Ayers-Obama whitewash for months. Under orders or not, the normally voluble Mr. Ayers himself has kept his yap shut.
And now we learn of yet another strange obfuscation or omission. In 1996, Obama was apparently a member of the Chicago “New Party,” a now defunct socialist political party of some stripe or other.
There’s nothing wrong with being a socialist. I called myself one for the better part of twenty years. Millions of people have and many still do. But there is something very wrong with hiding who you are or who you were from the electorate—especially if you want to be President of the United States. Yet that seems to be a habit of Mr. Obama’s, with the collusion of the press. To my knowledge, no one in the mainstream media has begun to inquire into the details of Obama’s curiously unreported years at Columbia and Harvard, although much could be relatively easily ascertained. Obama himself has not been remotely forthcoming about them.
The inescapable conclusion is that Barack Obama is a highly deceptive, often dishonest individual. Again, many would say this is standard operating procedure for politicians in our culture (and most others too). But Obama presents himself as something different, a new kind of post-modern politician above the conventional dirty dealings of backroom politics.
Of course, by now that is something of a joke—yet the press is loath to admit it or to do much to balance the investigative reporting equation. They don’t even begin. What is the explanation for this? The most obvious reasons are bias and the desire to defeat the opposing candidate. But beneath these obvious explanations, I sense something more complex and pathological. Deeper fears are perhaps at play - the loss of self-image and personality disintegration, also a desperate need to conform to a fragile peer group. And in these times more than ever, a yet more potent terror – job loss.
UPDATE: Two related articles of note have appeared this morning. In the New York Post, Ron Radosh explores Ayers' educational theories as they relate to Obama . In the American Thinker, Jack Cashill makes the rather extroardinary allegation, using various linguistic study methods, that Ayers may have ghost written Obama's first book. As a memoirist myself, I found this jaw-dropping.
MORE from neo-neocon: Ayers and Obama in synch on education