Is “too late” better than “never”?

In the post below, John wonders about the extent to which the money Obama is using to pay for tonight’s five-network infomercial comes from the illegal donations that his campaign has “facilitated and encouraged.” As John observes, we probably will never know the answer.

We do know, however, that the television blitz is made possible by the fact that Obama broke his promise to publicly fund his campaign if his opponent did. Indeed, Obama’s entire campaign has been fueld by this lie.

It’s a lie, moreover, that the MSM has essentially ignored. Obama’s broken promise may have been duly reported by most MSM outlets months ago when the breach occurred. At that time, some outlets may also have weighed in with an editorial on the subject. But they then returned to their main business — constructing a narrative about how McCain has radically changed since winning the nomination and attempting to dig up dirt, and heap ridicule, on Sarah Palin.

In this context, it’s amusing to see Obama’s fans at the Politico (John Harris and Jim Vandehei) attempt to explain away what they admit is coverage by their publication that has been more favorable to Obama than to McCain. They claim that “negative attacks [on Obama] that in a normal campaign would be commonplace in this year would carry an out-of-bounds racial subtext.” But Obama’s breach of his promise about how he would finance his campaign has no “racial subtext,” and it’s precisely the kind of offense about which one would expect the MSM to express ongoing outrage. It should also be noted that the only meaningful attack on Obama with a “racial subtext” pertains to his association with Jeremiah Wright. The view that this association is out-of-bounds because Wright is black and he directed his racism at whites is itself an obscene reflection of ideological bias.

The Politico’s admission of slant (even as it denies that ideology is to blame) is part of a trend that will accelerate if, as expected, Obama prevails. We will probably then see considerably more of this kind of bogus “introspection” as the MSM seeks to avoid a loss of credibility and readership/viewership, and conceivably to salvage a little self respect.

The more astute or conscientious among Obama’s media cheerleaders have already commenced this process. This is my take on Campbell Brown’s report last night on CNN, in which she made the point that Obama’s ability to buy prime time on five networks is based on his broken promise about how he would finance his campaign. In my view, Brown (whose bias for Obama has been obvious to me) is attempting to restore her credibility now that she feels confident in an Obama victory. After all, it’s tough to sell your show as containing “no bias, no bull” if folks think you’ve been in the tank for Obama.

I’ll be happy to revise this assessment if someone can show that, back when this race was considered close, Brown took Obama to task over his blatant dishonesty about how he would finance his campaign.

To comment on this post, go here.

Recommend this Power Line article to your Facebook friends.

Responses