Roger Simon has reached some conclusions on the media’s collusion with the campaign of Senator Obama that are particularly well stated:

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.” Another lie. 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.

It might not have seemed possible for the press to be more in the tank for the Democratic ticket than they were in 2004, but it would appear to have happened.

This entry was posted on Friday, October 10th, 2008 at 10:03 pm and is filed under Democrats, General, MSM, Republicans. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.