Today we’ve got two examples of the Left doing what they do best: smearing conservatives as race-baiters. Like ol’ Wolverine pictured above, they’ve had many years of practice at it, and it’s not very nice.
Hannity’s racialized anti-Obama agenda was obvious from the start when, instead of just discussing the Arizona immigration ruling earlier in the day, he made a point of repeatedly adding the “(racial) politics” of the Obama Department of Justice into the mix. While Malkin is nothing if not a racial demagogue, she doesn’t usually make a point of attacking Obama as a racist, as so many other Fox News pundits do. Hannity’s repeated attempts to get her to do so would have been funny if it weren’t so toxic.
Of course, the only real sin exposed in News Hounds’ own quotes from the show is Hannity asking what the Obama Administration’s motives might be in stirring up racial fears in spite of what SB1070 actually says (regardless of the fact that legal Hispanic immigrants are tired of illegal immigration too), the motives behind the Justice Department’s alleged selective, discriminatory enforcement of civil rights laws, or the Left’s longstanding weaponization of race. If News Hounds doesn’t like the answer, then their quarrel is with Obama, not with the guy asking the question.
Next up is the ironically-named Crooks and Liars, which passes along a Salon editorial whining about two “official Fox News Democrats-in-residence,” Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen, who condemn Obama’s tactics of racial division. Salon’s Alex Pareene complains that this is a classic example of “accusing your political opponent of doing what you yourself are guilty of.” Of course, he offers no evidence that Fox News race-baits (maybe because FNC might actually be more diverse than the rest of the MSM), instead offering the old lefty spin on the Skips-Gates incident and the Black Panther case (that injunction was reduced, sparky, and there’s still the pesky matter of institutional DoJ discrimination), and dismissively mentioning immigration and Jeremiah Wright without bothering to offer rebuttals on either point.
Crooks and Liars offers its own spin on the piece by noting that Hannity cited them on the air, the implication presumably being that he couldn’t find “real” Democrats to distance themselves from the White House, so he misrepresented the significance of these two. Of course, it would be odd indeed for Hannity to expect viewers not to recognize names of two of his regular guests, which might be why he made no secret of their ties to the channel:
Two Democrats, that are often on this program, Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen, wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal today…
Hannity’s Goebbels-esque propaganda skills are daunting, aren’t they? Admittedly, it wouldn’t be wise to attribute too much significance to Caddell and Schoen’s dissent, because they are anomalies; the real headline should be that more Democrat consciences aren’t offended by the Administration’s conduct.
Projection is a real enough phenomenon, which finds its way into politics all too often. But accusing your opponent of it also a quick, lazy way of obscuring one’s own conduct and motives, spinning a web of confusion about who’s projecting projections of projections. While superficially confusing, a simple examination of the facts is usually enough to untangle the spin and unmask the true culprits.