How Can They Get Away With Saying This?
In today's NY Times, there'a an article about reactions to the Georgia primary results
"I definitely have some feelings about any outside group exerting this kind of influence in a race, and I've been receiving angry calls from white voters all day, saying they should rally against Jewish candidates," said Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Texas Republican who is the chairwoman of the Congressional Caucasian Caucus.
"To have non-whites from around the country putting millions into a race to unseat one of our leaders for expressing her right of free speech is definitely a problem," Ms. Johnson said.
Of course, in the actual Times article, it's "black voters" and the "Congressional Bkacl Caucus" and a "Texas Democrat".
But that sounds just as ugly and racist as the above, and I'd bet any amount of money that, if a white Republican had said the above, it would be on the front page, above the fold, in the Times and the Washington Post, and the lead story on CNN. And we'd hear it in every Democratic campaign ad from now until Doomsday.
But it's OK; no, it's a good thing for black Democrats to be openly racist. Perfectly acceptable.
And when one of their own is targeted, outside influences are bad. But when individual candidates for the House and Senate hold fundraisers and seek out money from outside their own district or state; when Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschle exhort citizens to contribute for races outside their state "so we can keep the Senate/take back the House" it's OK. Outside money and influence is good, as long as you control it.
And of course the Times continues the bias against Israel and Jewish donors:
Ms. Majette also outraised Ms. McKinney by nearly two to one, pulling in more than $1.1 million in campaign funds, much of which came from pro-Israel political action committees and individual donors outside of Georgia.
Nowhere in the article do they mention that much of Ms. McKinney's money came from outside sources as well, and in large part from pro-Arab and Muslim donors.
I hate to keep harping on this, but it has to be fought. This sort of bias is subtle, and insidious. At least with the Times' editorial page, you know up front that they're almost all liberals. In what are purported to be straight news articles, you expect a bit more objectivity, and that's sadly lacking in the Times and in the Washington Post, which unfortunately are the two most influential papers in the country.