In case you have a life and don’t follow such things, I’m here to inform you that CBS News will soon have a new Chief White House correspondent. Her name is Norah O’Donnell, who until now has been a news correspondent at NBC and MSNBC in Washington.
This may not exactly be earth shattering news, but it is interesting that CBS would hire such a blatantly liberal journalist. Interesting but not all that surprising — because in the world of network news, Ms. O’Donnell isn’t even seen as a liberal. Just as a fish doesn’t know he’s wet, because fish have no frame of reference, network journalists don’t know they’re liberals. They don’t have a frame of reference, either. Fish are surrounded by water. Liberal journalists are surrounded by liberal journalists. In their world, everything to the right of center is conservative – which it is. But everything to the left is middle of the road, which it most certainly is not.
A while ago, Newt Gingrich took a pot shot at President Obama, telling a Republican gathering that “shooting three-point shots may be clever, but it doesn’t put anybody to work.” He was commenting on the president’s televised shoot-out with CBS sports analyst and former basketball star Clark Kellogg during the network’s coverage of the NCAA Men’s Basketball Championship.
No big deal, right? Wrong!
A day later, on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Ms. O’Donnell, who was MSNBC’s chief Washington correspondent, told the other guests the following:
“But I’m not sure what he [Gingrich] means by this particular sound bite and I think it’s open to some criticism because it suggests that the President is an athlete and some people may suggest, you know, because all black people are good athletes. I mean that’s what it sort of sounds like to me.”
I’m sure it does – and for one simple reason: Norah O’Donnell is a liberal. And an elite media liberal at that. These are people who see racism in particular and bigotry in general all over the place.
Take Frank Rich. PLEASE! When he wrote for the Sunday New York Times he was the darling of the paper’s liberal readers who hung on his every word. In one column he wrote that it wasn’t President Obama’s politics that got conservatives riled up, it was his race – and their all-around bigotry. “The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play.”
Then there’s Eugene Robinson, the Pulitizer Prize-winning columnist at the Washington Post who wrote that, “I can’t help believing that the tea party’s rise was partly due to circumstances beyond his [President Obama’s] control — that he’s different from other presidents, and that the difference is his race.”
Tavis Smiley, who anchors a program on PBS, went on MSNBC and said the 2012 presidential campaign will be “the ugliest, the nastiest, the most divisive, and the most racist in the history of this Republic.”
Even the once rock solid just-the-facts Associated Press has gotten into the act. In a story during the last presidential campaign, an AP writer said Sarah Palin was using “racially tinged” words because she told a rally that Barack Obama was “palling around with terrorists” – a reference to his association with Bill Ayers, the domestic terrorist who launched a campaign to bomb the Capitol and Pentagon in his Weatherman Underground days.
This is part of the liberal routine. If you’re against ObamaCare, it’s probably because you’re a racist. If you think the president wasted nearly a trillion dollars on so-called stimulus, you’re a bigot, if you criticize him for just about anything you run the risk of having some liberal elite smearing you as someone who hates black people,
This got me wondering: What if the tables were turned.
What if Herman Cain, the businessman who founded Godfather’s pizza, somehow won the Republican nomination for president. I know it’s a million to one shot, but what if, by some political miracle, he did?
Well, it’s a safe bet liberals would do everything they could to make sure he wasn’t elected. They certainly wouldn’t vote for him. And they’d trash him every chance they got.
But why? Herman Cain is smart. He’s successful. He comes off as strong and competent. Oh yeah, I almost forgot: he’s black.
So if we played the game that liberals are always playing we would come to only one conclusion: Liberals don’t like Herman Cain because they’re racists. What else could it be? It couldn’t possibly be because he’s conservative, could it?
Well, of course it could. In fact, that’s precisely why liberals – black and white – wouldn’t support him. Yet liberals don’t see it that way when the shoe is on the other foot. They can’t believe that conservatives don’t like President Obama because of his liberal politics. All they see are conservative racists.
So here’s my suggestion on how to end this slander: Every time liberals disagrees with Herman Cain’s position on the economy, the budget, the debt crisis, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, or anything else, conservatives should call them racists. They’ll say that’s dumb, but conservatives shouldn’t back down. Keep calling liberals racists over and over and over — until they finally get it.
That, of course, could be a long time. Norah O’Donnell, for instance, was called MSNBC’s “resident deep thinker” – but it wasn’t meant as a compliment if you know what I mean. She doesn’t like Sarah Palin or the tea party and once told Bill Maher that Barack Obama is a “pragmatic centrist.” Sure!
So you can expect the slobbering love affair between journalists and President Obama to continue when Ms. O’Donnell shows up at the White House. She’s been on the love train from Day One.
And permit me this one fantasy: Herman Cain wins and is our next president. You think Norah O’Donnell – or any of the other White House correspondents – will see racism when liberals attack him? Sorry I asked.
Copyright © 2013 BernardGoldberg.com