The Right doesn't believe their own media criticism, Part 187
October 07, 2009 5:42 pm ET by Jamison Foser
Former Senator Bob Dole thinks the 1996 presidential election would have gone differently if he had evidence of Bill Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky (via Glenn Thrush):
Dole's speech, as is usually the case, wandered over various subjects -- presidential humor, his own career, Social Security reform, and Monica Lewinski, who was Dole's neighbor for a time in the Watergate complex in the 1990s.
"If I'd had little wiretap there, I could've been president," Dole said, adding: "I never had..... a conversation with that lady."
Now, here's what's interesting about that: Bob Dole knows that during the 1996 campaign, the Washington Post spiked an article about Bob Dole having an affair. And shortly after the Post spiked that article -- an article Dole aides considered a "mortal threat" to his campaign -- Bob Dole was running around the country, accusing the media of being biased against him and in favor of Clinton.
Given that Dole knew the Post had just spiked a story about his own affair, it's hard to believe he actually thought the media was biased against him. He was just doing what conservatives do: Reflexively and dishonestly attack the media.
The fact that Dole now says that he'd have won in 1996 if he had evidence of Clinton's affair further illustrates how insincere his criticism of the media was. After all, you have to be pretty sure the media is on your side to think that if only you had evidence of your opponent's affair, you'd have won -- all while knowing that the media covered up your own affair.
What I see increasingly from the right is a strong desire to return to the monarchy of yesterday. Ideally, they wish to be the royalty, of course, a tiny minority with most of the power. The rest of us can be serfs, devoting our lives to keeping our new masters happy, wealthy, and fat.
In this context, Bob Dole's attitude makes perfect sense. After all, he is Republican. The press is here, as everything is here, to serve his needs, and to further his ends. Inasmuch as they do it, they are 'good', and inasmuch as they don't, they are 'evil'. Immigration just means more serfs to work the fields, and wash the dishes, and do all the other things that the Lords and Masters do not wish or deign to do. Minimum wage? The peasants are lucky to receive anything more than a benevolent smile for doing their job. Health reform? Do you mean PAY so the peons can get health care? Are you insane? Besides, they are easily and cheaply replaced, so why care for them? ACORN? That's just the serfs gathering together into a mob, and so it must be stopped before it accomplishes anything.
Remember that kings ruled by divine right. Remember that the conservative movement in this country didn't become this vitriolic and despicable until it joined forces with religion. Within that religion is a faction who believe that worldly wealth is a sign of God's favor, and ask yourself how far off I am.
You can argue that Democrats are trying to enthrone minorities, and perhaps that is true, but they have been far far less effective at it than the Republicans have, by my reckoning. 75% of the wealth in this nation is controlled by: A) minorities or B) a tiny handful of the super-rich? That's to take just one example, of course.