Bozell: Rick's Rock vs. Rev. Wright

These words ring so true:

"You know who ought to recognize injustice? Anyone who reads The Washington Post expecting Republicans and Democrats to be treated with equal fairness and accuracy." Brett Bozell

The hit piece by the Washington Post shows a coordinated effort to take out Rick Perry orchestrated in my opinion by Rove and others in coordination with the Washington Post since Herman Cain came out last week saying he couldn't support Rick Perry which made no sense.  It does now as he most likely had a copy of the story.  They are getting sloppy when you can figure out what is happening in short order.

As we posted yesterday some black Texas Democrats have defended Perry against the accusations of the Washington Post, Herman Cain and Mitt Romney.  They are smart enough to realize even though they disagree with Perry philosophically, that he is not racist and never has been.

As the days have gone on, we are noticing more and more writers going after the Washington Post, but where is Fox News on the story.  Has Ailes killed that story like he has others.  Who is their next flavor of the week since Christie turned them down?  Can Ailes and Rove seriously think that once the American people see Herman Cain that he can win the GOP nomination?  His quick jump to automatically paint Perry as being a racist based on the Washington Post article says more about him then anything.  We saw that in the White House when Obama automatically took the side of the black in Boston against the police without facts.  Herman Cain has done the same thing this time to a fellow Republican.  He should be ashamed and Romney even more so but neither one have apologized.

Bozell has it right about the Washington Post and their double standards when it comes to protecting Obama and Rev Wright versus attacking a Republican candidate.  He sums it up perfectly with this paragraph:

The Post should have done more investigating and less sympathizing with Wright. But the Post should have also done more investigating before they published this ridiculous fraction of a story about some painted rock on a Texas ranch. Any editor worth his salt would have laughed the reporter out of his office and back to do more record-scrubbing ... and less paint sniffing.

Once again the Washington Post has shown the lack of ethics we have come to expect.  Next question is what did the Post get out of this article?  Is the Obama Education Department going to back off on their assault on Kaplan, a for-profit university owned by the Post?  Does make you wonder as the hit piece by the Post was so ludicrous.  Have to give them credit that they actually got black Texas Dems to admit that Perry isn't racist -- almost fainted with that one!  When you get some of Perry's fiercest critics saying he is not racist, then you know the Washington Post, Herman Cain, and Mitt Romney are on the wrong side of this one.

Bozell: Rick's Rock vs. Rev. Wright
By Brent Bozell October 5, 2011 6:30 am 

Is there a clumsier group of newspaper character assassins than the hit squads at The Washington Post? On Oct. 1, the Post was back on the racist-Republican attack with a 3,000 word, investigative treatise over a rock. Specifically, Gov. Rick Perry had leased a property where the N-word was painted on a rock, and then he had it painted over with white paint. 

But investigative genius Stephanie McCrummen could see a virtual Klan hood on Perry's head. "As recently as this summer, the slab-like rock -- lying flat, the name still faintly visible beneath a coat of white paint -- remained by the gated entrance to the camp." 

Near the end, she underlined it again: "In the photos, it was to the left of the gate. It was laid down flat. The exposed face was brushed clean of dirt. White paint, dried drippings visible, covered a word across the surface. An N and two G's were faintly visible." 

Three thousand words on this. 

Apparently, investigative reporting at the Post means staring at old rocks under paint (with a microscope?) to discern almost invisible letters and suggesting this should ruin a presidential campaign. It resembles the Post feverishly fumbling through foreign-language dictionaries trying to find a racially defamatory definition for "macaca" to torpedo Sen. George Allen's re-election in 2006. 

The fact that these Republicans are racist is never established. Two days after the rock "scoop," a Post front-page article by Amy Gardner found Perry's record on race was "complicated"... by the facts. Yes, Perry "appointed the first African-American to the state Supreme Court and later made him chief justice" and oh, yes, "One chief of staff and two of his general counsels have been African-American." But many "minority legislators (read: Democrats) say Perry has a long history -- dating to his first race for statewide office more than 20 years ago -- of engaging in what they see as racially tinged tactics and rhetoric to gain political advantage." 

What kind of offensive tactics? Guess what's listed first: "Black lawmakers have been particularly troubled by Perry's recent embrace of the Tea Party movement." 

By contrast, does anyone recall The Washington Post being the first investigative journalism outfit to reveal the racist, anti-American and anti-Semitic rants of Rev. Jeremiah Wright in 2007? Of course not. That fastest-turtle award would go to ABC's Brian Ross on March 13, 2008. By that late date, after all the investigators had finished their naps, 42 states and the District of Columbia had already voted for a nominee. 

That's not to say the Post was unfamiliar with the scent of this scandal at Obama's own Trinity United Church of Christ. The news folks could have read Post columnist Richard Cohen denouncing Wright in a column on Jan. 15, 2008, over how Trinity's church magazine fulsomely praised anti-Semitic Louis Farrakhan. But the Post "news" hunters weren't turning over that rock. 

.... 

Excerpt:  Read More at GOPUSA 

---
L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center.
COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM