Letting out a journalistic "Ha-ha!" a la Nelson Muntz, the Washington Post ran an article sure to remind disspirited conservative voters in Maryland, D.C., and Virginia of what might have been if former Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) had been able to run a 2008 presidential campaign and unite the Republican Party:
RICHMOND -- As Virginia voters prepare to go to the polls Tuesday to help choose the Republican nominee for president, state and national party leaders are left wondering: What if former senator George Allen had never uttered the word "macaca"?
After years of preparing for a 2008 presidential run, including trips to Iowa and New Hampshire and formation of a national network of donors, Allen's use of the word on Aug. 11, 2006, changed the landscape of the GOP nominating contest.
"The most important word uttered in the Republican presidential primary has not been terrorism or taxes, not faith or family, " GOP strategist Dan Schnur wrote recently in the Los Angeles Times. "Rather it was macaca."
Post staff writer Tim Craig's 29-paragraph article was placed below the fold on the Metro section front page as part of the Post's coverage of the upcoming February 12 "Potomac Primary" for Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
Since Allen's favored candidate, Fred Thompson, is out of the running, there's little reason to spend precious ink beating the dead horse that is Macaca-gate. Unless, of course, the aim is to twist the knife into conservatives in general and Allen in particular.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The aim
February 6, 2008 - 11:11 ET by KC MulvilleThe aim is also to brag about how the media can take down a candidate at their pleasure. Allen should have learned how to counter that media attack, and maybe he shouldn't have been swimming in the shark pool in the first place. But the media set out on a deliberate campaign to bring him down, and now they're bragging about it.
Like mafia enforcers, the media wants the locals to constantly remember what they're willing to stoop to.
I wrote Sen. Allen quite a
February 6, 2008 - 11:35 ET by USA4freedomI wrote Sen. Allen quite a few times asking him to run. My thought was if John Edwards can make a run then he can.
Look at the mess we are in right now.
That is quite a job that the WP did. Well when we are up to our a$$ in immigrants and a new attack from the terrorist, and taxes through the roof, you can look back on how the MSM hates all Republicans.. well.. for the exception of Mc Cain, (for now). It shows just how much power they still have.
Ronald Reagan, 1962: I did not leave the Democratic party, the party left me.
Insert: your name, 2008, and the Republican party.
Thus demonstrating the
February 6, 2008 - 12:47 ET by mattmThus demonstrating the folly of allowing Libs and the MSM to set the agenda.
The McCain run is the tangible manifestation of Republicans caving in to the pressure of relentless Liberal attacks against them.
The Libs win by hyperbolically induced forfeit. Just like our surrender in the Vietnam war (which we were in the process of winning - see Free Thinker's post) which we gave away because of the propaganda of the Left.
A vote for McCain is no different than a vote for Hitlery or Osama.
Personally, I think Allen
February 6, 2008 - 12:12 ET by dscottPersonally, I think Allen should have put it behind him and ran anyway. The Macaca comment was non issue blown out of proportion by the MSM. He not only sold himself short but the rest of us by not giving the voters the opportunity to make up their own minds if the non issue was important to them.
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
Spot
February 6, 2008 - 12:16 ET by USA4freedomSpot on..............
Ronald Reagan, 1962: I did not leave the Democratic party,the party left me.
Insert: your name, 2008, and the Republican party.
You've been WaPounded....
February 6, 2008 - 12:15 ET by Tim GrahamKen, Tim Craig is one of the Post's two chief Macaca-makers, so you have to read gloating between the lines here. It's funny how they can write an entire article without citing how they "flooded the zone" on this little off-hand remark, on the front page day after day.
Then there's this sentence late in today's Craig piece: "There are also questions about whether Allen could have withstood the scrutiny of a presidential campaign, given the allegations that swirled around him in the closing months of his Senate campaign."
What kind of scuzzy rumor-mongering is that?
Nothing against Allen
February 6, 2008 - 12:54 ET by MidAmericaNothing against Allen but I don't believe he would have gotten any further than our other also-rans. This is not the year for 'common sense'. This election season is dominated by vacuous emotional slogans such as 'Change!'. After a few years of drifting around in the sea of contradicting emotions the public will be ready for some logical thinking. Think Ronald Reagan after the carter years.
Think Ronald Reagan after the carter years.
February 6, 2008 - 13:23 ET by mattmIF we survive them... 4 years from now it could be too late forever...
We'll survive because
February 6, 2008 - 13:47 ET by MidAmericaWe'll survive because this country is too big and too diverse for hillary or obama to make major changes without tearing the dem party apart or destroying the economy. Not that a dem president can't do major mischief such as gutting the military or nominating extreme liberal judges which will cast a dark shadow across the country for decades. If hillary or obama get in they will institute change, but the change will be in what they understand they are able to do. Just like the dems winning the '06 congress, the major concern of the new dem president will be how to 'appear' to be doing what their supporters thought they were voting for. In this area hillary has the advantage. 'Nuance' and blame shifting is one of her specialties.
The MSM's job...
February 6, 2008 - 13:46 ET by sherlock1The MSM's job for the Democratic Party is to prevent the nightmare scenario: the emergence of another Reagan. Any politician who stands up and looks to be an effective communicator capable of energizing the conservative base will be taken out. Allen, Giuliani, Thompson, Romney.
This also dispirits conservatives and makes them assume they are marginalized. The protectors of our right to know have now decided what is right for us to know.
If the MSM can 'take out'
February 6, 2008 - 14:03 ET by MidAmericaIf the MSM can 'take out' a candidate that proves that the candidate is not a Ronald Reagan. Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan were both able to win landslides in spite of the media being against them because they could give it right back when they were challenged. Both Bush's were 'taken out' because they will not fight back.
What was the Post's role in all this.
February 6, 2008 - 21:57 ET by pbthinkerIt's amazing how the Post can forget its role in Macaca. First of all, my guess is the 99% of the electorate had no clue what the word meant and they still couldn't explain the true meaning of the phrase, as Allen said it, if their life depended on it.
The Post took a comment and made something of it that, in reality, ended up costing a man an election. I doubt, very seriously, if George Allen meant it as a slur but, by the time it was over, not only was it a slur, it was a racial slur against everyone on the planet earth, put into Mr. Allen's mouth, by his prejudiced mother who was Jewish, and was uttered with the Confederate Flag waving somewhere near Mr. Allen's desk. But Hey, why bring this up now, except to let people know these Republicans, all of them, are just bigotted SOB's and, like Allen, you just can't tell until some great news organization shows them for what they are, but why take a chance, don't wait for the Post to expose them, just don't vote for them and take a chance on them being exposed later.
Democrats: Stuck on Stupid since 2000.