The left, including the card-carrying socialists who count themselves among the leftist ranks, have a right to their opinions. As much as I disagree with them and condemn their policies, I believe, without hesitation, in their right to hold opinions antithetical to mine. The Constitution was drafted for all Americans, not just those of us who happen to believe in it. Brave men and women gave their lives to guarantee freedom of speech and expression for all (I believe legal) citizens of the United States. I also believe that it is my job to do all within my power to legally minimize the impact of those who hold views antithetical to mine.
The problem is that the opposition doesn't see it that way. My late grandmother used to say, "Fairness doesn't stop being fairness just because you don't like the truth of it." Which brings me to my point.
The left is well within their right to attack Rush Limbaugh for what he said about Sandra Fluke. But to feign insult about Rush's comments, while ignoring and/or laughing at the vulgar and base things said about former President George W. Bush and the unrepentant things said about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, Sarah Palin and President Reagan upon learning he had Alzheimer's disease, is pure hypocrisy. Paragons of the women's rights movement, such as Barbara Walters and Joy Behar, saw no offense when MSNBCs Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham the vilest of pejoratives one can call a woman. To be fair, Schultz later apologized and was suspended by MSNBC.
Advertisement - story continues below
But the duplicity of the left seems to go unnoticed by the mainstream media, including Fox News, when it comes to doing their jobs fairly. And nowhere is that more evident than with their handling of Obama.
When Anita Hill came forward with testimony during the confirmation hearings of Clarence Thomas, the mainstream media machine went into overdrive trying to corroborate her testimony. They literally left no page unturned in searching for dirt with which to tar Mr. Thomas. For the eight years of George W. Bush's presidency, the media dredged for information pursuant to what they labeled as the truth of his drug and alcohol usage – even though he was very open and straight forward about his usage and how he had ended same. For eight years the media questioned and sought information on his National Guard service. They refused to accept that it was as he had stated, unlike the way this same media accept the secrecy surrounding Obama with passive silence.
The media have been relentless in investigations of Sarah Palin and her family. They relentlessly probed into former Vice President Dick Cheney's association with Halliburton. Herman Cain's presidential bid was destroyed by what many argue was the flimsiest of "she said-he said" accusations.
It can be argued that they were doing their jobs – fair enough. But, and this is a big but – why do they not do their job with those on the left?
Advertisement - story continues below
If the media declared it their job to find the truth about George Bush, Justice Thomas, Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, ad nauseum, why do they not feel the same way about Obama and his wife? Why are they not applying the same effort, and nearly unlimited resources, to once and for all settle Obama's birth controversy? Why have they not applied the same determination in uncovering the truth surrounding the Obamas' surrendering their law licenses? Lawyers I have spoken to tell me that lawyers would literally give up their families before surrendering their law licenses, unless there was a legitimate reason.
Sharon Bialek and Ginger White had a long history of impropriety and sordid pasts, but their accusations against Herman Cain were accepted as gospel truth. Anita Hill offered only disgusting allegations, but they were accepted as gospel truth. Do not the allegations of the late Larry Sinclair deserve the same investigative attention from the media that went into looking into President Bush's past?
The left and the media can hardly argue that their investigations would bring shame upon the office of president, because that wasn't a consideration with Bush. Is it not the media's job to demand that Obama give an account pursuant to why he has spent well over a million dollars to conceal his past?
My point is that fair is fair. They cannot attack Rush and hold Barbara Walters as a patron saint. They cannot attack Rush and say nothing about Bill Maher's vulgar diatribes against Sarah Palin. To deem it journalistic integrity to pursue the past of George W. Bush, but ignore the secretive past of, and allegations against, Obama, undermines their credibility.
The Constitution gives the left the right to voice their opinions; truth and integrity demand they apply the same standards – to themselves and their own – that they do to those with whom they disagree.