Olbermann: "John Kerry With A Tan"?

[ProSense]

Enough Keith V. Glenn - "John Kerry With A Tan"?

by Keith Olbermann
Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 03:58:58 PM PDT

Every once in awhile I see mass media blasted for being inattentive or sloppy or exhibiting a pack mentality (or exhibiting no mentality at all), and I recoil, just as you might if somebody trashed the entirety of your field.

And then something happens that makes me think the criticism isn't merely justified - it's understated.

Did anybody notice that Grover Norquist walked into the Washington bureau of The Los Angeles Times yesterday and dismissed Obama as "John Kerry with a tan?"

For part of the afternoon, I thought the lack of explosions in the distance owed to the fact that this had only been posted earlier today.

Silly me.

Mr. Norquist's simple slam-dunk five-word dive into the deep end of the racism pool was actually posted Thursday afternoon. There's no indication that the Times even put it in the print edition today.

In fact, researching tonight's segment on this for the show I found only about half a dozen references to it on sites belonging to the larger news organizations. And even that's being generous: we have something on it at our site, so does Jake Tapper at ABC (not that it appeared in World News or anything), and after that, the biggest name running with it appears to be Radar.

Am I missing something here?

I know this literal reference to the color of a man's skin may not be new (it appears, with equal dismissiveness, in some chat rooms as long ago as last November, and Anna Marie Cox had a line about Mitt Romney being "John Kerry with a tan" early this year), but it's not like Grover Norquist is some memory from the antique Republican past.

McCain still sends reps to this guy's organization, our staff is told by Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker, who joins me on the subject.

Can you really say this about an African-American candidate and not only not get any grief for it, but not get any coverage?

[ProSense]

1. The McCain-Norquist connection

From CNN Money (via Carpetbagger Report):

Anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), who has sharply criticized McCain in the past, says now, "I'm happy." Norquist still can't get McCain to sign ATR's no-new-taxes pledge, but he has the next best thing: video of the candidate promising as much on national television, three times. "With the campaign's approval," says Norquist, "we took those three YouTube videos and sent them to everybody and their brother on the planet." Now when Norquist convenes his weekly Wednesday strategy meeting at ATR headquarters in Washington, there's always a McCain campaign representative at the table. Apparently all is forgiven. "He was just voting against Bush in general" is how Norquist explains McCain's reversal. "I think it was pique."

McCain would never admit to that, of course. If he's in favor of tax cuts now, the explanation goes, that's because he'll insist on linking them to spending cuts, which President Bush was never willing to do. And besides, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010 would be tantamount to a tax increase. "Why hammer the economy at a time when it's weak?" says Holtz-Eakin. Fair enough, although clearly it remains a sensitive issue for McCain, as does the question of how much his larger views have shifted and why, as he takes his last shot at winning the presidency.

"My principles and my practice and my voting record are very clear," McCain told Fortune near the end of our interview, and as he said so, he sat forward in his seat and looked us in the eye. "Not only from 2000 but 1998 and 1992 and 1986. And you know, it's kind of a favorite tactical ploy now that opponents use, of saying the person has changed. Look, none of my principles or values have changed. Have I changed position on some specific issues because of changed circumstances? I would hope so! I would hope so!" That sound like straight talk to you? He sure hopes so.

link

(emphasis added)