Guilty by Ann Coulter Page B

seemed as if the
Times
was opposed to the use of illegal drugs. In a single bipolar editorial, the
Times
complained that “public pieties haven't kept up with the change of attitude” toward pot, while also huffily announcing that Ginsburg's case was “not just a marijuana disclosure but one that involved a conservative President who talks militantly against drugs and for law and order.” 11 No, that wasn't a typo: The
Times
thinks it's possible to be “militantly” against crime.
    Not only was the only marijuana scandal in U.S. history a creation of the media against a Republican, but the media made absolutely clear, ab initio, that they would not hold Democrats to the same standardthey hold Republicans to. As if anticipating Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Obama, an op-ed in the
Washington Post
concluded, “A Democratic president could successfully name a former marijuana smoker to the court—indeed, a Democratic president could be a former marijuana smoker. But not a Republican president.” 12 And to think some people say the media have a double standard! Sure enough, just five years later, the only protests about Clinton's admitted marijuana use were over his claim not to have inhaled. 13
    So Obama had nothing to fear about his admitted drug use, least of all from Republicans. The media wanted to screw him, but only in the sense that they literally wanted to have sex with him.
    It wasn't just Clinton flacks neurotically fretting about the Republican Attack Machine. No one in the establishment media had the slightest interest in the facts about Obama that might be an issue for the voters. Obama's being ranked the most liberal member of the Senate, his attack on Americans who “cling” to God and guns, his spiritual mentor being a deranged racist, his associations with felons and domestic terrorists— none of these facts bothered the media any more than they bothered the Clinton campagin. Again, the only question was whether it might occur to the Republicans to mention any of it in the general election.
    On MSNBC, Dan Abrams warned, “If Obama becomes the Democratic nominee, Republicans are going to attack him as too liberal.” 14 (Even that bold, out-of-nowhere prediction wasn't enough to save Abrams his anchor job.) On CNN, Jeffrey Toobin raised the fact that Obama “was one of the most liberal members of the Illinois state senate” and “if Hillary Clinton doesn't say it, you can bet the Republicans are going to say it in the fall.” 15 What else were they supposed to talk about? His big ears?
    In an article titled “Insults Hit a New Low,” the
Times
of London reported that McCain, “unprompted,” had mentioned Obama's association with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. “It was a clear sign,” the article continued, “of how Republicans are going to attack the Illinois senator if he becomes the nominee.” 16 Yes, indeed. The Republicans were prepared to stoop to out-and-out truth-telling! The
Washington Post
quoted a Clinton supporter saying, “The general election is not going to be like these primaries. The Republicans are going to really attack.” 17
    Writing about a Democratic debate in 2008,
New York Times
columnist Maureen Dowd wrote that during some of Obama's answers, “you could see white letters on a black background scrawling across the screen of a Republican attack ad.” 18 The
Times
summarized Dowd's column on the contents page: “Obama's gotta do more than get that dirt off his shoulder. Because the Republicans are going to keep it real, with attack ads and worse.” 19 What could possibly be worse than sharing documented, factually correct information with voters about the potential leader of the free world?
    LIBERALS’ HYSTERICAL OBSESSION WITH THE “REPUBLICAN Attack Machine” turns Democratic primaries into a contest of: “Who's the Biggest Pussy?” Although I would