There really has to be some word or phrase that better describes the media treatment of conservatives and Republicans versus that provided to liberals and Democrats than to merely say there's a "double standard."  With the difference in media treatment being so perverse, there has to be something that articulates the comparison more strongly, don't you think?

Statements or actions that would get a Republican scared for life is laughed off as just one of things if similarly done by a Democrat.

Take the recent controversy involving Senator Harry Reid, certainly the most important Democrat in the Senate and, because of his position as the Senate majority leader, is arguably the second or third most powerful politician in the United States.  Now he clearly makes what most people would think is a derogatory, some might think even racist, statement about not only blacks that he says need to fit a certain profile to be suitable for high elected office, but the voting American population in general that would judge someone otherwise fit to serve as not electable if they're "too black" or "have a black inflection" or something similarly offensive.  He gets away by offering the usual perfunctory apology and the organization "Blacks in Support of Harry Reid" is right away planning rally's all across the nation.  It's really quite astounding.  And blacks, liberals, Democrats and the mainstream media are apparently fine with that.

The experience of Republican Senator Trent Lott of course is another story.  Coincidentally, he was also the Senate majority leader and could similarly be considered perhaps one of the most powerful politicians in America at the time.  Everyone knows the story of how he told an audience attending the 100^th birthday party, mind you, of Strom Thurmond, that had Thurmond been elected president in 1948 (paraphrasing) ".....all our troubles would not exist today".  Of course he was scandalized and forced to resign his powerful position and eventually he left the Senate.  Now if any of Lott's detractors wanted to be honest and honorable, and taken even one moment to examine what he said, they of course would have seen that Lott was merely trying to be polite and supportive in what was realistically one of Thurmond's final days on planet earth.  Instead, Lott's treatment, even after providing the usual perfunctory apologies just like Harry Reid did, was really quite disgusting.  But once again blacks, liberals, Democrats and the mainstream media were apparently fine with that.

Why is that exactly?  Why are democrats fine with that?  What is it about the double standard that the left finds not only compelling but even satisfying?  Is it a pathology?  Who actually wins in that situation?

To borrow a phrase from that teacher of all teachers, lecturer of all lecturers Barack Obama, here's another "teachable moment".  It came in the final debate between Republican Scott Brown and Democrat Martha Coakley, both vying for the Senate seat left vacant by the death of Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts.  By the way, that's a special election for Senate that is taking place on January 19^th, not in November like all the rest who are up for reelection.

The moderator, well known democrat apologist David Gergen, after officiating for about an hour, ended the debate by asking each candidate two final questions.  Now what makes this even more interesting is that instead of this race being an expected blowout in favor of the Democrat in possibly the most bluest of blue states in the nation, some polls actually have Scott Brown leading by one or two points.  And this has democrats literally freaking out, for crying out loud.

So Gergen asks Scott Brown, the Republican, two really tough questions that put him clearly on the spot; one was about Roe v. Wade and the other was about Global Warming and climate change.

Gergen then has the unmitigated nerve and with a straight face to ask Martha Coakley, the Democrat, if she thought it was right to have three people in her debate (which included the the third party candidate) and if she had any second thoughts on how the campaign unfolded. 

Is this unbelievable?  Is there no shame?  It was like a "Saturday Night Live" skit literally come alive!  Why didn't Gergen ask her what her favorite color was, or maybe if she liked making right turns more than left turns, or if she enjoyed her summer vacation.  Could he have asked anything easier?

So the audience is left with their last images of the candidates, one struggling to answer some of the most complex and daunting questions of our time and probably have trouble as one would expect, and the other smiling and laughing and being totally personable.  Hmmm, that last image is generally the one that sticks best, no?  So what was the reason for picking those exact questions I wonder?

This is not unlike Democrats charging Alaska Senator Ted Stevens with corruption charges just before the 2008 elections, having him lose his seat and then the Justice Department dropping the charges because of Democrat malfeasance.  It's also not unlike Minnesota Senator Al Franken winning election by winning a recount in districts that had more votes than registered voters.

So what did we learn in this episode?  What we learned is that this is what Democrats and liberals do...............and it's just plain wrong!  And there you have it.