Say, who's the real "extremist" here, anyhow?

Just for a quick addendum to Allahpundit’s earlier post on the Obama ‘I believe in redistribution’ audio that was making the rounds today: As AP already pointed out, it’s never a bad idea to remind voters of how President Obama’s mind works, but this isn’t brand new information. BuzzFeed just followed up with a whole rap sheet of some of Obama’s Greatest Progressive Hits, but as they concur, it’s not like his roots in hardcore liberalism are a secret.

Granted, time and political ambition can help to (publicly and pragmatically) tone down anybody’s views, but for me, all of this is just more infuriating evidence that further underscores the degree to which too many members of the media were simply falling over themselves to protect their hero from this type of vetting: They did it in 2008, and they’re doing it again now — not that they ever stopped, but we’re back to the fever-pitch level of the election cycle.

Overwhelmingly, the media establishment is all too happy to blithely gloss over any of the inconvenient bits of President Obama’s disquietingly leftist history and instead feed us all narratives about how Mitt Romney — yes, the “vanilla,” Republican governor of Massachusetts — is the “radical” right-wing “extremist,” if you can believe it.

Earth to the moderates/independents still hanging back in the mainstream media’s peanut gallery — if this election is supposed to be some kind of staged referendum on who’s farther out on their respective end of the spectrum, Barack Obama steals the show, absolutely no contest. What this is really about is liberals waging a covert but active campaign to highjack the center of the traditional political spectrum and move it to a new location, and one that is much further to the left than its predecessor, until Americans can no longer distinguish the difference. Why? Because Americans in general actually have a fiercely independent streak a mile wide — I don’t think there are actually that many people who see themselves as long-term lovers of big government, expanding entitlement programs, and bureaucratic interference. Which, by the way, is also why I think a lot of the pundits are misdiagnosing how Romney’s “47 percent” remarks are going to play with the public: I think they might actually resonate with, instead of being a cause of offense for, a fair number of people. Leastaways, they might, if Team Obama’s Loyal Spin Machine weren’t operating at full bore.

Again, I know none of this is revelatory or anything, but the hits just keep on comin.’ The far-reaching coverage of Romney’s supposed “gaffe” last week while the Middle East was, and is, erupting in riots? The by-and-large focus on skewering Romney was quite a feat. As Dorothy Rabinowitz opined:

By the time the presidential campaign had ended four years ago, the media’s role in driving the outcome had become a fact too obvious to dispute. The impact of the journalistic horde’s devotion to the Democratic candidates was clear, the evidence vivid—especially in the case of reporters transported to a state of ecstasy over candidate Obama’s speeches. One New York Times reporter wrote of being so moved he could barely keep from weeping. Not for nothing did the role of the press become a news story in itself—an embarrassing one that might, serious people thought, serve as a caution during future campaigns.

In 2012 Barack Obama is no longer delivering thrilling speeches, but an unembarrassed press corps is still available, in full prosecutorial mode when it comes to coverage of the Republican challenger. If you hadn’t heard the story about Mitt Romney’s bullying treatment of another student during his prep-school days—1965, that is—the Washington Post had a story for you, a lengthy investigative piece. On the matter of Mr. Obama’s school records, locked away and secured against investigation, the press maintains a serene incuriosity.

Anyhow. On to the real news: Obama’s Letterman appearance tonight, duh! Who’s excited? I can tell that Greg Gutfeld is!