Why is the Post printed on paper?

To wipe the drool off their chins when talking about reactionary racist Republicans.

Relaxed and smiling, ever gracious, he thanked his campaign staff, talked about his two-decade record of being tough on criminals and reforming schools and finished like the veteran campaigner who won two statewide elections: "Teammates, fellow patriots, stay strong and stand strong for freedom!"

But it was an Allen who was rarely seen on the campaign trail this year.

Instead, the relentlessly cheery politician who was an up-and-comer in the national GOP spent most of the fall during his campaign against challenger James Webb in a defensive crouch, trying to deflect accusations that, down deep, he is a bully or a racist.

Michael D. Shear and Tim Craig turn in an unprofessional, biased and blatantly inaccurate piece on "The Rise and Fall of George Allen", blaming "Washington" and not Allen.

Note that there is not one quote from anyone to the left of Attila the Hun. Note that the entire series of "accusations" are framed as being absurd - when, in fact, they were given reality by the lies Allen told trying to explain away the remark. It wrapped racism along with bigotry along with ignorance - the target was a young man born in the United States - in a way that made it clear that not only has George Allen not caught up with Virginia's changing politics, he hasn't caught up with the 20th century.

Allen's rise to power in Virginia came at the hands of people like Shear and Craig - the kind of people who cover up for the clear defects in character that Allen has, and don't ask too many questions. Allen had never really been pressed before, never really had to hold the spotlight. He'd never been on the defensive, and Shear and Craig are an example of why.

The "bullying" they allude to - but do not have the integrity to detail - involved Allen supporters bashing a constituent to the ground - one who has legitimate media access, and the second time, when there was a plan to frame him, a reporting assignment. It is chilling when reporters cover up for a candidate being the focus for violence against the press itself. The Shear and Craig's account of the Mike Stark affair amount to "who are you going to believe, us or your lying eyes?" Because in both cases, the incidents were videotaped.

This kind of hard right wing bias among reporters - and the more common soft pedalling where "both sides" are at fault - is no longer acceptable. The public voted for real balance - not the Gop talking to itself after a borrow and squander bender - and for real discussion. It is clear that the Washington Post's news room, its editors and its owners are out of touch - not just with the current political mood, but with the basic and essential aspects of news coverage, with the basic techniques of analysis. It is clear that they lack basic integrity, that they are incapable of even stating basic facts with clarity. Propaganda of the kind that Shear and Craig are pushing, and which the Washington Post pimps on the front page as if it were thinking, shows how long and hard a road we have in front of us. There is going to be a fight every step of the way, and at each point.

Compare and contrast with the piece in the more avowedly partisan Salon.com which nails down the role of the war and is more moderate and balanced from the left than the Washington Post is from the right. Time magazine - famous for leaning to the right in its reporting and endorsements since the Luce family started it has a more balanced look at the election. It's a view from the right - essentially saying that Allen needed more of Bush's help to turn out the base - but it gets the mistakes of the campaign right, and the problems in Allen's fall right, and it cites a greater range of what Allen said and did. No longer vague "accusations" but gaffes and problems originating with the candidate.

Major newspapers lied to get Bush in power, they lied to keep him in power, they lied to take us to Iraq, they lied to protect the Republicans even as support collapsed for a failed war and a grostesquely ineffective economic policy, and now they are going to lie to rehabilitate bigots and racists.

America is a nation whose elites now span across the spectrum of human ancestory, it is one of a world of nations, many of whose rising powers economically are not European. It is long past time for America to be able coddle naked bigotry in its leadership, and there will be harsh economic consequences for an America which clings to some kind of white Christianist exceptionalism. This isn't a left wing identity politics social issue, this is a bread and butter economic issue.

The Washington Post, by choosing to highlight such biased and inaccurate reporting in service of rehabilitating an individual who is convicted of racism by his own words and actions, is acting in a manner which is contrary to the long term economic interests of the United States, and indeed the Washington Area - home to one of America's largest and most successful concentrations of Indian-Americans. Indian-Americans are generally relatively conservative socially, and the entrepreneurial ones are vaguely anti-tax and anti-regulation, as businessmen often are. The Post's soft pedalling of anti-Indian bigotry on Allen's part should be a clear message to this community that they are welcome to write the code and sell the parts, but they are not welcome in the Post's country club vision of what the US Senate should look like.

One of Peter Daou's constant themes is how the media narrative is slanted hard right. Before, with the Republicans in total control of the government, or even in total control of Congress, there was the "stenographer defense" where reporters pretended to be merely passive conduits. With the fall of the Republican Congress we are going to see the press have to nakedly pander to the hard right, to keep hard right readers attached to the media stream - remember the hard right only watches when there are explosions or blow jobs, real or metaphorical, involved.

Shear and Craig turn in a piece which:

1. Does not mention salient facts about Allen's behavior.
2. Does not cite one person to the left of Nick Lowry.
3. Offers the "Washington did it to him" defense, which is untenable given the documented length of Allen's racism.
4. Frames events as if the "accusations" were simply baseless personal attacks.

This is apologia for violent racism. Not just a racist, but one who used, and whose supporters used, violence, intimidation and law breaking to hold on to power. Does Washington really need two hard right wing dailies? Obviously the Wasington Post editors and publisher do. As in pre-Civil Rights Act right wing. Truly astonishing.

We are going to see more of this.