Alas, the New York Times editorial board did not have the benefit of Saturday’s NR editorial on “Wright Game” and so it published that day its own editorial excoriating the North Carolina GOP ad attacking Rev. Wright, and by extension Sen. Obama, and by extension local Democrats endorsing the senator. The editorial calls the ad “manipulative,” “shameful,” “race-baiting,” and “divisive,” but does not explain why, which is baffling insofar as the editorial acknowledges that Wright’s sermons are deplorable and that Obama waited too long to denounce them.
The closest thing to an explanation is this sentence: “The assertion that Mr. Obama is ‘just too extreme for North Carolina’ is a clear bid to stir bigotry in a Southern state.” The Times’s reasoning is apparently that, since North Carolinians know that their state is Southern and therefore defined exclusively by a history of bigotry, describing someone as too extreme for the state can mean only one thing, namely that said person decries such bigotry and therefore must be rejected by all true (that is, bigoted) North Carolinians. So the ad is bigoted. Right?
One more thing. The editorial ends by saying, “This is familiar,” and then citing the famous “white hands” ad that Jesse Helms ran against Harvey Gantt. But (1) liberal mythology to the contrary notwithstanding, that ad was perfectly legitimate because (2) it was attacking Gantt not for being black, which the Times suggests is the case, but because he supported racial quotas. See for yourself.
Such support, I would say, is too extreme for North Carolina. (Oops!)