Morning Joe, like many of his right wing buddies, frequently equates right and left wing extremists as the same stating that "extremists on the left did the same when Bush was President, calling him Hitler."(paraphrased) Mika frets whenever a story appears to be hitting the right wing's extremists over some looney claim (eg. birthers) without reminding everyone that extremists on the left called Bush II Hitler, when he was in office. She likes equivalence even when its false.

Please tell me if my memory serves me right. During the Clinton and Bush II eras, I don't remember hearing anything about Clinton murdering Vince Foster or Bush being called Hitler in the mainstream media. I remember seeing 30 seconds or so of mainstream coverage on the million (more than fringe) person anti-war demonstration in England, weeks before BUSH II invaded Iraq. The left-wing fringes who believe that Bush II let Al Queda hit the WTC towers in order to invade Iraq and steal their oil also received little coverage except after Rosie O'Donnell pushed it on her show and later on "The View." Even then I don't think it got much coverage.

Neither the left-wing or the right-wing fringes got much mainstream coverage in the Clinton and Bush II eras. At least that's my memory. But with Obama, it seems like the extremists on the right are going mainstream. The town halls, birthers and teabaggers made their way into mainstream venues when in the past they would have been largely ignored. If so, doesn't that make "them" very different from their counterparts on the left?

Those of us who follow politics closer are likely to be aware of most of these stories. When these stories go mainstream, it lends some credence to the story and influences a percentage of the population, even if its a small percentage. If anything, during most of Bush II's tenure, the right-wing and its extremists moved more mainstream, left-wing extremists were ignored and more moderate liberals were marginalized. So much for the liberal media.

So why is the mainstream media covering such nonsense? Obviously, the media needs controversy to draw an audience. The fact that this is what they have turned to, speaks to the powerlessness of the Republican party in general, and the weakness of moderate republicans. It isn't that no reasonable leader in the Republican Party exist, but the party will not accept a reasonable Republican as their leader. Additionally, more moderate outlets, see Fox New's success and hope to improve their ratings by inching in their direction. More extreme views make it onto CNN and other outlets.

IMO, the White House has good reason to break tradition and push back against the mainstreaming of these extremists, including Fox News because more and more, the fringes are gaining mainstream attention and that attention is likely to influence a percentage of the population. If you keep getting hit, and ignore the attacks, ala Sen. Kerry's swift-boating, then you run the risk of appearing weak and losing support.

Gallup headlines that Obama's September '09 media blitz had no effect on the President's job approval. Said another way the slow, long-term drop in the President's approval was halted after the media blitz. There was a point to the blitz and it was somewhat successful.

Fox's ratings rose after the White House's comments last week. Some view this as a win for Fox news and a lost for the White House. I don't think so. Those viewers are tuning in to see what the White House is talking about. I think shining more light on Glenn Beck is good. Perhaps it will help keep CNN from needing to slide further to the right.

If you found this post of interest, provocative, or believe others might benefit from reading it, please recommend. Thanks.

Modified and reposted.