This seems to relate the the unseemly departure of Glenn Beck last year. It’s hard to know what motivates some folks to throw such claims about. I happen to think that Fox does a reasonably good job of being “fair and balanced.” Sometimes too good.

A lot of people seem to think that because Fox has Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, and other reliably conservative commentators, it is, somehow, a right-wing network. They key word is “commentator.”

But Fox routinely provides both a liberal and conservative point of view of controversies in the news. This may confuse some people, because they’re perhaps used to an unending stream of in-the-liberal-bag “news” from NBC, ABC, and CBS. Let’s not even mention MSNBC, which could double as Obama’s reelection committee.

But today Fox kind of demonstrated that they’re not nearly as conservative as might be thought. Two men who appeared today should destroy that myth. First, Fox continues to allow Geraldo “Blanket Amnesty” Rivera air time. Whenever he talks about the nation needing a “comprehensive” immigration policy, he means amnesty.

But Rivera is not the worst. That would be Jesse Jackson, also on this morning (don’t know what he said; I don’t listen to charlatans so turned it off). Fox also has been hoodwinked into allowing the all-but-convicted felon and charlatan Al Sharpton on the air. At least Sharpton is personally charming; Jackson is a Chicago thug.

It’s not that I disagree with what those worthies might have to say. It’s that they have no moral standing to say anything that I need to listen to. Shame on Fox for having them on, more than once.

Too bad it’s become a two-man race in Florida, because Rick Santorum looks a lot more like a principled conservative who will not have to defend flip-flops. Because he’s not had any on social issues that are near and dear to us (though he does have some weakness on fiscal issues, but, hey, nobody is the perfect candidate).

One of the worst moments in the debate came when Gingrich accused Romney of being, somehow, anti-immigrant. Not anti-illegal immigrants, just, plain, that man hates immigrants. Especially Hispanics, which, coincidentally of course, comprise some 20% of the Republican electorate in Florida.

Well I guess Newt can accuse Mitt of hating Hispanics. Or something; coming from Newt it’s just the noise of the moment. Neither Mitt nor Newt “hate” immigrants. Both would be for stronger border controls and more enforcement of existing immigration laws, with amnesty in selected cases. Both as president would be much less likely to prosecute states such as Arizona and South Carolina for attempting to enforce existing federal law.

All this back-and-forth nastiness between Mitt and Newt doesn’t help them nationally, but that is the nature of internecine warfare in a primary. Voters as a group will likely not remember nor care about the details of 19 debates come this fall. They will care about the actual nominee, what policies he supports, and whether they think Obama is worthy of a second term.

While the give and take was “silly and petty” (Larry Sabato on Fox just now), and we all wish the Republican front runners would tone it down when attacking each other, we go to war with the army we have.

It’s looking a lot like that army will be headed by Mitt Romney, should he prevail in Florida next Tuesday.

Kay Hymowitz in City Journal has a brief review of Murray’s latest book, Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010.

Murray paints a picture of a (broadly) lower- and upper-class white America. The two Americas have diverged socially from each other, to the point that the uppers might be considered living in a bubble. As in, having essentially no interaction with the culture of the lowers.

There’s even an online quiz, “How Thick Is Your Bubble?”, which was put forward to publicize Murray’s book.

This entire business is more than a little discomforting. It brought to mind Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World with its rigid and enforced class distinctions. Meant as biting satire in the 1930s, Murray’s book may be telling us to pass the soma; there’s been some progress towards such a dystopia.

There is a parallel notion that our leaders live in the bubble of the upper class. And that this might not be such a good thing. Recall the scorn that was heaped on John Kerry for his patrician pursuits? Or on Bush 41 for his unfamiliarity with a grocery checkout scanner? Can’t wait until Mitt Romney starts getting bricks thrown at him because he doesn’t go to NASCAR events.

Well, with all due respect to anyone who thinks we should all get drunk on Natty Boh or Pabst at NASCAR races, I’ve been trying my whole life to get into that bubble. And why drink swill like Natty Boh or Pabst when there’s Guinness to be had?

Is what Murray describes a problem? Should we be doing anything about it? Yes to the first, because it erodes the moral compact that each citizen should have with the commonwealth.

What it takes to fix it I haven’t a clue, and suspect any politician who tries to tackle it will fail miserably and only make it worse. I suggest the best the uppers can do on this is set a good example with three “bes:” be industrious, be married, be churched. And don’t believe the elite media and entertainment wallahs when they tell us we’re wrong.

President Obama, in his State of the Obama Reelection Campaign, is going to regale us about “fairness,” how the rich must pay their “fair” share, and other redistributionist notions.

What you are most unlikely to hear is any notion about a certain uncomfortable reality: life is unfair. Some win.  Others lose.  Stated differently, half of us are above average; the other half are…below average.  In any attribute you care to name.

People often confuse the plain meaning of perhaps the most famous quotation from our Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (emphasis added)

Even the dullest amongst us can tell that not everyone is the same; that we’ve all got different strengths and weaknesses. Some of us succeed; others fail. What the Declaration tells us is that we all start with the same chances in life. Not that we finish with identical results. Our being equal simply means we’ve all got the same right to pursue happiness.

There are no guarantees in life. To expect otherwise is to ignore the reality of the human condition, to think that government through its leaders and programs can, somehow, overrule God’s design (or evolution. if you’re not a believer).

Well, that horse has left the barn. The Post, along with most of the mainstream media, were, at best, incurious as to Obama’s past associations.

When Obama publicly cut his decades-long and close (“my spiritual mentor”) ties to Jeremiah Wright, the Post was content to pretty much leave it at that. But when an evangelical pastor who merely introduces a Republican candidate (Rick Perry) says something politically incorrect about Mormonism (Jeffress), why that’s front-page time.

Obama’s house obtained with shady financing; his career getting its start in unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers’ home; his taking his children to listen to Wright’s anti-Semitic, anti-White filth for their entire lives; his too-close association with Tony Rezko; his unconfirmed policy “czars” since becoming president; his foolish backing of money pits such as Solyndra; his blame-America apology and bowing tour…

The list is long. Suffice to say that any Republican with Obama’s past would be torn to shreds by the Post. Hey, the Post went totally nuts when George Allen stupidly used “macaca” at one of his campaign events. For many days, we could expect yet another front page story on the evil Allen. And don’t even get me started on the one-sided, incessantly negative reporting on Gov. McDonnell during the 2009 election.

My point: The Post has a huge double standard. It’s one thing to support liberals on the opinion pages. It’s quite another when news judgments (e.g. what’s front page, section A news; how the headline relates to the facts; what aspects to emphasize) make it hard to distinguish the Post from a Democratic National Committee house newsletter.

If you can help correct this, and report the news without fear or favor, that would be great. In the meantime, I typically only glance at the Post before getting my actual news from the Wall Street Journal. Sometimes, but not usually, both sources give the same story. I’ve come to expect a left-leaning slant in the Post. What’s fascinating are the differing emphases of each paper, and the Post suffers in the comparison.

In the actual debate, Newt was stellar, as we’ve come to expect. Mitt stumbled on the obvious issue of releasing his tax returns, but, unless he’s hiding donations to al qaeda, these are of no importance. After he releases them they become boring. Before he does, they can only feed the media circus and the Obama class warfare machine.

Getting back to Newt, yes, he’d shred Obama in any debate about the issues where Obama doesn’t have a teleprompter. But let’s not forget that Newt was vulnerable to the scorned woman attack only because he’s got at least two of them in his past.

Yes, the media gives a free pass to lice like John Edwards. He’s a Democrat, for God’s sake. Can’t possibly expect the mainstream media to poke into his affairs, now, can we?

On the personal life score, Obama sets a good example. He truly is No-Drama Obama. The contrast with Newt, if he’s our nominee, might be too much to overcome in the heartland, where independents will make (or break) our chances in November.

Which is one reason we’re much better off with Mitt Romney. He’s No-Drama Mitt. Yes, he’s a successful capitalist. That’s a very good thing. And he can show that there’s been far more jobs created than lost (e.g. Staples).

Oh, there’s a bonus this morning. My governor, Bob McDonnell, endorsed Mitt. That means a lot to me, because McDonnell is both a principled conservative and an effective governor. Note that this is added to South Carolina governor Nikki Haley’s endorsement last month.

Regardless of the outcome in South Carolina, I think that Mitt’s the one to go all the way.

Then there were three: Mitt, Newt, and Rick Santorum. Two, really, if we give credence to current polling: Mitt and Newt.

As for Newt, his place as the Great Conservative Hope is baffling, considering his long history of inside-the-Beltway shenanigans. These days he certainly talks the talk, though his attacks on capitalism and Mitt Romney’s wealth are troubling.

For what it’s worth, if we did nominate Newt, I know he’d shred Obama in debates. But we’re electing a president, not a debating team captain. And I don’t think Newt can beat Obama. Too much personal baggage, for starters. Too mercurial, too prone to spout grand ideas that are half-baked.

As for Mitt, say what you will about him, he’s clean as a hound’s tooth and while he has supported liberal positions in the past, since 2008 he seems to have straightened out and flown right.

Conservatives, me included, should go with Bill Buckley’s advice: support the most conservative candidate who can win. Like it or not, right now that’s Mitt Romney.

Unless you’d rather feel good and go down in flames with Newt.

My first choice was Rick Perry; my second Rick Santorum. The primary season has now convinced me of two things: Neither can get the nomination; neither is likely to be able to beat Obama if he got the nomination.

That leaves Newt on the right. Or at least I thought he was on the right, until he began a full-throated attack on capitalism. He’s backed away (somewhat), but he (and Rick Perry) might have been confused with Dennis Kucinich or Michael Moore for a while.

For what it’s worth, if we did nominate Newt, I know he’d shred Obama in debates. But we’re electing a president, not a debating team captain. And I don’t think Newt can beat Obama. Too much personal baggage; too many inside-the-Beltway shenanigans; too many grand ideas that he could not put into play as Speaker.

Conservatives, me included, have to go with Bill Buckley’s advice: support the most conservative candidate who can win. Like it or not, right now that’s Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney is clean as a hound’s tooth, and offers us a chance to have a Free Enterprise vs. Socialism choice this year. Deciding question for any Romney-haters out there: if you are faced with the choice of Mitt or Obama, who is better for the nation?

The question answers itself.