Editor's note: Tim Graham coauthored this piece.
Some might insist Barack Obama is a lame duck, but our national media elite still think of him as a very graceful swan. When this man comes under criticism, journalists are incapable of any sense of objectivity, balance or fairness. The accuser must be forced to withdraw the criticism, or be punished.
First, Rudy Giuliani said at an event for Gov. Scott Walker that the president doesn't love America like previous presidents did. That might be a little unfair. Jimmy Carter also loved to get up in front of a podium and lecture about all of America's flaws.
The media erupted. Outraged that anyone dared to question Obama's love of country, they pounded the table and demanded that Walker denounce Giuliani. The New York Times ran a defensive story headlined "President Obama Has, in Fact, Expressed Love for His Country."
Perhaps the most ridiculous lecture came from MSNBC star Chris Matthews: "Mr. Mayor, you should never go after someone's love of his country. It breaks the rules we live by. It divides us when we should be united. I urge you to take it back."
This is the same guardian of civility that asked the day after Obama was inaugurated the first time, "Does Rush Limbaugh hate this country? Wait till you hear what he said about the new president."
Mika Brzezinski spoke for too many Obama-loving journalists when she kvetched: "I question the patriotism of someone who questions the president's patriotism."
It's apparently not always outrageous to denounce a president's patriotism ... if you're Saint Barack. On the campaign trail on July 3, 2008, Obama said President Bush took out "a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt" and said "That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic."
Try to find The New York Times story defending Bush for expressing love for his country. You won't find one. Shouldn't Mika now publicly question this president's patriotism?
By Obama's own national-debt measurement, he's now far more "unpatriotic" than Bush ever was.
In the wake of this brouhaha, two Washington Post reporters tried to open another wound. They pestered Gov. Walker at a governor's conference about whether he felt Obama was a Christian. Walker replied, "I don't know. ... I've actually never talked about it or I haven't read about that." He added: "To me, this is a classic example of why people hate Washington and, increasingly, they dislike the press. The things they care about don't even remotely come close to what you're asking about."
You know how that was reported by the non-partisan press: Walker Questions President's Faith.
All this caused a second outburst of wailing and gnashing of teeth against the Republicans. The Walker team later issued to the Post an obligatory "of course he's a Christian" explanation, but to no avail. Columnist Dana Milbank suggested that Walker's "I don't know" was comparable to calling someone a ... Nazi. The political analysts at the Post attempted to explain "How Scott Walker's confidence led him to an unnecessary error on President Obama's Christianity."
Once again, it's not outrage to denounce a politician's Christianity ... if you're a Democrat. Take, for example, Hillary Clinton, in 2004, saying "I wonder if it's possible to be a Republican and a Christian at the same time." Reporters agree with that, so what's the controversy?
It's like journalists are still fighting the battle over Reverend Wright, insisting despite the video clips that Obama's membership in that church showed he was devoutly Christian and patriotic. The media demand everyone say "Of course, Obama is a patriot. Of course, Obama is a Christian."
This should be followed by "Of course, the media will never stop bowing and scraping before this president." Woe to him who thinks they are ever impartial.