Washington comPost: Bush backers bigoted

One predictable aspect of liberalism is that disagreement with policies cannot be explained by a harmless difference of ideas. No, modern liberalism tends to paint all dissenters with a brush of "racist" or "sexist" or "homophobic" or other perjoratives that imply malice of intentions on the part of those who reject liberalism's demonstrably failed ideas.

Well, one of the left's usual allies, the Washington comPost, decides to try to perpetuate the leftist lie that those who disagree with them are racist. Sure, they try to make their findings sound scientific, but there is no shortage these days of "scientists" (and I use that word loosely) who have a conclusion and then compile data in a manner that reaches their conclusions. That's not science. Once we cannot trust the work of scientists who used to be committed to truth and facts, we are screwed.

Anyway, an excerpt from the comPost:

That study found that supporters of President Bush and other conservatives had stronger self-admitted and implicit biases against blacks than liberals did.

"What automatic biases reveal is that while we have the feeling we are living up to our values, that feeling may not be right," said University of Virginia psychologist Brian Nosek, who helped conduct the race analysis. "We are not aware of everything that causes our behavior, even things in our own lives."

Brian Jones, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said he disagreed with the study's conclusions but that it was difficult to offer a detailed critique, as the research had not yet been published and he could not review the methodology. He also questioned whether the researchers themselves had implicit biases -- against Republicans -- noting that Nosek and Harvard psychologist Mahzarin Banaji had given campaign contributions to Democrats.

According to Michelle, Nosek donated $500 to the "John Kerry for President" fund, and his colleague Banaji donated $250 to Emily's List and $250 to...Dean for America! The comPost article failed to mention that tidbit, instead putting only a blurb about they "had given campaign contributions" to Dems. Maybe if everyone knew the specifics, the study would be called into question?

Maybe the political affiliations had nothing to do with the contents of their study. Maybe their affiliations tainted their views despite their best efforts to be objective. Heck, maybe even they're right in their findings? I doubt it, but my point is that it's sad to see science, formerly immune to political pressure and views, skewed by politics...or perceived to be.