If I may try to boil down/paraphrase your points:
1) Certain figures, organizations, or viewpoints are considered outside the acceptable bounds of respectable discussion, while other, equivalently terrible figures, organizations, and viewpoints are tolerated and treated seriously.
2) Sometimes an underlying issue goes largely ignored for a long time, then suddenly receives a burst of attention, for what feel like arbitrary reasons.
3) The newsmedia, when reporting on or interviewing political candidates, will often focus on symbolic actions, sometimes myopically, rather than presenting a thorough, well-reported explanation of the context of a candidacy.
To which I say "yup."
