If it became known that a Cabinet-level official in George W. Bush’s administration — a divorced father of two — was the father of a baby born out of wedlock to an ex-girlfriend, and that the official had announced his engagement to a woman he met while the ex-girlfriend was pregnant, do you believe for one second that reporters, and not just gossip columnists, wouldn’t be having a field day?
Of course they would. Especially if Bush had moralized about family and the need for men to be present in the lives of their children. Opinion writers would be all over Bush if they thought he was deliberately ignoring the aide’s behavior.
Let, however, the absentee daddy of a love child turn out to be an Obama administration official with close ties to Washington’s political and intellectual elite and the media, and the affair is treated as a source of brief amusement and no big deal.
Read the whole thing. And note this:
On that Father’s Day, Obama was in a black church talking to men in the African American community.
Do those views also apply to Peter Orszag, I asked?
Reader reaction varied, but I was struck by the apologists for Orszag.
See, “moral” issues are only for beating up on Republicans. That’s all there is to it. “This week, I contacted the White House for Obama’s views. I’m still waiting for a response.”
Moral issues are only for beating up on Republicans.
Update: Here's another story regarding media coverage and hypocrisy:
Media Matters is taking the Tea Party Convention to task regarding its limited credentialing for press access...
So….when a quasi political convention held by a private group selectively excludes dissenting media, that’s contempt. But when the White House selectively excludes dissenting media, singling them out for vilification, that’s just fine with Media Matters...
[T]he hypocrisy of Media Matters position on this issue is legendary, considering their fundamental working relationship with MoveOn.org and Brave New Films, in their “Fox Attacks” campaign to persuade the entire Democratic party to boycott a dissenting news organization...
Media Matters reveals their hypocritical partisanship (again) by condemning a privately funded group for excluding hostile media, while at the same time contributing to a campaign designed to deny media access to publicly funded parties and government.
Whether it's smart or not for the TEA Party folks to ban most media is open for discussion, but that isn't Media Matters' point.