Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) repeatedly, obviously lied again and again about a “source” who said Mitt Romney paid no taxes for 10 years. Now he says that he agrees with a blogger that Romney has “sullied” the Mormon faith and that the presidential nominee is “not the face of Mormonism.” This is disgraceful, and yet the media is mute. The story is nowhere to be found in the mainstream media.
It is not as if Reid were some low-level staffer or an overly zealous donor. He is, for goodness sakes, the majority leader in the U.S. Senate. Yet, vile comments such as these get less attention than a birther outburst from Donald Trump. When the vice president says to an African American audience that the Republicans want to keep “y’all in chains,” the mainstream media shrugs or makes excuses. The outrage only travels in one direction.
Imagine if House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said that the president had “sullied” the face of Christianity and is “not the face of Christianity”? He would be denounced in every newspaper, and his resignation would be demanded. Imagine if Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) in 2000 had said the Democratic vice presidential nominee, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), had “sullied” Judaism and is “not the face of Judaism.” I suspect he’d no longer be in the U.S. House.
Media double-standards are nothing new, but it seems that not even President Obama’s being shown up by a Univision interviewer is going to provoke more exacting coverage of the president. His “60 Minutes” interview, rife with outrageous remarks about the Cairo embassy attack and Israel, elicits a shrug. The liberal pundits and reporters pretend not to notice that the president yesterday confessed that the embassy attacks were terrorism, and hence his White House had been telling untruths for two weeks. No national newspaper headline reads, “Did White House lie?” And no pundits except conservatives decry the effort to mislead the public.
These silent voices are the same one that denounced and demanded apologies from Mitt Romney, who dared to tell the White House to stop apologizing for a video. (Talk about getting it on the nose; I bet Romney never imagined that Obama would use taxpayer dollars to go on Pakistani TV to denounce the video.)
There is no consistent policy agenda here. Many of those who are mute about Reid denounce religious intolerance by Christian conservatives. Those who hollered loudly about Romney’s embassy remarks but shy from criticizing Obama don’t have any doubt the attacks were jihadist in nature, certainly not the reaction to a video. Those who remained silent about the “60 Minutes” interview would surely would have gone ape had Romney used the phrase “bump in the road” to describe recent Middle East events.
Really, if this Swiss cheese coverage (the holes are bad Obama stories) is not blatant partisanship and an abandonment of intellectual honesty for the sake of reelecting a president, what is it?