In the interest of shining a light on just how ridiculous the faux outrage of the past two days was concerning Hilary Rosen's comments on Ann Romney, here's a quote from Michigan senate candidate Pete Hoekstra from a campaign event yesterday.
“Will, you know, will repealing it be a priority? If you came back and said, you know, that’s really the thing that’s hurting my business the most. My guess is there are other things that we can do that have a higher priority in terms of what I, what I believe might need to be done. I think you know we need to create — that thing is a nuisance. It shouldn’t be the law,” replied Hoekstra.
What Hoekstra is referring to as a "nuisance" is the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. According to him, providing equal pay to women is a nuisance and should not be the law.
Here's the question -- what's more offensive? Hoekstra saying offering equal pay for an equal day's work is a nuisance, or Hilary Rosen implying Ann Romney doesn't know what real work is?
From my perspective the obvious answer is the former, and I consider the words of a senate candidate more relevant than a CNN pundit, but will we see the same kind of coverage given to it? No
Do you know why?
Because Rosen's comment serves the "both sides are the same" media narrative, while Hoekstra's doesn't. Rosen's comment also has the benefit of being true, but the media doesn't want to appear biased, so the only direction they have to go with it is to treat it as controversial.
The same rule applies to virtually any comment or wildly oppressive law proposed by the Right Wing today. They do not serve the both sides meme.
Arizona can declare that you are pregnant from the time of your last menstrual cycle, but should a Democrat tell an uncomfortable truth, stop the presses.