The Media

Because Both Sides are the Same

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.

  • KXA


    You are absolutely correct! And once again I am amazed at the Democratic response.

    Please explain the politics of the Democratic leaders rushing to agree with the Republican talking points, thereby ceding ground in one of the very successful campaign issues the Republicans have given them.

    Why did the President and so many Democratic members criticize Ms. Rosen without pivoting and driving her other points home?

    Why is the president responding to these remarks at all?

    What she said was correct and to the point:

    ““What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country, saying, ‘Well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues, and when I listen to my wife, that’s what I’m hearing.’ Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life. She’s never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing, in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school, and why do we worry about their future.”

    Where are the presidents surrogates and why are they not aggressively amplifying Ms. Rosen’s very cogent point about The Romneys being out of touch with working people?

    If the Christian Science Monitor can figure this out why not the Obama campaign??
    Why is it that too often, the Democrats would rather apologize than list the facts clearly?

    Why don’t they want to win every argument?

  • muselet

    So, not only is Pete Hoekstra a racist, he’s also a misogynist.

    Quelle surprise.


  • burbank_burt