Scarborough: I question the timing of the WaPo hit piece on Romney

Not just the timing, either. Joe Scarborough also questions the prominence of the Washington Post hit piece, as well as its relevance. Mediaite captures the discussion on Morning Joe this morning, as Joe scoffs at the media reaction to Barack Obama’s “big nothingburger” of an evolutionary statement (via Freedom’s Lighthouse):


“It means nobody can run for president,” added Mark McKinnon. “When you look at, you know, what our public life looks like today, good people aren’t going into public service anymore. I was told the other day that the number of women running for office now is declining. And I think it’s the nature and the poisonous environment, and the media scrutiny, that are just driving good people out.”

“And there’s no doubt that the timing of this, Willie Geist,” Scarborough said, “the timing of this obviously is in line with Barack Obama coming out a couple of days ago, saying — I’m sorry. It’s a fun — I mean, the media response to Barack Obama saying absolutely nothing. In the immortal words of Pat Buchanan, celebrating “a big fat nothing burger” when Barack Obama basically said, ‘I’ve got the same position on gay marriage as Ron Paul or Ronald Reagan. I’m not going to do anything about it. The states can do what they want.’ But it seems to me that a story like this is timed to go along with the media celebrating Barack Obama saying he’s going to let states ban gay marriage.”

“Mark Halperin said it yesterday on the show, and I think he’s right,” responded co-host Willie Geist. “There’s no downside for the President given that just about every single member of the media agrees with his positions. So it will be celebrated. The timing of the piece — I’m sure they’ve been working on it for some time — it is a bit curious, the day after.” He then noted that ABC News had spoken to the sister of the man allegedly attacked by Romney all those years ago, who shared that the portrayal of her brother “is factually incorrect and we are aggrieved that he would be used to further a political agenda.”

Scarborough’s ire is also directed at Democrats, about whom he says that “never have so many Democrats been champions of state’s rights since Lester Maddox and George Wallace ran southern states back in the days of segregation.” He expanded on this, and the media’s fawning over Obama’s non-statement, at Politico:

The best laugh-out-loud moment came when the Times sent out a breathless breaking news alert at 3:16 pm, crammed with shameless spin and naked cheerleading. Public Editor Arthur Brisbane take note that the Newspaper of Record recorded the moment this way:

“President Obama declared for the first time that he supports same-sex marriage, putting the moral power of his presidency behind a social issue that continues to divide the country.”

The moral power of his presidency? Really?

Exactly how did the New York Times come to that conclusion when Barack Obama said he would not use his power as president to stop others from banning gay marriage?

Did any member of the Times newsroom actually believe that the president was ever personally against same-sex marriage? Where was the editor who approved that language over the past decade?

Do these progressive cheerleaders of the president realize that their hero has now adopted a position on gay marriage that is horrifyingly close to the views of Ron Paul, Barry Goldwater, William F. Buckley, Ronald Reagan and yes, even me.

If Obama’s statement was a big nothingburger, at least everything that followed in the media provided an eye-opening insight into media bias.