a big story running on the front page that breathlessly reports that Rep. Bachmann and her husband have -- gasp! -- benefited from "federal aid."
That's because the counseling clinic run by Mr. Bachmann has received money over the past six years "that in part came from the federal government," because a farm in which Rep. Bachmann is a partner receives farm subsidies, and because she has sought to "keep federal money flowing to her constituents."
The entire premise of the story shows legacy media's limited understanding and selective outrage. Why shouldn't the Bachmanns -- and constituents -- benefit legally from the federal money that's available, even if she thinks it shouldn't be available?
Alternatively, why isn't the Times equally outraged that Democrats who favor tax increases -- the Kerrys, Feinsteins and other rich politicians -- nonetheless take advantage of every tax break and tax cut on the books? If Rep. Bachmann shouldn't be taking federal funds because she opposes them, shouldn't they be paying higher taxes, since they support them?
Worse yet, why is the legacy media so intent on exposing Rep. Bachmann's supposed inconsistencies, while remaining respectfully silent about the Democrat politicians -- like President Obama -- who oppose school choice for poor children but send their own children to ritzy public schools? The analogy to that bit of hypocrisy is if Rep. Bachmann wanted to keep federal subsidies for herself but deny them to the poorest, least advantaged Americans who need them the most. After all, that's what the Dem opposition to school choice really is -- a denial to poor kids of the opportunity for a decent education that they happily provide to their own children.
I guess when Democrats engage in hypocrisy and ideological inconsistency, it just isn't newsworthy -- at least to the legacy media like the LA Times.
Shameful. But when you're that blinded by bias, it's impossible to see clearly.
The editors of the LA Times clearly thought they had caught Michele Bachmann in some sort of hypocrisy, given her support for a smaller, less expensive federal government. Today's paper features