During the last three months, the mainstream media and their friends in the Democratic Party have focused obsessively on a so-called "War on Women."
When the Susan G. Komen Foundation decided to stop funding abortion provider Planned Parenthood, partly because Planned Parenthood doesn't perform any mammograms and partly because it was hurting the Foundation's ability to raise money from people who don't love abortion, it erupted into a firestorm. Planned Parenthood fans such as NBC anchor Andrea Mitchell lied about Planned Parenthood performing mammograms and belittled and berated any suggestion that dropping a couple hundred thousand dollars in funds to an abortion provider was in any way justified or wise. This outrage lasted for weeks. I wrote about how the mainstream media perpetrated and advanced false narratives concerning this topic for weeks.
Immediately on the heels of this, we saw how the mainstream media, Democratic leaders and abortion rights activists reframed principled objection to Obama administration violations of religious liberty as a furthering of a so-called "War on Women." When women testified to their objections to this violation, they were ignored. The meme was relentless. For months. It may be ongoing, in fact.
When Rush Limbaugh used impolitic language to describe a woman who believed that her right to free birth control trumped religious liberty, there was little else covered by the media for weeks. Weeks. Even though it was obvious that the entire kerfuffle was advanced as part of a highly orchestrated public relations campaign connected to the White House.
So this week, when top Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen misfired in her attempts to mock the Romney family's wealth, instead mocking motherhood itself, there was quite a bit of pent-up outrage. I'm a stay-at-home mother and I resent the attitude advanced by feminists that raising children is unimportant work. I could argue it's the most important job out there, actually. I said my piece and moved on. The media did have a field day with the story, however.
Now, will media coverage last for the unending days, weeks and months that stories targeting those with traditional values did? We'll have to wait and see. But already we have tons of pundits condemning the "faux outrage" over the story. Not all the outrage, mind you -- the condemnations from both Obamas and the entire Obama campaign is apparently fine -- just the outrage from stay-at-home mothers and their political allies.
I find the outrage game exhausting myself, admittedly.
Matt Lewis writes a plea at The Daily Caller to his fellow Republicans to stop mentioning the Rosen attack on mothers. At GQ, Marc Ambinder suddenly discovers the "outrage industry" and has unkind things to say about it. And on Twitter and on various news programs, people developing a newfound disgust of political cliches and outrage tactics are too numerous to mention.
It's fascinating to me how the calls for censorship of Rush lasted only so long as the elite realized that such demands that women be spoken well of were going to hurt them far more than conservatives (see, for example, Obama megadonor Bill Maher worrying about fallout and comedian Louis C.K. having to cancel his appearance at the D.C. radio and television correspondents dinner).
And while it was fine to subject women such as myself to months of unrelenting media coverage ignoring our First Amendment concerns and rewriting those concerns as a "war on women," now when the shoe is on the other foot, we decide it's time to stop with such cliches.
I'm more than fine with people condemning "too much outrage" over the Hilary Rosen remarks. But if those people didn't spend weeks condemning the media water-carrying of the Sandra Fluke public relations campaign, as I did, then they will forgive me for not taking their concerns too seriously here.