It would seem that the Washington Post has a little bit of a double standard when it comes to "controversial" remarks made by a pastor -- and how those remarks relate to prominent politicians.
For example, here's how the Post described the 20-year pastor and "long-time mentor" of Politician A:
The Rev. [redacted] spent 36 years teaching this congregation how to recognize injustice, and his parishioners sense it all around them now. On Sunday, more than 3,000 of them filled [Church] on the city's [Area] to pray for their former pastor. They read a handout that described [Pastor's] newfound infamy as a "modern-day lynching." They scrawled his name in tribute on the inside of their service programs and applauded as [Pastor's] protege, the Rev. [Some Guy], stepped to the pulpit.
The above comes, of course, after weeks of huffing and puffing over how the pastor was totally mainstream -- er, controversial BUT what does That Have To Do With [Politician] Anyway?!, and then finally admitting that Yes, Virginia, Some Pastors Are Complete Idiots (But We Still Support Them Because They're Truth-Tellers!).
"Outspoken" is the word the Washington Post uses repeatedly to describe him. A word that has kind undertones of warmth and silliness.
Now compare and contrast that long-running defense play with this atrocious hit piece--written by the accomplished professional hatchet-job tag team of Rosalind Helderman and Anita Kumar--and trumpeted on high as a Scary Story on Sunday:
Fresh off his landslide victory in the race for [State] governor, [John Q. McGovernor] is already being forced to confront how he plans to handle his friendship with minister [Minister], a longtime ally but also a highly controversial figure, once he takes office.
But [Minister's] comments last week suggest he might prove to be a continuing political liability for [McGovernor] as he seeks to turn his bipartisan campaign promises into a governing coalition. Now assembling his administration before his Jan. 16 inauguration, [McGovernor] is under close scrutiny from Democrats and others to see how he balances his allegiances to the social conservatives who helped elect him with his pledges to spend most of his time in office focused on jobs and the economy.
"McDonnell has tried to suggest he should be judged on his own actions and not on Robertson's comments," said Virginia political analyst [ed: And, unsurprisingly, hardcore liberal blogger] Robert D. Holsworth. "But the fact of the matter is he does have a major contributor who has made these comments. My guess is that he will not be able to simply say 'no comment,' himself, forever."
"Controversial," you say? As in the word that means "outspoken," but in a Much Scarier Way?
I've redacted the important names to make it more mysterious, but I'm betting that you've already figured out who's who.
What's more interesting is why the Post feels so compelled to publish every single story about Republican candidates as if it were a Serious Controversy of Critical National Importance, while they in the same breath downplay anything that could even remotely reflect bad on their pet Democrats.
In fact, Ladies and Gentlemen, if the Washington Post were any more transparently partisan, Tim Kaine would be personally answering its phones.
I am personally disgusted at anyone who continues to refer to the Post as an "objective" news source, frankly. They've done nothing worthy of the title for as long as I can remember.