Mark, we look we can decry “selective moral outrage” all we like, but the fact

remains that Bill Clinton praising deceased segregationist William Fulbright

is not a big story. It would be a bigger story if there was a history of

Clinton having cozied up to Jim Crow type figures and then had this

fascination with Fulbright’s segregationist practices. But, with all

politicians — especially those caught in scandal — the past is prologue.

To continue the Clinton comparison: His reputation was a sleazy, moral

reprobate. He continued to do things in the White House that ended up

confirming that reputation. In other words, he did things repeatedly –

stupidly — that he knew that the media and his political opposition would

be on the lookout for. In other words, he exercise amazingly poor judgment.

That’s the better example with Lott. This is an easy story because it’s not

a one-time thing. It’s repeated statements and actions that become a pattern

easy enough for the media to follow.

To the extent that there is any “selectivity” in media moral outrage, it is

often supplied by the politicians that supply both the subject and the

predicate.