Then why all the double-standard in the media? I just compare the media's treatment of Scooter Libby and those with Benghazi. It was the media that convicted Libby (I make no contention he wasn't involved) for misstating something, yet in Benghazi we KNEW the Administration was lying right out of the gate. And in the case of Libby, we didn't have four people - including an active US Ambassador - dead.

I can't in any way agree with you that the outrages are in any way false or invented. While I am not a Republican, I also look at the substance to the outrages and note that of the ones I can think of that involved Republicans, none of them involved outright and blatant lies that were then covered up by the media as with the current Administration. I was not a great fan of George Bush, but I can only think that if the media were as impartial about crying foul with Barack Obama, he would have been impeached by now.

It's a bipartisan thing. I suspect the faux outrage comes from commentators looking for ratings, as my clients look at hits when I do paid tech articles. Then politicians go along with it b/c it's easier, safer, and more predictable than getting into a deep debate, esp when most people (often I too) are too busy to dig into the details. I've always voted for Democrats (often my only other choice is Green or small parties), but I don't buy into the outrage. When I talk to politicians, I don't get the feeling they're great people or evil masterminds. They're good at remembering faces and names; they mean well; they go with what works. I sense they know the outrage about the other party is bogus, but it's part of the job they've signed up for.

Apparently enough to keep re-electing the Democrats who keep him in power.

And the media sure goes along with him.

Looters gone wild!