Gosh, the innocence on display here really takes you back to those simpler times:
Matthews didn't merely say they were surprising or unprecedented. He expressed outrage that Booker "chose sides" with private equity rather than Obama. He spoke as if he thinks politicians owe greater loyalty to fellow insiders and establishment norms of behavior than to the American people, even if it means misleading the public about their beliefs on the matter at issue.
If Matthews were a political operative, perhaps the code he's defending would make sense.
But he is a journalist. If he thinks that Booker has violated an establishment norm he's entitled to point it out. But he ought to celebrate all truth-telling, even when it does involve "betraying" partisan loyalties. Matthews is supposed to be a champion of the public's right to accurate information, but he's acting like a guardian of political class norms that require deceiving the public.
Awwww, aren't those youngins so cute when they let their full naïveté hang out? Don't you ever leave Neverland, Conor Friedersdorf.
Hahaha..."But he is a journalist." That just cracks me up.