Do Mainstream Media Journalists Know The Meaning Of The Word Hypocrite?

Witness this post on the Virginia politics blog at the Washington Post.

For months, Democrats have dubbed U.S. Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia a hypocrite for strongly opposing the federal stimulus package only to promote aspects of it later.
Here's the latest example:

Nearly half of the 30 organizations participating in a job fair Cantor is holding Monday in Culpeper were recipients of the stimulus.

The list includes a slew of government agencies and schools that have directly benefited from the package and may be using stimulus money to hire people (as the money was originally designed to do), including the Orange County public schools, the Transportation Security Administration and Virginia Department of Labor, and some companies that may have indirectly benefited such as Comcast and Terremark.

Cantor, a Richmond area congressman and the No. 2 Republican in the House, was one of the most vocal critics of the $787 billion economic stimulus bill that Congress passed in February. He has since said the package was a failure.

Now its all fine and good that this blog published what the Democrats "said" about Cantor, but how much damn evidence does the writer need in order to confirm or deny that Cantor is being a hypocrite over the stimulus? Its pretty fucking obvious to most folks that this isn't a matter of opposing opinions. You can't call something a failure then show up at a damn jobs fair skinning and grinning when half the folks there wouldn't be able to participate if not for the stimulus.

Its the same thing with the word liar. I wonder if for just one week American journalists used the words hypocrite and liar when talking about politicians who on a factual basis were hypocrites and liars. Maybe, just maybe they would knock that bullshit off.

Unfortunately nobody in the mainstream media has the balls to do that, so I guess we will never know.