If Republicans would apply the same bipartisan fetishes that the media demands of the Democratic party, I might change my mind, but you know that will never happen, so I hope we never see another "bipartisan" summit again on anything. If the GOP gets control again -- and that's very possible -- they will lead with a sledgehammer. All Democratic politicians will be called obstructionists and the party with no ideas by the Villagers if they stand in their way. That's a given.

The Village was happy to see that it was a mostly civil event -- except for Chris Cilliza, who thought that calling out Republican lies was a "loser."

The Politico called it a draw. A draw?
And why is Dan Gerstein their go-to man? It would have been nice if the Dems had pressed the Republicans on most of their falsehoods. And maybe force Paul Ryan to explain how under Republicans, they would do away with preexisting conditions that so debilitate Americans from getting or changing their health insurance. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi did a good job, but it should have been a constant theme for them throughout the summit. Otherwise you get articles like this Politico one. Is a lie a lie if it's told politely?

Digby opines.

Democrats have been far too reliant on our president's intelligence and speaking skills to magically transform the political dynamic. His mastery of the details of the job is impressive and after our last goofball it's a relief. But Obama's best moments yesterday were when he challenged Republicans on their lofty assumptions about what people can afford --- he repeatedly asked these Representatives and senators to imagine what it's like to met these expenses if you make 40k a year. It was a nice populist moment for the president, speaking on behalf of the average folks and it put the Republicans off balance.

Certainly debating is part of the job, and he's good at it. But I suspect that what people need from the president and the Democrats right now is a sense that they understand the urgency of their problems, not the details of how they're going to fix them. I recall Clinton relating a story during his "laser beam" interview right after he was elected that I always thought was clever. He said he'd understood that he had to act quickly when he saw a man standing beside the road with a sign that said "For god's sake just do something." That's effective stuff.

I hope that this summit is soon forgotten and they move to the next phase quickly. And I also hope the Democrats let go of the idea that this is a good way to deal with the Republicans. They are a lot slicker than the White House gives them credit for and it's never a good idea to give them a forum in which to appear as if they are operating in good faith. They are not, and it does the country no good to help them pretend otherwise.

There are plenty of post-summit wrap-ups all over the Internet, so have at it, but the White House needs to pass health care after this latest dog-and-pony show.

Eric Boehlert has a great piece up discussing the way the press allows Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin to rule their world.

Not content with its lapdog coverage of President Bush over the past decade, the Beltway press has adopted a new, super-soft way to deal with Bush's former vice president, Dick Cheney, as well as GOP media star Sarah Palin. Journalists have set aside what had been decades' worth of guidelines and embraced special new rules for how Cheney and Palin get treated.

In a word, it's stenography.

That's how too many scribes have covered Cheney and Palin in recent months, allowing them to dispense tightly controlled pieces of information, which journalists then trumpet as breaking news. And yes, the trend is unprecedented in modern day American politics.

It's actually a two-fer. First, it's unprecedented because the Beltway press has never showered attention on political losers, such as Cheney and Palin. Meaning, the press has never cared what a former VP had to say about current events right after leaving the White House (think: Dan Quayle), or what a failed VP candidate had to say just months after losing in a landslide (think: Geraldine Ferraro). Traditionally, pundits and reporters disdain political losers (think: Mike Dukakis). But for Cheney and Palin, the rules have been generously reworked.

The second oddity is that journalists now allow Cheney and Palin to completely dictate the media ground rules and afford them the chance to have one-way relationships with the press. Palin, for instance, perhaps still bruising from her woeful 2008 media performances, still hasn't allowed herself to be interviewed by a single independent political journalist since she launched her book in November. Instead, she mostly communicates with the mainstream media via Facebook. And now that she's signed on to join the Fox News staff, the chances of Palin ever speaking with the serious press seem to be less than zero. That lack of openness stacks the deck and leads to dreadful bouts of stenography; of literally recording what controversial Republicans say, and nothing more...read on

You never see Cheney or Palin in a situation where they are forced to either debate someone or are even asked to defend their views by the media. All Cheney and Palin have to do is send a press release to Politico or write something on Facebook and it's taken as fact by the media. You can bet that Palin will never be on a Fox show in which she is forced to debate a progressive. She'll always just be there to answer questions by hosts who agree with her opinions -- one-on-one on Fox & Friends, Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. The internal politics will be interesting: Glenn Beck is the Teabagger King and probably views Palin as a threat to his authority. Likely we'll see her on Hannity a lot.

Since her book came out, has Sarah Palin been interviewed by any member of the press other than her loyal Fox brethren and wingnut radio talkers?

The truth is that since the launch of her book last November, Palin has refused to sit down with a single serious, independent reporter. Instead, she's stuck close to lifestyle interviews (i.e. Oprah and Barbara Walters) as well as taking questions from her professional right-wing media enablers.

Can you imagine the media caterwauling if, for instance, Hillary Clinton published a book and then refused to sit down with a single nonpartisan cable TV host, radio talker, or political reporter from a major newspaper or magazine? If Clinton roped off the press while she only did interviews with The Nation, Rachel Maddow, and Air America? The Beltway press would go berserk mocking Clinton for her timidity. But Palin completely snubbed the D.C. press corps, and rather than calling her out, journalists rewarded her with probably tens of millions of dollars in free book publicity. (Not that most Americans even cared about her book launch.)

And if Palin continues to avoid the press then they should stop quoting her Facebook page. How lazy can our media be? Yeah, that lazy.

Then there's Cheney. Have you ever seen as much press being heaped on an ex-VP as soon as they left office?

And let's not lose sight of just how extraordinary it was for Allen/VandeHei/Harris to even care what Cheney had to say in early February of 2009, because I can't stress enough how completely unprecedented it is for any major Beltway news outlet to turn to a dislodged vice president as a partisan newsmaker less than one month after he left office. And for Cheney to be the object of Politico's newsroom desire last February was even more bizarre since the Republican had just completed his stint as arguably the most unpopular politician in modern day White House politics. (Somewhere Richard Nixon was smiling.)

That is not an exaggeration. According to a CBS/New York Times poll at the time of the Cheney's White House departure, his job approval rating stood at a how-is-that-possible 13 percent. Yet despite his historically poor standing with the public, and despite the fact that his party had just been trounced in an electoral landslide, and despite the fact that former VPs were never considered to be newsworthy just two weeks after they packed their White House bags, there was the Politico brain trust in February 2009, sitting at Cheney's knee ("Suddenly a man of leisure ... his own mood was relaxed, even loquacious") and treating him like he was still vice president -- treating him like he was a popular vice president. Treating Cheney like a man with all the answers.

Of course, Cheney probably was at least as responsible for the disaster that was the Bush administration as W. -- and so when he sat down to spew vicious attacks on the Obama White House, it not only should have been portrayed as the breach of protocol that it was, but each journalist should have considered it their duty to bring up the Bush administration's actual record in dealing with terrorism and the economy -- glass houses being crappy stone-heaving sites and all.

But then, real reporting is much harder work than stenography.

Could there ever be a Talk show Sunday without McCain or Lieberman? I think it's news when they don't appear, but CNN should be embarrassed for this "Exclusive" promotion.

This week, John's exclusive guests are Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) LIVE from Jerusalem. We'll get their insight on the foiled airline terror plot and President Obama's strategy on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I guess if McCain/Holy Joe travel to a new location then it makes them a hot item all over again. And doesn't the MSM realize that if it had been up to McCain, Lieberman would have been McCain's VP so in reality the networks are promoting the biggest f*&king losers of the 2008 election to an elevated media position? ABC has been a nonstop McCainathon, so CNN must have wanted in on the gagfest.

Does anything illustrate the bubble some people live in better than this New York Times column?

BEATING up on the wealthy seems to be the order of day. I suspected that. But a recent Wealth Matters column touched a particularly raw nerve. It looked at how even people with sizable fortunes were concerned about money in this recession and the impact that could have on the rest of us.

Readers rejected the attempt to understand the concerns of the rich.

“That’s so stupid that you ought to be slapped for it,” one woman wrote. My favorite began: “Bowties and Reaganomics are for losers. You can cry for the rich all you want, the rest of us will be happy to see them get taxed.”

The vehemence in these e-mail messages made me wonder why so many people were furious at those who had more than they did.

Uh, because we're paying for it when we're out of work and don't have affordable health care?

And why are the rich shouldering the blame for a collective run of bad decision-making? After all, many of the rich got there through hard work. And plenty of not-so-rich people bought homes, cars and electronics they could not afford and then defaulted on the debt, contributing to the crash last year.

"Collective run of bad decision-making"? Let's back up there a minute, pal. As anyone with half a brain knows (yes, even people who write for the New York Times), the financial services industry pushed our country over the economic brink through an assortment of unethical and illegal practices. Someone maxing out their Visa is not exactly in the same category; they merely bought the crack. Wall Street marketed and sold the crack. See the difference?

But in this recession, anger flows one way. Eric Dammann, a Manhattan psychoanalyst, theorizes that a lot of people are angry that the rules of the game seem to have changed.

“There’s always been envy and hatred toward the rich, but there was also a strong undercurrent of admiration that was holding these people up as a goal,” Mr. Dammann said. “This time it’s different because it feels like it’s a closed club and the rich have an unfair advantage.”

Gee, ya think? When corporate gains are privatized and losses are socialized, you think maybe the working people have finally had enough of picking up the slack? Can you say "market manipulation"? Can you say "front running"?

What is troubling is that the anger has hardened for some into a suspicion that all wealthy people are motivated purely by self-interest, said Brad Klontz, a financial psychologist in Hawaii and a co-author of the forthcoming book, “Mind Over Money: Overcoming the Money Disorders That Threaten Our Financial Health” (Random House).

“The script goes like this: Money is bad, rich people are shallow and greedy, and people become rich by taking advantage of others,” Mr. Klontz said. “But the same people who say money is bad say money is connected to their self-worth — they wished they had it and you didn’t.”

Would you like me to explain the difference, Brad? People who have earned their money through providing a service or product, people who hire others and treat them fairly - we still admire those wealthy people. We'd like to be like them.

Wall St. traders - bloodsucking scum who, as Elizabeth Warren puts it, made their money through selling "tricks and traps" - tricks and traps that destroyed our economy and sent them running to Washington with their hands out - those wealthy people can kiss our collective grits.

Go read the rest. It's all about how "good" wealthy people are suffering by association, how they do their fair share, they fund scholarships, live "modest" lives...

Let's be blunt, shall we, Mr. and Mrs. Wealthy Person? You get hefty tax write-offs for those donations. Yes, you like the feeling of helping, but you really like the tax write-offs - and your pictures in the society pages. Wealthy people haven't been paying their fair share of taxes for a really long time, but like to think they're "giving back" quite enough through supporting charities. (Oh, and it's voluntary. Unlike the banking bailout the rest of us are paying for.)

You're not giving back anywhere near what you're taking. Seen the pictures on the news of Americans lining up like cattle for free health care? That's our reality. So if you really want to help, start lobbying to change the tax laws. Support real healthcare reform.

Because for some odd reason, they don't pay much attention to us.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (3515)

PLAYS: (23553)

It appears Chuck Todd didn't take too kindly to Jeremy Scahill's drubbing he received on Real Time the other night. From Glenn Greenwald:

According to Scahill (via email), Todd approached him after the Maher show and the following occurred:

Right as we walked off stage, he said to me "that was a cheap shot." I said "what are you talking about?" and he said "you know it." I then said that I monitor msm coverage very closely and asked him what was not true that I said on the show. He then replied: "that's not the point. You sullied my reputation on TV."

Media stars are so unaccustomed to being held accountable for the impact of their behavior -- especially when they're on television -- that they consider it a grievous assault on their entitlement when it happens.

Check out the entire post where Glenn's got much more on some similar events going on lately besides just his own dust up with Chuck Todd. Joe Klein got into it with Aimai of NoMoreMisterNiceBlog who happens to be I.F. Stone's granddaughter. Glenn and Marcy Wheeler had an ongoing feud with Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic. And now we've got Scahill and Todd's back and forth on Real Time.

Glenn summed all of this up much better than I could ever hope to:

Todd's condescending responses illustrate the same point as the above episodes with Klein and Ambinder: in the eyes of Beltway mavens, those who warned about and worked against the radicalism and lawbreaking of the Bush administration are the fringe, crazed, out-of-touch radicals. While Todd was fiddling around with pretty colored maps and fun polling games, Scahill was courageously investigating one of the most corrupt, dangerous and lethal private corporations in the world, yet it's Todd who understands and must solemnly explain the hardened realities of politics to Scahill, the confused and silly Leftist.

There's little question that when people look back at this period in American history, it will be difficult to comprehend what happened in the Bush era -- and especially how we blithely started a devastating war over complete fiction, while simultaneously instituting a criminal torture regime and breaking whatever laws we wanted. But far more remarkable still will be the fact that, other than a handful of low-level sacrificial lambs, those responsible -- both in politics and the establishment media -- not only suffered no consequences, but continued to wield exactly the same power, with exactly the same level of pompous self-regard, as they did before all of that happened. Looking back several decades or more from now, who will possibly be able to understand how that happened: the almost perfect inverse relationship between one's culpability and the price they paid for what they unleashed?

In fairness to Chuck Todd, he was not one of the ones out there cheerleading for the war and I really liked him when I'd see him on C-SPAN's Washington Journal about every morning when he was working for The Hotline. He's a numbers guy. He was one of the best in the business at reading and sorting through the numbers on how our elections were going to turn out. I don't think coming to MSNBC however, has been good for Chuck Todd.

And now he's on there with the rest of them repeating the narrative of how terrible for the Democrats it would be if any investigations are allowed to happen, and if anyone from the Bush administration is held accountable. It's all politics to Chuck.

Here are my thoughts on that. One of the reasons it would be turned into a game of politics is because Chuck Todd and the rest of the beltway media would report it as such, instead of a legal matter. What Chuck Todd is relaying is what the Republican Party would like to see happen if the Democrats or this Department of Justice goes after the law breaking. It would be the choice of those in the media to validate the Republicans' sniping, which would inevitably follow (and already has for that matter), or to dismiss them as playing partisan politics in order to cover up law breaking for political gain.

Of course since the media was part and parcel in allowing the atrocities of the last eight or nine years, that's never going to happen.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1372)

PLAYS: (7407)

Ron Reagan Jr. and Joan Walsh on Hardball reminding Chris Matthews that reality seems to have a liberal bias. As they both point out, once again, the Villagers were wrong, and the "loony left," as the media likes to dismiss any of us as, were right.

I disagree with both of them on one point, though. There is nothing "honorable" about what Tom Ridge is doing. He didn't quit and speak up when he was first asked to do this. And now that he's got a book to sell, suddenly he's feeding the public some half truths about what went on to gin up some interest in it.

Glenn Greenwald and Marcy Wheeler have had a bit of an interesting exchange with The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder over his reaction to Ridge's latest revelation that are well worth the read on the topic of how the Villagers treat the left.

Greenwald: Fringe leftist losers: wrong even when they're right:

Just as is still commonly said about opponents of the Iraq War (even though they were right, they were still wrong and unSerious because their motives were bad), Ambinder acknowledges that Bush critics were right that the terror alerts were being manipulated for political ends (he has no choice but to acknowledge that now that Ridge admits it), but still says journalists like himself were right to scorn such critics "because these folks based their assumption on gut hatred for President Bush, and not on any evaluation of the raw intelligence." As always: even when the dirty leftist hippies are proven right, they're still Shrill, unSerious Losers who every decent person and "journalist" scorns.

Wheeler: Ambinder: Sorry I Was So Stupid, But I Was Right To Be Stupid:

Mark Ambinder takes the opportunity of Ridge's confirmation that the terror alerts were one big political game to claim he was justified in believing that we DFHers were wrong about the alerts--and in doing so, demonstrates what is so wrong with so much of Village journalism.

Be sure to check out the rest of both posts if you haven't already. Reagan and Walsh should read them as well if they haven't. By showing such deference to Ridge they're simply feeding into the narrative they're attempting to beat back here.

Okay, I'm confess I'm one of those who rolls her eyes at the sports threads that pop up here from time to time. And I don't like football, so I don't honestly really know who James Harrison is, but this just struck me as everything that's wrong with professional sports these days.

On Thursday, President Obama will welcome the Pittsburgh Steelers to the White House to honor the team for its recent Super Bowl victory. But, just like in 2006 when the Steelers had a post-title meeting with George W. Bush, defensive MVP (and Super Bowl hero) James Harrison won't be in attendance. But he has a good reason:

"This is how I feel -- if you want to see the Pittsburgh Steelers, invite us when we don't win the Super Bowl. As far as I'm concerned, he [Obama] would've invited Arizona if they had won."

Usually, when a sentence begins with "as far as I'm concerned," it ends with an opinion, not an incontrovertible fact. Harrison's comment is akin to saying, "As far as I'm concerned, George Washington was the first president."

Of course the Cards would have received the White House invite if they had won. Winners get to go meet the president, losers don't. They also get the trophy, the parade and those hats that say "Super Bowl champs". I don't think James Harrison turned down any of those things, which makes his refusal to go to the White House a tad hypocritical.

Seriously, WTF is this? I'm slightly less offended with the knowledge that Harrison similarly snubbed Bush43, so it's not like the hypocritical ASU or the Notre Dame pearl clutchers, but it is still one of those asinine low-information moments that just make people hate these overpriced divas in the NFL.