The Villagers are giving this "Party Crashers" story the Anna Nicole Smith-type coverage, and it's been led by none other than the Washington Post's Sally Quinn. They seem to be the only people outraged over it, and good old Sally wants heads to roll. When Sally got on board with the story it was very predictable that she would finally come out and demand a human sacrifice at her Beltway altar, because D.C. is her hallowed grounds and to think some undesirables crashed "her" party is just too much for her to bear.

Sally was very upset when Hillary was the first lady because she was ignored and Sally will not be ignored.

Michelle Obama is now in Quinn's crosshairs and is being asked to pay a price to appease the Beltway Village Gods. Desirée Rogers is a close friend of Michelle's and so she must be taught a lesson by the Villagers.

Digby predicted this was coming too.

Just as Travelgate was about Hillary Clinton failing to respect the social pecking order by installing old Arkansas friends in a job in which the press had a personal stake, (Ryan's comments about "overshadowing" notwithstanding) I'm pretty sure this is about Michele and "her pal" somehow not respecting the pecking order and failing to understand just how sacrosanct are the invitation lists to the White House. (You'll recall that Michelle had a press avail the day of the state dinner and mentioned that she regretted not being able to invite everyone, which I thought was rather odd at the time.)

The lesson has long been clear. You do not mess with the Village tabbies. They have far more power than you might think.

Well guess what? The Queen Tabby made her move today:

Many in Washington wondered why the director of the Secret Service, Mark Sullivan, did not resign over the state dinner security breach. At least Sullivan testified before Congress on the subject. White House social secretary Desirée Rogers came under fire after the Salahi scandal erupted. From the start, Rogers was an unlikely choice for social secretary. She was not of Washington, considered by many too high-powered for the job and more interested in being a public figure (and thus upstaging the first lady) than in doing the gritty, behind-the-scenes work inherent in that position. That Rogers stayed and that the White House refused to allow her to testify before Congress reflected badly on the president. He, not a member of his staff, ended up looking incompetent. Although it has emerged that a State Department protocol error is to blame for the presence of a third uninvited guest, both Rogers and Sullivan should step down.

The administration's problem extends beyond these failings. When White House counsel Greg Craig was fired over disagreements about the timing and publicity of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay, many Obama supporters were troubled. Craig was one of the most admired and trusted men in Washington. His firing was a turning point for a lot of people, who began to question the president's judgment.Whether or not the Craig decision was the president's idea, somebody else should have taken the hit for it... Emanuel, the most political animal in this town, also should understand that keeping Rogers on as social secretary reflects upon the president's judgment.

Obviously, the Obamas have made a Big Social Mistake somewhere along the line and it's time for those who really run things to assert themselves. She put it in terms of "protecting" the president, but if you read the whole thing, it's quite clear that it's actually a threat: unless they straighten up and understand who's really in charge, right quick, this could get ugly. Sally says heads must roll ... or else.

Let the games begin.

I imagine Quinn will be appearing with Bill O'Reilly soon to demand that a sacrifice be carried out.

DOWNLOADS: (310)

PLAYS: (780)

Embed

This whole "White House Party Crasher" story is a look into the minds of the media elites that are promoting it. The Villagers certainly have their knickers in a bunch over this dastardly couple who got into the State dinner. Howard Kurtz did a segment on it today which looked like it was going to delve into the media's obsession of this story, but it quickly turned into a justification of their actions. Two WaPo reporters were on CNN today discussing how they broke the story, but even they didn't believe it would amount to more than a few days of news. The Villagers would have none of that.

Here's Roxanne Roberts and Amy Argetsinger telling us what's what.

KURTZ: And not just yours. As we saw, everybody was talking about it.

Look, in the first 48 hours, it seemed to me, there was a legitimate concern about security. The Secret Service apologized. People -- anyone said, gee, how could somebody who wasn't invited get so close to the president of the United States? But now, it seems to me, that's kind of a fig leaf for our interest in the more gossipy aspects of this story.

Howard Kurtz made a point about the seriousness of this idiocy. I'd say resentment should be part of his analysis too. How dare these bumpkins get into their very private elitist party. They must pay, and so does anyone from Obama's administration who dared let them in.

ARGETSINGER: But they are under investigation now by the state of Virginia, not just because of allegations about their charity, but because of allegations about their entire polo match that they've been throwing the past three years.

They're in some pretty serious trouble. And this is the thing, we don't really know. They seem to be enjoying themselves in front of the cameras, but they may be well aware of the fact that they're in very grave trouble right now.

KURTZ: But at the same time, they're sort of milking this. I mean, they go on "The Today Show" and they make themselves available for the cameras. I mean, if they skate by without any legal complications, they could be one of the most famous reality show couples.

ARGETSINGER: Well, this is the big question.

KURTZ: We're aiding and abetting this by talking about it now.

ARGETSINGER: This is a big question. I mean, does Bravo have a liability on their hands, or is Bravo sitting on a gold mine with this footage? They've had this couple on film for the past three months.

KURTZ: If it was just Tareq Salahi, and his blonde wife was not part of the picture, would we still be talking about this?

ROBERTS: It wouldn't be nearly as interesting. I mean, what makes this story, what takes this from sort of an interesting one-or- two-day story, is the fact that this couple is so over the top and so flamboyant.

There are so many stereotypes -- the thin, ambitious blonde, who was never, in fact, a Redskins cheerleader. All the tall tales that they've told, all those things, that's what makes it so fascinating.

KURTZ: Maybe that's why the media aren't letting this go. And, of course, this hasn't fully played out, so we'll get to talk about it maybe next week.

The Villagers need to keep going with the story because this couple is just too damn flamboyant. The media have taken it to the max and it doesn't look like they'll let it go any time soon. Their rage is focused on the White House social secretary named Desiree Rogers---so in essence it's actually directed at Michelle Obama. With all that is happening in America today, these nitwits are screaming on and on about this couple that they find odious. The security breach should be thoroughly checked out, but this couple appear on every damn news show like they have stolen national security secrets. And we're told that the reason they still are a big story is because they keep on lying and being weird.

Digby has been following this story and it reminds us of the time the media went ballistic against Hillary Clinton:

The fatuous gasbags were all atwitter yesterday that the White House is "stonewalling" to protect their "old Chicago pal" Desiree Rogers, the White House social secretary. As I said the other day, this is rapidly turning into a "travelgate" type Village scandal and someone is going to have to go down, preferably one who falls under the auspices of Michelle Obama, who has clearly made some kind of social error.

Just as Travelgate was about Hillary Clinton failing to respect the social pecking order by installing old Arkansas friends in a job in which the press had a personal stake, (Ryan's comments about "overshadowing" notwithstanding) I'm pretty sure this is about Michele and "her pal" somehow not respecting the pecking order and failing to understand just how sacrosanct are the invitation lists to the White House. (You'll recall that Michelle had a press avail the day of the state dinner and mentioned that she regretted not being able to invite everyone, which I thought was rather odd at the time.)

The lesson has long been clear. You do not mess with the Village tabbies. They have far more power than you might think.

When it comes to social events at the White House, the only thing worse for a President than self-serving gate crashers is when the miscreant has an invitation. And so while conservatives gloat over the Secret Service failure that allowed climbers Michaele and Tareq Salahi to crash the state dinner for the Indian prime minister, it's worth remembering that when Republican uber lobbyist and convicted felon Jack Abramoff roamed the Bush White House, he was an honored guest.

For his part, President Obama has ordered a review into how the Virginia couple and would-be reality TV stars made their way into this week's function. For their part, even conservative bloggers fretted about the disturbing security lapse that allowed the Salahis to come "face to face with The One himself." But as another predictably suggested, it's all Obama's fault even when it isn't:

"It unfortunately also embarrasses the Secret Service, Obama, and pretty much the entire White House. It was Obama's first state dinner, and how will people remember it? They'll remember that two famewhore socialites snuck in and that his security allowed it to happen. This, for once, is not Obama's fault, but he's the one embarrassed by it inevitably. I wonder how long it will take him to blame this on President Bush, though."

Of course, you can't blame George W. Bush for letting the Salahis slither their way into a White House social function. But letting Jack Abramoff through the door is another matter altogether.

As you'll recall, in September 2008, Abramoff was sentenced to four years in prison for a lobbying scandal whose tentacles spread throughout Capital Hill and the Bush administration. And as the Washington Post recounted, Abramoff would have a lot of company in jail from among the ranks of his Republican colleagues:

More than a dozen people, including an Ohio congressman and a deputy secretary of the interior, have been convicted in the Abramoff lobbying scandal, and Justice Department officials said the investigation is continuing. Still under scrutiny are former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and retiring Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.).

Which is why the Bush White House was desperate to erase any evidence of the association between Abramoff, the President and his highest level staffers. On January 26th, 2006, President Bush denied any relationship with Abramoff, a "Pioneer" who raised over $100,000 for his reelection campaign:

"You know, I, frankly, don't even remember having my picture taken with the guy. I don't know him."

As it turned out, of course, George W. Bush knew Jack Abramoff and had his picture taken with the guy several times.

Continue reading »

Wow, talk about Bush really losing his base.

The Agonist:

While I'm sure it's a lot more complicated, and perhaps others with more foreign policy/Middle East expertise than me can comment, I noted two related stories this morn, one in the NYT and one in WaPo that I think are big time indicators with big time negative repercussions for BushCo. In the NYT, we learn Saudi King Abdullah has publicly condemned the US occupation of Iraq in this story.

``In beloved Iraq, blood flows between brothers in the shadow of illegitimate foreign occupation and hateful sectarianism, threatening a civil war,'' he (Abdullah) added.

Jim Hoagland's column in WaPo says Abdullah cancelled a state dinner to be held in his honor at the White House in April. [..]

Oh yeah. Hoagland notes Bush BFF King Abdullah of Jordan also cancelled a state dinner visit slated for September. An emerging pattern it would seem.
Cernig at NewsHog has more