Newshoggers: Meet the new COIN boss, same as the old COIN boss.

Balloon Juice: Their own made-up, fictional universe.

Gin and Tacos: Marchel Duchamp versus Harry Reid, and the war on the poor.

Brad DeLong: How have we lost the argument?

Rumproast: Jeb Bush and his brother Fredo.

Guest post by Batocchio. Temporarily e-mail tips to batocchio9 AT yahoo DOT com.

CQPolitic's Craig Crawford says what he's thankful for, November 2009.

Apparently, Craig wasn't really all that thankful for Sarah Palin:

In a Friday surprise, MSNBC political analyst Craig Crawford announced on his CQ Politics blog Trail Mix today that he is leaving the network.

"Three months short of my current contract," he wrote, "I sent the following to the boss, [MSNBC President] Phil Griffin: 'Phil, Just wanted to give you the heads up that my situation with MSNBC has become so unrewarding for me that I've decided to move on. — Craig'"

In an email, Crawford tells TVNewser, "This was a long time coming. I haven't felt like a good fit for MSNBC since the presidential campaign, and their hard turn toward point-of-view programming.

"So many of my booking calls lately have been for segments bashing Sarah Palin, for instance. I was boring myself, and surely the viewers.

"But no particular event brought this on, just my desire to try other outlets and have more fun. I have a fine and rewarding home with the great folks at CQ-Roll Call. I enjoy blogging for them and doing our web videos.

"Perhaps I'm not cut out to be a cable cowboy anymore, dunno. Prefer remaining independent and do my own thing for any channel, including MSNBC, that books me. After a dozen years with one channel, I'd rather play the field for a while."

In the interest of disclosure, I have spoken with Craig in the past--as we set up his book chat last year--and I've communicated with him via Facebook on this as well. I like Craig as a person, and I can certainly understand a level of frustration if the only subject for which he's invited is Palin. However, I don't know if that's the whole truth. In the comment section of his blog, he revealed some more:

i simply could not any longer endure being a cartoon player for lefty games, just gotta move on to higher ground even if there's no oxygen

Lefty games? Oh dear. I asked Craig to explain what that meant, but he refused. In fairness to Craig, since his appearances were basically with Countdown, I don't think that anyone will argue there isn't a lefty slant, but games? It's a troubling characterization. Craig commented again:

i have never and never will forgive Chris [Matthews] for calling me a racist after the West Virginia primary (the last time I will ever go on air with him). Probably should have resigned then and there, but better late than never.

What was that again? I watched an excruciating number of hours of election coverage on MSNBC (and have the high blood pressure and heart troubles to prove it), I missed Chris Matthews calling Craig racist. Mediaite was more successful than I in getting a clarification from Craig:

I haven’t felt like a good fit for MSNBC since the presidential campaign, and the hard turn toward point-of-view programming. No particular event brought this on, just my desire to try other outlets and have more fun. As far as Chris is concerned, on Morning Joe after the West Virginia primary he accused me of always defending Clinton and what he claimed to be her racially motivated campaigning. That’s the problem. Trying to be fair became seen as bias in the new thinking over there. But I do wish my many pals at MSNBC nothing but good things.

This appears to be that incident from Morning Joe. (link goes to Newsbusters)

The truth is, there were times that the anti-Hillary coverage got to me, and I wasn't a Hillary-supporter. But that was over a year ago, and claims of loyalty aside, leaving with bad blood three months shy of your contract ending seems to be a strong statement to make for transgressions more than a year old. Now, I'd like to think that Craig was taking a principled stand against "point of view" programming, but as Mediaite points out, Crawford announced he was going from the frying pan into the fire:

Crawford says on his blog he will be on Fox & Friends as a guest on Monday, although FNC says he won’t be. He also writes in the comments that he is a “free agent.”

Update: Crawford took down the F&F booking info shortly after publication.

Oy. F&F isn't point of view programming, Craig? C'mon now. Clearly the free agent thing had Crawford thinking, because later on Facebook and Twitter he asked what people thought of CNN's Rick Sanchez as a possible new "anchor buddy". I admit, I wasn't too complimentary.

I do think that collectively we're reaching a form of critical mass on being tired of opinion media masquerading as journalism. There will always be a certain percentage of the population that needs their pre-conceived notions reinforced, but by and large, Americans don't trust "journalists" any more, with reason. And this stand of Crawford's--as contradictory as it appears on its face--may be another crack in the dam.

I'm hearing serious rumors that the newly disgraced Judge Jay Bybee may not have actually written the CIA memos under his byline, but acted like a stenographer on the torture issue while he was John Yoo's boss. I'm in the process of investigating these allegations.

...as the FCC puts a big bow on consolidated media ownership. In spite of widespread public opposition. In opposition to basic human decency and common sense.

Free Press: FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is ignoring the public will and defying the U.S. Senate. His decision to gut longstanding ownership rules shows once again how the largest media companies — with their campaign contributions and high-powered lobbyists — are corrupting the policymaking process at the expense of local news coverage and independent voices.

“Martin’s FCC relied on slanted research and a rigged process to reach today’s preordained outcome — local media wrapped in a bow for Tribune, News Corp., Gannett and all the rest. Read more...

One has to wonder how much outrage Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Neil Cavuto will be allowed to express over this obvious capitulation to their boss big media ownership. After all, we all know what happens when any "little guy" stands up to the suits upstairs...

(Photo via glynnish.)

The Sunday talking head line-up is ready for reading. It's a whole lot of not much this morning, I have to say. Any bets on whether Timmeh will ask Mary Matalin about her former boss Dick Cheney and her former co-worker Scooter and “the latest maybe they did, maybe they didn’t tell him to lie” floater from Scotty McLellan? Yeah, me neither. Have you ever seen a more annoyingly self-referential and self-serving line-up? Yeah, me neither. Not enough coffee in the whole world.

Beyond that, it’s a whole lot of “here come the primaries,” with a sprinkling of foreign policy for spice. In short, not a lot of surprises, but the Zinni interview could be the surprise of the day. Guess we’ll see.

To make up for the dud of a line-up, do yourself a favor and shake up your morning with some Celia Cruz (YouTube) and an impressive musical line-up behind her as well. Guaranteed to get you up and moving for the day. What's catching you eye on the blogs and in the news?

Nearly two weeks later, the right's smear of 12-year-old Graeme Frost and his family is long over, but the problems for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ken.) remain. His office was, as we now know, directly involved in pushing the attacks on the Frosts, but just as importantly, McConnell appears to have been caught lying about it.

By now, we've all heard the play-by-play. Right-wing activists went after the Frost family, and McConnell's spokesperson contacted political reporters, urging them to pick up on the story. Later, after learning that the conservative hatchet men were wrong, an embarrassed McConnell aide backpedaled and discouraged his media contacts from pursuing the bogus story.

The aide, Don Stewart, told the Louisville Courier-Journal that he briefed his boss on all of this last Thursday. As it turns out, that's the problem.

Mitch McConnell can't have it both ways. He can't luxuriate in a reputation for personal caution and political control, yet claim he knew nothing about the role his office tried to play in sliming a Baltimore boy and his family when they came forward in support of the SCHIP health care expansion.

Mr. Stewart told The Courier-Journal he explained all that to his boss on Thursday. So Sen. McConnell was deliberately untruthful the next day, when he told WHAS-TV's Mark Hebert, "There was no involvement whatsoever." The senator will object to any suggestion of lying, but what else is it when you knowingly misrepresent facts?

It's clear what Mitch McConnell knew and when he knew it. It's clear he deceived the public when he answered Mr. Hebert as he did about the e-mail sent by his press agent.

Mr. McConnell is so used to Washington-style gamesmanship and inside-the-beltway rules that he has forgotten what constituents back in Kentucky want: the simple truth.

Greg Sargent wonders what the media's interest would be if this had happened to a Dem.

My Bad Boss Contest

Here's a worthwhile project from the AFL-CIO -- it's called "Ask a Lawyer."

Can my boss really do that? How many of us find ourselves asking that very question on a weekly, if not daily basis? Well now we just may get the answers we seek. Because Working America, the 1.6 million-member community affiliate of the AFL-CIO, which provides a voice for those of us denied the right to union membership on the job, has started its “Ask a Lawyer” program.

First of all, who benefits from Working America? Well, only those of us who don’t have stock options in Halliburton or stay up nights uncontrollably excited about the next day’s bank merger. The silenced majority, if you will.

It's never been easier for workers to learn about their rights. Good for the AFL-CIO.

Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone Magazine reports that Congressional Republicans aren't liking a taste of their own medicine:

I turned on C-Span the other morning, expecting to watch the latest chapter in the purification-by-fire of Alberto Gonzales, and saw an amazing thing. It was so amazing and so hilarious that I coughed hot coffee all over my new laptop. Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Republican of Florida, was howling on the House floor about the lack of "openness" demonstrated by the new Democratic leadership.

"In bill after bill after bill," he shouted, "the minority is closed out!"

[..]The Republicans ran Congress like a basement cock-fighting ring for more than a decade, and two months or so after they're out of power, they're already transformed into a bunch of squawking dissidents more pretentious than Rage Against the Machine. And they know how absurd it is, too. When I called Diaz-Balart's office, and asked his press representative, Victoria Martinez, how her boss could possibly complain about a lack of open rules considering his record, there was a pause on the other end of the line.

"Uh huh," she said. "I'll get back to you."

Click. Should I hold my breath while I wait?

I have a lot of issues with this essay, especially how it generalizes the entire Democratic party by citing isolated cases. However, the author makes some good points on the general cluelessness about Americans' attitudes on the part of representatives like Rahm Emmanuel and how the Democratic Party is divided on the issue that landed them the majority after the election.

Harper's:

Sometimes it's great to be wrong. When the Democrats took the House and the Senate-contrary to my published expectations-I breathed a sigh of relief. So what if James Webb is a pulp-fiction-writing former Reaganite. The senator-elect from Virginia and his Democratic colleagues have pledged renewed scrutiny of the Iraq catastrophe, and that's reason enough to celebrate.

Then again, was my pessimism so misguided? I wanted the Democrats to win so they might get us out of Iraq, but I thought that they would fall short because of their steadfast refusal to condemn the war with a unified voice. Too often during the campaign, I couldn't tell the difference between the Democratic and the Republican positions on Iraq.
[..]To analyze this paradox it's necessary to consider the work of Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D.-Ill.), the hatchetman for Bill and Hillary Clinton and boss of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Emanuel labored hard to keep strongly anti-war candidates off the Democratic line and slate Iraq equivocators instead. Read full article here