long, contemplative piece for today's Washington Post blaming both sides for moving farther from the center into their own ideological universes. His entire piece fails to mention the fact that ONE side has left the rational world, much less the rational center.

There are a few breaths of fresh air in the putrid Village universe, however. Nicholas Kristof laid it out clearly in the New York Times:

The stakes rise as we approach the debt limit and the risk of default — which the Treasury Department notes could have an impact like that of the 2008 financial crisis and “has the potential to be catastrophic.” Astonishingly, Republican hard-liners see that potential catastrophe as a source of bargaining power in a game of extortion: We don’t want anything to happen to this fine American economy as we approach the debt limit, so you’d better meet our demands.

In this situation, it strikes a false note for us as journalists to cover the crisis simply by quoting each side as blaming the other. That’s a false equivalency.

Look, Cokie! He said it. He put it right there on the table. So did Media Matters, who put responsibility for this ongoing clusterf*ck right on the shoulders of those who caused or helped to cause it:

What's been clear for years is that the press clings to its preferred storyline: When Republicans obstruct Obama's agenda, the president's to blame for not changing the GOP's unprecedented behavior. In other words, "both sides" are to blame for the GOP's radical actions and the epic gridlock it produces.

The media lesson for Republicans? There's very little political downside to pushing extremism if the press is going to give the party a pass.

Which is exactly what Cokie and her pals did in that segment. They pretended to be serious, but they were just giving cover to the Tea Party terrorists to continue their extreme behavior unabated, while the rest of the country, our economy, and what shreds of our social safety net remain are sucked away in a sea of shouts about 'both sides' doing it.

What will it take for them to actually be honest with their audiences? I don't know. The pattern is clear to anyone paying attention:

And now, rather than seeing the health care obstructionism as part of an obvious Republican continuum, and rather than noting it followed the gun law obstructionism, which followed the sequester obstructionism, which followed the Chuck Hagel confirmation obstructionism, which followed the Hurricane Sandy emergency relief obstructionism, which followed consistent obstructionism on juridicial nominees, the press remains reluctant to connect the obvious dots that help paint the portrait of a truly radical Republican party.

You can rest assured, however, that they don't shy away from painting a portrait of Barack Obama as a radical liberal who somehow deserves this kind of obstruction, because...both sides.