Press doing its best to beat Pravda

  The media is on track to compete with Pravda in their selective editing, reportage of reinforcement of only their own points of view and protective defense of the most inept POTUS in the history of the republic.
  Here's a video of Andrea Mitchell and that Chris Cillizza person Rush was ranting about yesterday.


  It's really too much that these two giggle like Heckle and Jeckle hoping that Romney's having his Bush scanner moment; instead they've been caught taking Romney's words out of order and context, something that Colbert is so good at. Who knew that MSNBC is an extension of the Colbert Report?
  Comedy gold.
  But when even Politico calls you out for lying and misrepresenting, you know you're in trouble. There's even a nod to a conservative blogger in the Politico article:

The MSNBC clip feeds into the narrative, beloved by some on the left, that Romney is a 1950's throwback. After the clip cut, Mitchell and MSNBC contributor Chris Cillizza broke out into laughter -- which is understandable, given that they both had been led to believe that Romney was wowed by a simple machine. In fact, what Romney found so "amazing" was the discord between private sector innovation and public sector bureaucracy. 

  Here's some of what Rush said yesterday about Cilizza and his enamored writing about POTUS:

Well, Chris Cillizza, Democrat frontman, yesterday in the Washington Post: "Can Any President Succeed in Today’s Political World?"  It's so mean out there and it's so partisan out there that, you know, I don't think any president could actually govern anymore because it's so, so mean.  

Here's how he starts his story.  "Lost in the chatter about whether President Obama will win a second term in November..." See, they admit that's the chatter, whether Obama will win a second term.  "Lost in the chatter about whether President Obama will win a second term in November is an even bigger -- and perhaps even more important -- question..."  Can you believe the Drive-Bys say there's something more important than whether or not Obama will win a second term?  What, pray tell, might that be?  Well, let's read further.  

"Perhaps an even more important question is: Is it possible for a president -- any president -- to succeed in the modern world of politics?" Are these guys throwing it?  It's impossible.  It's impossible for poor President Kardashian to govern. It's so mean out there.  "Consider this: We are in the midst of more than a decade-long streak of pessimism about the state of the country..."  No, we're not.  The streak's three-and-a-half years.  Maybe four at the outside.  There wasn't any kind of pessimism about the country in 2005 and 2006.  The pessimism began in 2007 when Pelosi and the gang took over the House and started implementing their policies.  The pessimism began when Obama was elected, then did the stimulus, then did health care, started doing damage to the economy, that's when the pessimism began.  There wasn't any pessimism before.  Nothing out of the ordinary.   

  The belief that the job of POTUS is too big for any one man was something that liberals lamented when Jimmy Carter was POTUS; hm. Strange resemblance there.
  James Taranto at BOTW delivers a hilarious column on why journalists suddenly find that the job is too big when their guy just can't handle the responsibilities of an admittedly significant job:

Listen closely and you can hear the sounds of slogging echo across the decades. They emanate not just from the failed president but from sympathetic journalists trying to absolve him of the responsibility for his failure. 

We learned in the 1980s that the presidency was still big. It was Jimmy Carter who turned out to be small.

  It's really tres amusant that liberals cannot accept the fact that their guys are, well, wieners: incompetent boobs so swollen with their own importance and confidence that they can't quite do the job.