This is just ghastly formulaic reporting. I bet one could go back to 1985 or 1993 and find virtually the same story only with different names. Sure, there are examples containing far more egregious errors of fact and reckless he-said-she-said stenography. But I would argue this kind of blasé, run-of-the-mill pap from the agenda-setting center of the MSM is far more damaging.

continued...

At first glance the premise sounds reasonable: "The unwillingness of the two parties to compromise to control a national debt that is rising to dangerous heights." But Jackie Calmes - and the rest of the Washington Week bobbleheads - will never stop for two seconds and ask themselves the basic questions:

Should we be freaking out and getting all hands below deck to bail out the debt we've taken on board? Or should we perhaps first plug the frakking hole in the economy through which the debt is rushing in? Doesn't it make sense to take advantage of the precious opportunity this country is blessed with - having the seed money available to bring the economy back to life, unlike, say, Greece or Ireland?

I can't begin to express how frustrating the WashWeek type of softheadedness is. It's a big source of demagogic mojo for the Evan Bayhs of the world, whose juvenile fiscal and macroeconomic theories would quickly sink us all if put into practice. Actually, "theories" is being charitable; I doubt the Bayhheads themselves believe their prattle. It's designed to position themselves politically and set the narrative framework for stupid stories like Calmes'.

I'm sure she means well, but jimminy crickets: shouldn't we expect more out of the highly educated, elite press corps? David Leonhardt gets it; perhaps he could persuaded to stroll over to Calmes' desk and dump some ice water on her head.