The Washington Post has cancelled its July 21 “Salon,” following outrage over the paper’s decision to sell access to its newsroom and to Administration officials. Publisher Katharine Weymouth and and Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli said that the flyer sent out to lobbyists was not properly vetted and that the off-the-record event would not have occurred as advertised.

According to Politico, the first scheduled “Salon” would have been: “Health-Care Reform: Better or Worse for Americans? The reform and funding debate.”

So, the initial fears of progressive bloggers have been confirmed.

And WaPo writer Ceci Connolly, who reportedly “covers Health Care,” was invited, so she could soak in the arguments of the insurance lobby before writing another attack on a public healthcare option.

Now I’d like to know who exactly signed up to attend the event before it was cancelled. I’ve put in a request for comment to the WaPo communications team, and will post the response when I receive it.

The Washington Post is offering lobbyists and association executives access to the Obama administration and its own staff in exchange for cold, hard cash, reports Politico’s Mike Allen.

Politico obtained a WaPo flyer that was sent to a health-care lobbyist, who then “provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he feels it’s a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its ‘health care reporting and editorial staff.’”

Which is correct. It is most certainly a conflict.

Steve Benen makes the point I wanted to make:

Didn’t Dana Milbank just lecture Nico Pitney about “working in collusion” with the administration? His column on these “salons” ought to be a doozy. I can’t wait to read it.

Ed Morrissey thinks this report means that WaPo is pimping for the White House:

We’ve long argued that the national media has been in the bag for Barack Obama, but we didn’t realize that the Washington Post had been appointed to the position of White House Pimp.

I have to disagree. A pimp should have better game than this. Rather, WaPo is a giant whore who is willing to do anything for money, including publicly sacrificing the paper’s journalistic integrity.

And I don’t think the takeaway from this is that WaPo will give the White House favorable coverage, as Ed does, in return for these $25,000 - $250,000 payments from lobbyists.

The flyer states that “an evening with the right people can alter the debate.” This implies, to me, that WaPo’s coverage of a certain topic (say healthcare) will be influenced by the cash coming in from an interest group, which makes me reconsider the motives behind Ceci Connolly’s most ignorant story on the healthcare debate published last weekend.

Washington Post spokesperson Kris Coratti responds to Politico’s story:

The flier circulated this morning came out of a business division for conferences and events, and the newsroom was unaware of such communication. It went out before it was properly vetted, and this draft does not represent what the company’s vision for these dinners are, which is meant to be an independent, policy-oriented event for newsmakers.

As written, the newsroom could not participate in an event like this.

We do believe there is an opportunity to have a conferences and events business, and that The Post should be leading these conversations in Washington, big or small, while maintaining journalistic integrity. The newsroom will participate where appropriate.

I don’t think Coratti’s statement will mark the end of this controversy, nor should it.

Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC), who recently admitted to having an affair with an Argentine woman, continued his implosion, telling the Associated Press that he “crossed the line” with multiple women during his marriage but that he didn’t go all the way.

“There were a handful of instances wherein I crossed the lines I shouldn’t have crossed as a married man, but never crossed the ultimate line,” Sanford said.

Remind you of anything?

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman,” President Bill Clinton insisted.

Sanford called on Clinton to resign, but did not favor impeaching him. He gave a rather telling quote to CNN about the partisan Republicans pushing for impeachment:

“You’ve got your clear attack dogs. They love it, they don’t mind living in glass houses and throwing rocks,” said Mark Sanford, a South Carolina Republican. “But most of us feel uncomfortable in the role of judge. It isn’t exactly why we came to Congress. We’re off center and edgy.”

One way to keep a non-story alive: explain the critics’ arguments without examining the merits.

Today the Washington Post’s Ed O’Keefe gives an update on the Gerald Walpin saga. He provides some trivial backstory and zero insight:

Lawmakers almost immediately raised concerns about the dismissal of the organization’s inspector general, suggesting the White House failed to follow proper procedure in removing the appointee of President George W. Bush and did not provide proper reasons for the dismissal. The White House outlined its concerns in a letter to lawmakers, suggesting that Walpin appeared confused, disoriented and unable to answer questions at a late-May board meeting of the corporation.

This week, corporation staffers delivered even more evidence suggesting a difficult working relationship with Walpin, sending the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee several e-mails, memos and even a mock newsletter for review.

Was Walpin fired because of some newsletter he sent out? No, so why should we care?

More importantly, only a select group of Republican lawmakers remain concerned with Walpin’s dismissal. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) initially had questions about the firing but later said in a statement that she was satisfied by President Obama’s further explanation of the reasons for firing Walpin:

“Last night, in response to my request for adequate information on the firing of Inspector General for the Corporation for National and Community Service Gerald Walpin, the White House submitted a letter to Senators Lieberman and Collins that now puts the White House in full compliance with the notice requirement in the law.  The next step for Congress is to use the 30 days provided by the notice to seek further information and undertake any further review that might be necessary. The reasons given in the most recent White House letter are substantial and the decision to remove Walpin appears well founded.”

McCaskill, who authored the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008, maintains that President Obama fully complied with the law.

Because I don’t want to beat a dead horse, here’s a thorough explanation of what the Act demands and how Obama fulfilled the two rather basic requirements of the law.

Why doesn’t O’Keefe tell readers the truth and that the Walpin firing was legal? That’s just not juicy enough, I guess.

Reading Todd Purdum’s explosive story on Gov. Sarah Palin in Vanity Fair, I’m struck by this section:

Sarah Palin is a star in Evansville and all the many Evansvilles of America, but there is a big part of the Republican Party—the Wall Street wing, the national-security wing—in which she cuts no ice. At the 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference, Palin essentially came in tied for second with Governor Bobby Jindal, of Louisiana, and Representative Ron Paul, of Texas, with 13 percent support in a straw poll of potential 2012 presidential candidates; former governor Mitt Romney, of Massachusetts, got 20 percent. A more recent survey has Palin in a three-way tie with Romney and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. She could do well in the Iowa caucuses or South Carolina primary, but it is much harder to imagine her making headway in New Hampshire, where independent voters were turned off by her last fall.

Purdum’s rationale for why Palin won’t be a serious contender in 2012 is exactly the reason why I suspect she will. Her outsider status was compelling to the Republican base before, and the fact she remains an outsider even after being the GOP’s vice presidential pick should continue to give her hope. Palin might turn off moderates and Independents, but they won’t decide the primary.

Mitt Romney did not appeal to the conservative base first time around. The Republican establishment could try to shove Romney down the base’s throat, but they may not enjoy the results. Palin, for all the problems she has with being accurate and truthful, is lightyears more real than Romney, who was admittedly more liberal than Ted Kennedy before he ran for President.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Purdum’s story unintentionally helps Palin. It reads like an attack piece and will help to reinforce Palin’s assertion (which is popular among conservatives) that the left-wing media is out to destroy her because she’s not part of the establishment.

By the way, referring to Palin as “It” in the title was probably not the best idea.

Whether this piece helps or hurts will be determined by Palin’s response. What will it be?

Sample 1: The left-wing media is out to destroy me because I’m not part of the old boys’ club. - This would work.

Sample 2: Todd Purdum is a “scumbag” and a “real slimy guy.” - This would be bad.

What was that old saying? If you can’t appeal to black voters…. bribe the newspapers? Wait, that wasn’t it?

The Orlando Sentinel reports that RPOF Chairman Jim Greer is open to buying ads in black news media in exchange for presumably favorable coverage of his party:

Greer promised that the party would stop ignoring black media. He said that mainstream newspapers such as the Orlando Sentinel, Tampa Tribune and Tallahassee Democrat cover the party’s issues regardless of whether they advertise, but the party chairman nevertheless seemed willing to accept the quid-pro-quo arrangement.

“When I hear that when we advertise, the paper will be more likely to disseminate Republican issues, am I hearing right?” Greer asked. “I don’t understand the legitimacy of disseminating information and having a tie-in to revenue — but I get it.”

What won’t Jim Greer buy with donor money? (See: here, here, and here.)

Short answer: Greer won’t buy ads to help John McCain’s presidential campaign when it counts, but he’ll help himself to free stays in five-star hotels and free rides on charter airplanes on donor dime. And he’ll look to buy positive media coverage.

The Reid Report responds to the Sentinel story and gives Greer some free advice:

Stop. Just stop. Not only is this story, which appeared in the Orlando Sentinel over the weekend, embarrassing for those Black media outlets (which I assume are mostly newspapers since there are only a handful of black-owned radio stations in Florida) and who should be ashamed of themselves for basically trying to hustle political parties for cash, it’s also humiliating for you. If you really think buying news coverage in Black papers will get you anything other than a bill, you don’t know very many Black people.

This is just one more reason why Republican insiders wish Greer would go through with his farcical plot to run for Congress, lose, and be out of their hair. Personally, I hope he sticks around.

The MSM continues to trash the Huffington Post’s Nico Pitney for asking President Obama a so-called “staged” question from an Iranian. (Note: it wasn’t staged.)

The Washington Post’s spectacular blowhard Dana Milbank made a fuss over the question yesterday in his typical pompous fashion, once again confusing fancy verbiage with accurate reporting.

The New York Times’ Kate Phillps jumped in on the action today:

The problem is not just that Mr. Pitney, for just one day, was afforded a cherished seat in the room or given an airing for his question. And no one is diminishing his work that has drawn accolades for his devoted attention to an issue. Rather, the criticism is that he was cherry-picked, with a call-upon hours and hours beforehand, and handed a status that no one among the so-called elite of the press corps receives on any given day.

While that may indeed be a thorn in the feet of the corps who toil daily, the perception of a favored one who got exceptionally advance notice may send signals — far and wide — as to what lengths the administration will go to stage and control the message the president wants to send.

That is what has gotten lost in all the old vs. new media antagonisms. It’s not about Mr. Pitney’s work or for that matter, the question he asked. It’s about how the administration finagled the position in which he became an actor for the president’s agenda.

I can kind of see what she’s getting out, but this just sounds like kvetching.

I can’t help but wonder, is this the newspaper industry’s retaliation for Huffington Post wrecking the former’s business model?

Rumors of a Republican comeback, quashed:

Apologizing profusely to his staff, family and friends for disappearing unexpectedly, a teary-eyed South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford said he had been “unfaithful” and admitted affair with a woman in Argentina.

Win.

Republicans are making a comeback! So declares Politico! Mark today on your calendar as the day that voters officially forgave the Republican Party for intentionally polarizing the electorate, presenting the same failed ideas as new ones, and for eight long years of hell.

Forget that polls show that fewer Americans than ever identify themselves as Republicans:

The state of the Republican Party remains grim. Just 22 percent of those surveyed identified themselves as Republicans, near April’s decades-long low point. Thirty-six percent said they have a favorable impression of the GOP, and 56 percent said they have an unfavorable impression.

Forget that Americans, as angry as they are about bailouts, still trust President Obama more than Republicans on just about every issue:

Obama leads congressional Republicans by more than 20 points in public trust on dealing with health care, the deficit, terrorism and the economy.

Forget that Republicans have only made their uphill demographics battle even worse:

37 percent of the general population and 42 percent of Hispanics said they’d feel less favorably toward the Republican Party if Senate Republicans “overwhelmingly oppose” Sotomayor, 54, a Latina federal appellate judge from New York.

A much smaller number - 24 percent of the general population and 20 percent of Hispanics - said that organized GOP opposition would endear Republicans to them.

Forget that RNC Chairman Michael Steele already declared just last month that the GOP’s downhill spiral was over, before the party’s poll numbers fell further:

“The era of apologizing for Republican mistakes of the past is now officially over. It is done,” Steele said. “We have turned the page, we have turned the corner. No more looking in the rearview mirror. From this point forward, we will focus all of our energies on winning the future.”

And forget that Jim VandeHei and Jonathan Martin, authors of Politico’s soon-to-be talking-head soundbite, can hardly take seriously the idea that the Republican Party is surging:

At first blush, this sounds absurd. After all, polls show the GOP more unpopular than ever, and the John Ensign sex scandal serves as a vivid, real-time reminder of why many see the party as a collection of hypocrites.

Does it really only take six months for a political party which has betrayed America time and time again - having authorized President Bush to wage endless war, voted to repress our civil liberties, defended big business in the war on American prosperity, and employed a scorched-earth strategy each and every day in Congress - to reinvigorate itself with an infusion of old faces and old ideas?

Anything can happen. Ronald Reagan won the presidency just one election cycle after Richard Nixon left the White House in shame, after all. But this just seems awfully premature. Mission Accomplished, anyone?

Barack Obama and congressional Democrats’ vision for the country were largely validated by the election last November, and since then no unified voice has risen from the ashes of the GOP to effectively provide an alternative for voters to consider. Democrats have methodically passed measures fulfilling their vision for economic recovery, and President Obama has pursued greater engagement abroad with little opposition.

Unfortunately, politics in America is cyclical by nature and currently more polarized than usual; the Democrats cannot dominate forever. Because of our elaborate system of checks and balances, it is difficult for a party even in a position of overwhelming strength to enact its agenda—as we see in the health care debate raging on Capitol Hill.

It is therefore in the nature of the electorate, particularly those near any extreme, to expect more from our government than it can provide and to end up disappointed with the party in power after a certain period of time because of its inability to live up to its lofty campaign promises. At some point, the pendulum will swing back and the electorate will again tilt in favor of GOP candidates.

What determines the time and character of this reversal of fortune is the perceived fallout of certain policy initiatives—when a leader makes a few mistakes in the eyes of the public, he is nearly always seen as a disappointment, and takes ownership of the nation’s problems, new and old.

Since the president has taken on so many issues, it’s likeley that at least a few will not turn out so well and be perceived as failures. If any opposition leader is well-positioned to critique the president on these weaknesses when they arise, the once-popular president may find himself in political trouble.

Right now, some of Obama’s biggest weaknesses poll-wise are his pursuit of large loans to the auto industry, his engagement-first foreign policy approach which many conservatives label “declinist” and “apologetic,” and his general willingness to drastically expand the federal deficit to restart the economy.

Public disapproval of Obama’s handling of these issues seems insignificant when compared with the president’s high job approval ratings deep personal popularity. If the economy begins a robust recovery over the next year or two, with a privatized and solvent GM, and Iran at the negotiating table, disapproval in these areas may remain insignificant.

However, if economic recovery is halting, if GM limps on indefinitely under government ownership, or if Iran gets the bomb, these chinks in Obama’s armor could become gaping wounds. Mitt Romney is the Republican who is best positioned to probe those wounds in 2012.

Romney’s deep business background, reputation for executive competence, and record of business success gives him tremendous credibility on the economy. He knows exactly what he’s talking about when it comes to money. Compared to such a business pro as Romney, Obama might begin to come across as a wistful ideological ditherer who really doesn’t know the financial ropes well enough to get our economy growing again.

Romney has also staked out territory in the fight against Obama’s foreign policy with his recent speech at the Heritage Foundation, a broadside aimed at Obama’s “apologetic” foreign policy. He is clearly putting together a strong profile for challenging Obama’s biggest potential weak spots a few years down the road.

Add to that the fact that Romney’s father was the governor of Michigan, giving him background and credibility in the critical battleground of the Industrial Midwest, and he could shape up to be a major threat to Obama come 2012.