Barry watches the behavior of reporters, scrambling around to get a quote from this or that lawmaker. Not that they're interested in all lawmakers equally. After John Boehner spoke at one lectern, for instance:

A few minutes later, representatives of the Congressional Progressive Caucus appeared at the Boehner-warm lectern to deplore the plan as an assault on working families and the result of a hostage situation created by Tea Party Republicans. But fewer reporters remained to listen.

Whatever the strange rituals of the Beltway, this is one that isn't surprising at all.

I  suspect one of the reporters who stuck around was Dana Milbank--because he had to write a column making fun of the complaining leftists, who apparently should be grateful that budget cuts aren't as deep as they might have been:

Republicans received only a third of the $6 trillion in cuts over 10 years that they proposed in Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget. But liberal lawmakers are convinced that Obama gave away everything--big spending cuts, probably including Medicare, without any tax increases--all because of a few dozen tea party House members who, defying even House GOP leaders, were perfectly willing to see the government default. In essence, the progressives had been out-crazied by ideologues on the other side--and that drove them mad.

"Oooh!" Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) screamed when asked about the compromise. "Oooh!" she cried again, as if witnessing a ghastly accident scene.

Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) reported a crime by the Republicans. "A minority within the Congress of the United States has held up the president," he told reporters.

"You have this small element," added Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), "which is basically willing to hold Congress and the nation hostage." Cummings read a complaint he received from a constituent calling the deal "a total capitulation."

Democratic leaders made no attempt to calm their pitchfork-wielding backbenchers, such as Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), who described the deal on TV as a" Satan sandwich."

"It probably is--with some Satan fries on the side," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told ABC News.

That left nobody to counter the likes of Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), who called the deal "bizarre" and said it would lead to old folks in his state losing medical care. "It’s all about cutting, cutting, cutting!" he shouted at reporters.

Mocking left-wing members of Congress is a staple of Milbank's columns; one of the few pieces about the People's Budget of the Progressive Caucus was Milbank's red-baiting mockery of their press conference. Perhaps that's the choice in the corporate media: Ignore progressives--or laugh at them.

The truth of the Halperin matter is that all reporters (or others) who go on television frequently are forever in a “there but for the grace of God go I” situation.... We know of what we speak, having found ourselves tongue-tied or worse on any number of occasions while staring into a camera. And in an ill-fated 2009 video venture known as “Mouthpiece Theater,” The Fix had to live down an inappropriate reference to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

For those who might be unaware, he's referring to the skit where he and Post colleague Dana Milbank likened Hillary Clinton to a "mad bitch." This was a scripted satirical video; the "bitch" reference came in the form of an image, which would suggest they'd thought about it well in advance. There's something utterly predictable-- and pathetic-- about reporters who react to these scandals by suggesting that if you talk into a microphone often enough you're bound to say something stupid.

The fun begins, appropriately enough, at the offices of the American Gas Association, where White House reporters are feted by the lobbyists of the Quinn Gillespie firm. More lobbyist-sponsored entertainment comes from the Motion Picture Association. Along the way, journalists wind up serving as pimps: We recruit Hollywood stars to entertain the politicians, and we recruit powerful political figures to entertain the stars. Corporate bosses bring in advertisers to gawk at the display, and journalists lucky enough to score invitations fancy themselves celebrities.

Milbank points out that his own paper invited Donald Trump as one of its guests (which is reason enough to write such a column, and skip the event altogether, as Milbank did).

He adds that the parties, after-parties and celebrity-studded receptions add up, and that:

the cumulative effect is icky. With the proliferation of A-list parties and the infusion of corporate and lobbyist cash, Washington journalists give Americans the impression we have shed our professional detachment and are aspiring to be like the celebrities and power players we cover.

I think Americans long ago rendered a verdict on the "professional detachment" of Beltway media elite. He closed with this:

My late colleague David Broder once recalled how, when he began newspapering in mid-century, journalists embraced the credo that "the only way a reporter should ever look at a politician is down." He said they "prided themselves on their independence, their skepticism, and they relished their role in exposing the follies and the larceny of public officials."

That's an odd sentiment to associate with Broder, who rarely expressed that kind of critical attitude towards politicians. The most notable exception might have been Broder's hostility towards Bill Clinton over the Lewinsky affair.

Milbank seems to think that little explanation is needed--these crazy ideas are just obviously crazy:

Among the highlights: a $4 trillion tax increase over 10 years. An increase in the top tax rate to 49 percent. A $2.3 trillion defense spending cut--and an increase in domestic spending. Oh, and they would revive the "public option" to offer government-run healthcare.

Putting "increase" in italics is Milbank's way of saying, "Can you believe these people?!" And it's worth pointing out that the "public option" isn't "government-run healthcare," but these are details.

He goes to present the nightmare vision of the future:

Still, it gives a sense of how things would be if liberals ran the world: no cuts in Social Security benefits, government-negotiated Medicare drug prices, and increased income and Social Security taxes for the wealthy. Corporations and investors would be hit with a variety of new fees and taxes. And the military would face a shock-and-awe accounting: a 22 percent cut in Army soldiers, 30 percent for the Marines, 20 percent for the Navy and 15 percent for the Air Force. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would end, and weapons programs would go begging.

Keeping Social Security as is, reducing Medicare drug prices, raising taxes on corporations, ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.... I'm sorry, are these ideas supposed to sound absurd on their face? Someone should tell the people, since much of this would be broadly popular. At least, that seems to be the case when the people are asked what they think.

Better watch our language, though--Milbank points out that this talk about "the people" is a little creepy:

Their oft-repeated slogan, "The People’s Budget," conveyed an unhelpful association with "the people's republic" and other socialist undertakings.

An "unhelpful association" made by the writer. Glenn Beck might be leaving Fox, which might open up some room for others in the media to ferret out the socialists among us.