Following the election of Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) to the U.S. Senate last year, many health care advocates suggested that the House pass the Senate’s version of the health reform bill and then pass a reconciliation “fix” with a simple majority in the Senate to make the bill more progressive and acceptable to House members.

One member of Congress who advocated such a path was Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL). During an appearance on MSNBC’s Hardball, Grayson promoted using reconciliation, which prompted host Chris Matthews to ridicule the congressman, telling him that he is “part of the outside world represented by the netroots” and that he doesn’t represent “the real world of Congress.”

Now that Grayson has been vindicated by Congress passing historic health care legislation (and the Senate is on the verge of doing so as well), Matthews nevertheless refuses to admit he was wrong for ridiculing Grayson. In an interview with James Rainey at The Los Angeles Times, Matthews says it’s actually Grayson who was wrong:

When I spoke to Matthews after his show Tuesday evening, he said that he intended to have Grayson back on “Hardball,” probably soon. But don’t set your DVR in anticipation of some Potomac-sized mea culpa.

Matthews told me that, smoldering YouTube clip notwithstanding, it was Grayson who got it wrong back in January. He said the congressman was obviously referring back then to the House passing a new piece of legislation, rather than signing on to the approved Senate health bill and then having differences reconciled.

“He denied the House had to pass the Senate bill and then have reconciliation,” Matthews said at one point. “I never got an answer from him, all I got was a posture. He wasn’t helping me explain it. He was just taking a position.”

Matthews is flat out wrong about his exchange with Grayson. The congressman clearly told the MSNBC host, “I think that there will be an amendment passed by reconciliation. We already have a bill passed.” Despite the fact that Grayson clearly endorsed this course of action and not the introduction of a completely new bill, as Matthews now claims, the host went on to condescendingly demean Grayson as nothing more than a “true believer who believes he can get things done by willing them to get done!” Watch it:

Matthews owes the congressman an apology not only for ridiculing him but for distorting his position.

Last month, Politico conducted an “interview” with former Vice President Dick Cheney. As ThinkProgress noted at the time, the paper’s top reporters — Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen — transcribed Cheney’s attacks on Obama without challenge, criticism, or rebuttal.

Indeed, Cheney has been using Politico as his print version of Fox News. In May, Politico’s Allen was leaked an “exclusive” preview of Cheney’s attacks on Obama’s decision to close Guantanamo. Again in October, Allen “broke news” that Cheney was attacking Obama’s Afghanistan policy. And just last week, Allen again reported a Cheney attack on Obama’s handling of the Christmas Day terrorist incident that was released “in a statement to Politico.”

Does Cheney “have a thing with Politico?” MSNBC’s Chris Matthews asked Politico’s Jonathan Martin today on Hardball. “He uses you like he’d use Drudge or somebody,” Matthews charged. A stunned Martin had no response for why Cheney has been so willing to give Politico “exclusives.” “You’d have to ask the Vice President, Chris,” Martin responded, “I’m not sure.” Matthews kept pressing the issue:

MATTHEWS: I mean, he’s got his own news conduit.

MARTIN: You know, we aggressively report on both sides.

MATTHEWS: It’s not reporting. He feeds you this stuff. … I do like Politico. He’s feeding you guys this crap. [...]

What’s he call up and say? “I got a hot one for you, Jon. Can you take — what’s your email address?” Is that what he does?

Watch it:

Last night on MSNBC, host Chris Matthews discussed President Obama’s decision to deliver his Afghanistan policy address at West Point, calling the military academy an “enemy camp”:

MATTHEWS: I didn’t see much excitement. But among the older people there, I saw, if not resentment, skepticism. I didn’t see a lot of warmth in that crowd out there that the President chose to address tonight and I thought that was interesting. He went to maybe the enemy camp tonight to make his case. I mean, that’s where Paul Wolfowitz used to write speeches for, back in the old Bush days. That’s where he went to rabble rouse the ‘we’re going to democratize the world’ campaign back in ’02. So, I thought it was a strange venue.

Later during the network’s coverage of the speech, Matthews issued a weak apology for the comment. “Maybe earlier tonight I used the wrong phrase — ‘enemy camp,’” he said. But he still defended himself, saying that West Point “identif[ies] with the Bush strategy.” He later added that President Bush made himself out to be a “friend of the military,” and the GOP acts as if the military are the “of partisan forces of the Republican Party.” Watch it:

Matthews seems to be arguing that, because the GOP identifies itself as the sole Party of the military, West Point must be “enemy” ground for a Democratic president. Unfortunately, many Beltway journalists default to this line of thinking.

Republicans have indeed been tried to paint themselves as “pro-military” and Democrats as “weak” on national security or “anti-military.” But it’s unclear just how President Bush succeeded as a “military-friendly” president, considering he left office with an overstretched Army and Marines still engaged in two protracted wars that have cost thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.

If Obama had delivered the speech to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard or at a military base in North Korea, these would perhaps be more accurately described as “enemy” camps. But not an institution that is preparing cadets to “obey the orders of the President of the United States.” Last night, the cadets applauded Obama during his speech. The local police chief even said there was “a palpable buzz” among the cadets before the speech. “People are excited the president’s going to be so close,” he said.

Transcript: Read more