I like David Axelrod very much as a political adviser for Barack Obama.  I have been less whelmed by him as an analyst on MSNBC.  I find him bright and informative, but wildly subjective in his commentary.  By contrast, Steve Schmidt, a former senior adviser to John McCain when he ran for president, is not only a very good, impressively objective analyst on MSNBC -- he may be my favorite analyst on MSNBC.

On Sunday, Bob Schieffer took the White House to task on Face the Nation on CBS, discussing the White House relationship with the media.  In part, he said --

"It's reached the point that if I want to interview anyone in the administration on camera, from the lowest-level worker to a top White House official, I have to go through the White House press office.  If their chosen spokesman turns out to have no direct connection to the story of the moment, as was the case when U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice was sent out to explain the Benghazi episode, then that's what we, and you, the taxpayer, get. And it usually isn't much."

On Tuesday, Mr. Axelrod was a guest on "Morning Joe" on MSNBC.  He thought little of Schieffer's opinion.

"I do think there are real issues regarding the relationship with the media on this leak matter  Certainly, as you guys have been talking about all morning, the notion of naming a journalist as a co-conspirator for receiving information is something I find disturbing. But the notion that the public should be concerned or disturbed, or that the taxpayer's being cheated because Bob can't book the guests he wants, I'm unsympathetic to that."

Host Joe Scarborough asked, "Is Bob Schieffer a whiner?"

"Don't put words in my mouth," Axelrod answered.  He then added, "I think he's doing from his perspective what he needs to do, which is book more guests on his show."

And what I think is that what David Axelrod is doing is protecting the back of his former boss.

I give David Axelrod a couple of small points for saying he was disturbed by the naming of a journalist as a co-conspirator.  But his comments about Bob Schieffer's criticism are too surface simplistic to be anything but empty.  There are legitimate defenses he could have suggested -- saying that all administrations control access to their staff, and that there are understandable reasons for this, which he could have stated.  But it is a reasonable issue that Schieffer is making that the public is ill-served when there isn't open access to necessary information.  And the CBS reporter's further point that when you try to control the message too much, as the White House did with Susan Rice, it can backfire on you and have problematic consequences, not just for the public, but for you yourself.  David Axelrod ignored a meaningful discussion.

I'm not suggesting that Mr. Axelrod has to even criticize Barack Obama if he really doesn't think it's deserved.  Just that his defense should be more substantive and thoughtful, and not the flaccid news bite a campaign director would give.

When David Axelrod gets more used to his new job, perhaps he'll be able to step back and be more thoughtful in his commentary.  After all, it's the job he signed up for and is getting paid to do.  Steve Schmidt does it serioulsly impressively.  But for now, he's failing.

I'm in Chicago at the moment, and that seems as good a reason as any to bring up Stephen Wade.

In the 1970s, a unique performer named Stephen Wade developed a unique theatrical act.  He combined banjo playing, storytelling and percussive dancing into a stage show called Banjo Dancing.  It was hugely popular in the city and ran for 13 months, which included a performance at the White House.  He then took his show on the road, and ended up in Washington, D.C., where he had a longer run.  That would be 10 years.

In the ensuing years, he's developed another show On the Way Home which had another successful run in Washington, won him the Joseph Jefferson Award in Chicago, and toured.  He's written books, essays, and as recently as 2012 released his latest album, Banjo Diaries, which got a Grammy nomination (albeit for liner notes).

I haven't heard or seen a great deal of Stephen Wade, though enough to really admire him.  And this may be my favorite thing he's done, though I'm biased.  It doesn't have much banjo, except as accompaniment, but rather is sort of a rhythmic poetic essay that for eight minutes grows and builds and is endearing and ultimately moving (and unique) in its heartfelt and effusive love for its subject matter.  One near and dear my own heart.  Chicago, from the good to the rough-hewn edges,.  It's called "The Best Kept Secret in America."  Something, I think, that closely describes the effusive Stephen Wade, as well.

A week ago, Carole King was awarded the Library of Congress Gershwin Prize for Popular Song.  Last night, on its In Performance from the White House, PBS broadcast the event.  The first half had a number of singers performing in tribute -- they included James Taylor, Billy Joel, Gloria Estefan and Trisha Yearwood.  For the second half, Carole King performed solo.  (Except for a duet with James Taylor, singing...oh, you know.)

The highlight for me was Estefan, Yearwood and Emeli Sand with a wonderful girl-group performance of "Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow?", complete with appropriate choreography.  Billy Joel also had a lively rendition of "Do the Locomotion" and teamed up with James Taylor very nicely for "Crying in the Rain."

Most fun might have been seeing Carole King having the time of her life, and singing along much of the time from her front row seat.  The president makes a very funny off-the-cuff remark about his mother-in-law when he gets up at the end.

Anyway, in case you missed it, for your viewing pleasure I've embedded the hour-long broadcast below.  I don't know how long PBS will have it online.  Sometimes there's a limited shelf-life, though that doesn't appear to be the case here, since nothing on the website is mentioned about that.

I had a chance to meet Carole King once.  It was at her house, where a political fund-raising event was being held and a friend brought me as a guest.  Ted Kennedy was the guest-speaker, and at one point, rather than making a speech he and his wife Vicki instead sang a funny song with parody lyrics.

At the end of the event, when most people had cleared out, about four of us (with Carole King)  were chatting.  She was dating a friend of mine at the time, so I'd hung around.  My recollection is that she was very charming, self-effacing and totally unpretentious.  The only thing I specifically remember were a couple of things about Internet chat rooms.  She mentioned not being particularly Internet savvy and didn't spend much time online, but did once go to a chat room where she was the topic.  She was curious  about what it was like.  I asked if she ever posted anything, and she said that she did once.  The problem was that they wouldn't believe she was really Carole King.  She said (as best as I can remember), "One person challenged me, and asked what was the color of the sweater I was wearing at some concert in, like, Cincinnati in 1992.  I had absolutely no idea, but the person did.  It was red.  So, he didn't believe I was me," she said, laughing pretty hard.  "I kept reading, and these people all knew me and the details of my life better than I did!"

She also mentioned that she read the chat room for about an hour and then realized, "I thought to myself, what am I doing??  I had just wasted an hour reading all this about myself and so I finally stopped."

And with that, on with the show --

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has just announced this morning that she will not seek re-election to Congress.  She made the statement in a video on her website.  This comes on the heels of barely winning her last election by just 1.2 percent, having the same opponent Jim Graves in 2014, and Mr. Graves already raising a huge amount of money.  And also, investigations into campaign activities into her staff have grown.  Nonetheless --

"Be assured, my decision was not in any way influenced by any concerns about my being re-elected to Congress," Bachmann said.  "And rest assured, this decision was not impacted in any way by the recent inquiries into the activities of my former presidential campaign or my former presidential staff."

Whether one is assured by her assurances -- given that she doesn't explain any other reason -- is up to the individual.

My feeling, based on nothing but the above, is that she might not be concerned about losing in 2014, but she knows that it will be a tough race, made tougher by inquiries into her staff, and if she does happen to lose, it drastically lowers her profile in the country, especially for raising money.  Now, however, she leaves office as a sitting member of Congress.

Who knows?  The operative point is that Michele Bachmann will not be running for re-election, and so she will be able to spread her own special brand of crazy on her own.  With a lessening voice and no Congressional authority.  She'll still raise a lot of money, because P.T. Barnum was right, and there will always be suckers who want to give her money to Save America. 

But perhaps now Ms. Bachmann and Sarah Palin can tour in a doubles act.  Sort of like Roxie Hart and Thelma Kelly do at the end of the musical, Chicago...

""I'm concerned about the caseload of this circuit and the efforts to pack it,"
Sen.  Chuck Grassley (R-IA), on the president trying to fill three vacancies on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals

This is not true and is ignorant at best, and a knowing lie at worst.  "Packing the court" is a well-known and accepted term for trying to change a court by adding seats, in order to push a a partisan agenda.  There are three vacant seats on the court that the president is trying to fill, according to his constitutional duty.

"[Democrats] consulted with the White House and pledged to pack the D.C. Circuit with appointees"
-- Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), on the president trying to fill three vacancies on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals

This is not true and is ignorant at best, and a knowing lie at worst.  "Packing the court" is a well-known and accepted term for trying to change a court by adding seats, in order to push a a partisan agenda.  There are three vacant seats on the court that the president is trying to fill, according to his constitutional duty.

"I certainly hope neither the White House nor my Democratic colleagues will instead decide to play politics and seek -- without any legitimate justification -- to pack the D.C. Circuit with unneeded judges simply in order to advance a partisan agenda."
-- Sen Mike Lee (R-UT), on the president trying to fill three vacancies on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals

Shockingly, I know, this actually not true and is ignorant at best, and a knowing lie at worst.  "Packing the court" is a well-known and accepted term for trying to change a court by adding seats, in order to push a a partisan agenda.  There are three vacant seats on the court that the president is trying to fill, according to his constitutional duty.

Clearly, the Republicans sent out The Talking Points Memo, and it said to use the phrase "packing the court" as much as possible, despite it being blatantly untrue.  Apparently the belief is that if they say it enough, however, it will take hold and be seen as true.  In other circles, this has come to be known as The Big Lie.  So, sometimes, to counteract it, the only thing that's appropriate to do is say -- simply and clearly and just as repetitively -- that's it's not true at best, and and at worst is a lie.  Trying to debate a knowing untruth only gives legitimacy to the untruth.  It turns the lie into accepted wisdom.

You just know this untruth (or lie) about packing the court is going to show up any day on "Fox News."  And at that point, it will be the Talking Point on far-right talk radio among listeners who don't have a clue what they are talking about.  Ignorance is no defense.  But it still can be dangerous.

"Packing the court" stems from Franklin Roosevelt's attempt to add seats to the Supreme Court.  It was opposed by senators on both sides of the aisles -- yes, even Democrats, who understood fairness and honesty.  FDR ultimately backed down.

President Obama is trying to fill three existing seats on the D.C. circuit court of appeals.  This is not "packing the court."  What it is -- is his constitutional duty.

By the way, it gets worse.  Sen. Grassley's own proposal is to cut these same three seats from the court.  That is the exact mirror image of packing the court!  The exact same thing as "packing the court," just in reverse.

And (yes, there's more...) both Sen. Grassley and Sen. McConnell each voted to fill vacancies on that same circuit court when the nominees were offered by President George Bush.  The hypocrisy is almost choking.

So, let's be clear.  What the Republican senators are saying -- is not true and is ignorant at best, and a knowing lie at worst.  "Packing the court" is a well-known and accepted term for trying to change a court by adding seats, in order to push a a partisan agenda.  There are three vacant seats on the court that the president is trying to fill, according to his constitutional responsiblity.

Yesterday, I told the story and embedded the video of the classic -- and lost -- version of Ray Bolger singing his iconic song, "Once in Love with Amy," from the musical, Where's Charley?, by Frank Loesser.  But, the thing is, though it's the original and legendary, I'm not so sure that it's definitive rendition of the song.

After all, it's pretty hard to top this version with perhaps my favorite Muppet, Fozzie Bear.