A lot of my progressive friends will be in undisclosed locations tomorrow as the worst president ever is feted with multimillion-dollar parties and honored by paraders with averted eyes. He’ll make a speech that’s going to explain exactly how he plans to try to destroy the middle class by enriching the already superrich and shredding the social safety net. He’ll talk about expanding his plan to privatize our public schools. He’ll talk about his faith-based plan to buy minority votes while further eroding our civil rights and he’ll pretend that the Establishment Clause is quaint or worse, discriminatory. It will be painful to watch but I say bring it all on. If it accomplishes nothing else, it will mark the end of this excrutiating honeymoon period that the press is determined to hand Dear Leader.

Traditionally the honeymoon starts after Election Day and lasts about three months into a president’s term - barring any national catastrophe or “rallying event” that buys the president extra leeway from the press (see BushCo, First Term) and excluding the fairly recent phenomenon of cable news, which exists to keep the good times rolling for BushCo no matter what happens in the reality-based community. But if we’re going to stick with the honeymoon metaphor, then what we’re suffering through this week, with the inauguration looming, is the wedding night. And while it would be fun to roll around on the bed with BushCo and his press corps, I know where both of the have been and let’s just say I’m picky that way.

I’ve accepted that reporting of the inauguration and the lead up to it will read more like something from In Style than anything suited for a news section. And that’s appropriate when you lower your standards and consider the relationship between the corporate press and the White House. Both sides are much happier when they can laugh and gossip over drinks instead of doing their jobs. So we watch as the corporate press churns out cheerfully detailed, inside-baseball stories about who’s making those quarter of a million dollar donations to the coronation committee. Elisabeth Bumiller, for instance has written at least two puff pieces on that topic. While she made it clear that now-bankrupt Enron would not be contributing to the cause this time around, she didn’t mention that Enron wife, Nancy Kinder, is serving on the fundrasing committee and making a large donation herself.

Are you wondering how the administration can possibly justify such crass excess during wartime? To say nothing, and nothing has been said, about the cruelty of spending millions on parties while an increasing number of Americans suffer hunger and deprivation every single day. John Teirney, of the NYT, helps with a front-page story that puts in historical context the decision to spend tens of millions of private dollars and untold public funds, thereby defending the choice. Apparently 9/11 didn’t change everything and “compassionate conservatism” is neither compassionate nor conservative. But we knew that.

All this isn’t to say that you can’t find stories that aren’t just puff. The WaPo ran a prefunctory piece about some of the demonstrations planned for tomorrow. Although conspicuous by it’s absence is any mention of Not One Damn Dime Day, the national boycott that encourages people not to spend, well, one damn dime tomorrow in order to hit BushCo’s patrons where they will feel it. The concensus in the corporate press seems to be that its a hoax. A google news search of the event so far only reveals a few scattered stories, most of which are written expressly to tell us what a dopey and impossible idea the whole thing is in the first place.

Resistance is futile. And, if you judge by the last inauguration, invisible. That’s why even though I’ve given up on the pre-inaugurtion reporting, which is a rigged game, I’m going to be very interested to read coverage of the protests that are sure to happen. The corporate press has a chance to take advantage of a little accountability moment. But I won’t be counting on them to oblige. I’ll be reading bloggers for that.