Yet here is David Broder turning over his column...

This is a subjective and inaccurate claim, and is itself more aligned with the techniqes used by those termed "hacks". While Cole and his views are the subject of the column, that is quite different from turning the column over to him.

to a blatant Republican hack to announce the opposite of reality

Cole is an elected member of the US House of Representatives. He is running the GOP's House Campaign this year and next. This is a partisan position. If Cole is a "hack", then aren't most partisan members of the house "hacks"? Do some districts of the country elect 'representatives', and others 'hacks'? If so, then can you suggest how we can identify between the two?

-- that the Democrats are in deep, deep trouble because they are being too partisan, because they are not cooperating with President George W. Bush enough.

I don't see where either Broder or Cole says this. The piece appears to be saying that, based on poll data, there may be a strong anti-incumbent sentiment among voters--that voters are increasingly anti-washington/anti-beltway (sound familiar?). In such an environment, Cole is hoping that in some states (he specifies Georgia, Kansas and Texas), the GOP could pick up house seats, even if they lose the presidency.

I don't agree with Cole's analysis (spin), and Broder notes its implausibility.

Al Gore has noted

Their [the founders] faith in the viability of Representative Democracy rested on their trust in the wisdom of a well-informed citizenry. But they placed particular emphasis on insuring that the public could be well-informed. And they took great care to protect the openness of the marketplace of ideas in order to ensure the free-flow of knowledge.

----The Threat to American Democracy: The Media and Political Discourse.October 5, 2005

While the Broder piece is meta-reporting (i.e. not about substantive policy but rather election strategy), I find that it does represent a contribution to the 'marketplace of ideas' that Gore refers to.

"I call bullshit."

Well you should. Point taken. Here is what I was looking at:

Congress as a whole rated only 29 percent approval, down 14 points from its start in January. The reason: People think it has been spinning its wheels. By 82 percent to 16 percent, those polled said it has accomplished little or nothing this year.

This offering, which I'm assuming originates from Cole and not Broder, simply refers to congress's inability to pass legislation. This in turn is Cole's basis for saying that a meaningful chunk of the public is not targeting any particular party, but rather Washington incumbents and the Beltway in general.

As I said before, I don't buy that. But I maintain the point that Broder's column puts Cole's logic into the marketplace for assessment.

"In other words, you are saying that the truth needs to be balanced with falsehoods in order to give readers a choice."

I didn't say that at all.

"The American people rose up and pulled of a statistically highly improbable coup of turning both houses of congress over to the Democrats and giving them a mandate..."

They did indeed. And this is one reason why I disagree with Greenwald's and others mantra that "change is slow and incremental". As I commented the other day--change is variable in speed, depending upon conditions, not on time.

Further, your statement is a critical response not to me, but to Cole's interpretation of polling data, provided by Broder. You have assessed Cole's ideas and found them lacking. This is what well-informed voters do, in the democratic marketplace of ideas.

"I wouldn't really expect the Republican House Campaign Chairman to say this, however."

Of course not. The GOP caucus has given Cole a sackful of lemons, and he's trying to sell lemonade. That Boehner is now whining about how Cole is trying to do the job they gave him is interesting and unusual (given GOP tradition) sign of friction in the Party. Are they beginning to eat their own? Or is Boehner setting Cole up for the envisioned strong defeat of '08? And, if Cole is a "Hack", what the hell is Boehner, a DeLay protege who sold himself to K-Street long, long ago.

lupercus, maybe Boehner's comment means they're fixing to dump Cole--that in itself would be a distress signal by the GOP. Perhaps they're looking back at the happy-talk Rove was making prior to the '06 debacle and don't want to go there again.

By this "standard," what is an example of a column that does not belong in the "marketplace for assessment."

I don't believe I mentioned or proposed a "standard". I can only repeat that I found Broder's column useful.

And who ever said Broder or Ignatius' column wasn't something that was in the "marketplace for assessment"? Isn't the whole point of the post to assess the "ideas" they have put into the "marketplace."

Nobody said that. You've lost me here.

Coming and saying that a column puts "ideas into the marketplace" is like saying that the column is composed of words.

Yes, or like saying fish are wet. I will try expressing it in a better way. I am proposing that Broder's column does provide a beneficial service to readers, by providing context and content regarding Mr. Cole's (aka 'hack's') outlook.

This is important, imo, because Mr. Cole is in a leadership role in getting more GOPers elected next year to the House. His thinking and statements about this task are, imo, relevant and useful to the public, as do reactions to it, such as Boehner's, and yours.