Letters to the Editor
-
Broder's neo-con credentials
If you go back and read the article “The Baghdad Democrats” in Weekly Standard written by Stephen Hayes, every single thing that McDermott and Bonior said was right on the mark, and Broder essentially dismissed them as “traitors” although he used a right-wing synonym for that word “Jane Fonda in Hanoi.”
Bonior was talking about the importance of Iraq complying with the inspectors to avoid war. And here’s is what McDermott said (talking about the Bush administration).
"I believe that sometimes they give out misinformation. . . . It would not surprise me if they came out with some information that is not provable, and they, they shift it. First they said it was al Qaeda, then they said it was weapons of mass destruction. Now they're going back to and saying it's al Qaeda again." When Stephanopoulos pressed McDermott about whether he had any evidence that Bush had lied, the congressman replied, "I think the president would mislead the American people."
McDermott was saying what should have been said, he was daring to be skeptical of what the government was saying and Broder slapped him down – hard, saying the very same things that none other than Stephen Hayes was saying in the Weekly Standard.
With that column, Broder established his neo-con credentials.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/737zcgnk.asp
-
Broder the Common Gossip
In addition, it's striking how often Broder concentrates on the superficial rather than the substantive. He goes right for the capillaries every time.
Broder senses "self-confidence... overflowing"; he perceives a "sense of steadfastness"; he reports on a "reputation for strong leadership"; he is impressed when he eats "quail" at Karl Rove's "table"; he finds Bush "a broadly accepted symbol of national unity."
David Broder's oeuvre amounts to little more than common gossip gussied up to look like analysis. Scotty Reston must be rolling in his grave.
-
Broders of the world increasingly irrelevant
Every year that goes by renders pundits like Broder increasingly irrelevant. In a small way, that is sad. Broder really does have a background as a working reporter who does a workmanlike job of sorting things out.
But his background and personality make him incapable of understanding just how radical Bush and his cronies are. It can't happen here! I think the comment by Krugman, quoting Kissinger, to the effect that revolutionaries are often so far from the prevailing norm that most people cannot believe what is happening applies to Broder. Kissinger's example was Napolean.
Our example is the modern Republican party. Broder thinks it is politics as usual, and that it is important for "the president" to "succeed."
This president has already failed and is now a dangerous wounded animal. All that is left is resistance. Broder's yards and yards of breathless pro-Bush commentary sails right over Broder's own head. Broder cannot see what he has done and will, forever, shake his head in wonder at how his world is slipping away.
-
Broder
I sent the following E-mail to David Broder:
"Yes, David, the public will forget all Bush has done for the last 6 years and he will surge forward as you predict in your column, titled; "Bush poised for a comeback."
Drop me a line when his poll numbers reach 45% in 3 or 4 polls."
JohnW
-
A few things about Broder
What the hell does it mean when people say he is the "Dean" of the Washington Press Corps? Does he have any official authority over anything, like a real dean does, or does it just mean he is the oldest guy there?
Why do people describe him as "centrist?"
The only person who has been more obsequious to Bush, and yet turned around and claimed to have been witheringly critical all along, was Rick Santorum. Nobody bought that from him either.
-
"prop up" the mere corduroy boys? no.
You should never be accused of not trying to be fair.
To be called a 'mere corduroy' boy was a metaphor for a person who would become weakened because he tried to debase honest 'debate' and rational discussions. He was too loyal to the king. A kissy-boy. A corduroy person eventually became debased and obviously revealed his/her Selh inferior. If s/he wished to always court the kings of France (unitary rule, here today), the society would designate 'um cheap-Talkers. A silk cloth for the well-to-do then in royal circles, and then, cloaking in worker-garbs cloths, Dit-not-Cut it. A alderman served a work-class and 'cut' a functional-material manufactured out of sturdy-corduroy. The laborers choice of clothes...The penny-loafer land-owner- tenant sticks out like the proverbial sore-Thumb.
Well, I'm trying to say you can't serve two masters! Thumbs down to neocons. Government dignitaries usually don't feel comfortable mingling with the real working livery boys and men. You can't salute a king/president who steals from the working poor and have the allegiance from those who get robbed! "Hey, broder, want to come to a hog-butcherin,?" 'Ah, nah, i got a political fun-raiser event to tend and talk to and do a boog-singing wine & cheese 'stuff,' maybe another time?' yea. okay.
I did only bird-pick the post and saw many caveats worth thinking about. I've listened to Brooder very carefully...But, when anyone who tries to chiefly play homage to the king, loses respect. And eats with Karl? Indigestion? So, eventually, the public expression of any person will lose the life-spirit dimension that the work-class yearns to hear. They will get no amens if not among the flatulent crowds. A fraud is a fraud. To associate with the birds of the same-same feather...goose/gander? I should be quiet today, I know. I will. I want to get in a wrestle match or leg lock? Apologies. i'll read this eve.
-
John B.
In addition, it's striking how often Broder concentrates on the superficial rather than the substantive. He goes right for the capillaries every time.
Broder thinks that actually having an opinion is the sign of the inferior masses, so almost everyone of his statements is framed as an observation about how things supposedly appear to "others" - to the undifferntiated, always unnamed swarms.
But as I noted in my post about him the other day, this is just a cowardly way of expressing his own opinions while pretending not to. He attributes his own view to how things "seem" in some neutral, objective sense. Or he frames the outcome he wants as "a bipartisan" or "centrist" compromise.
That is why so many of his columns are so superficial. He is obssessed with writing about how things appear politically because he is afraid of opining on the substance of any issue. That is why there are so many references to Bush as appearing strong, resolute, etc. with regard to Iraq without every examining whether the invasion is justified. He pretends that he is writing about all the great ways Bush is "perceived," but in doing so, makese clear that he embraced and then re-inforces those perceptions.
I read through all of Tom Freidman's columns once and I'm honestly not sure whether that was more or less unpleasant than reading through David Broder's. It's a close call.