Letters to the Editor
-
Eating with Rove
"I have eaten quail at his table"
Gag me with a spoon! He should be eating somewhere else, dammit! Sounds like Gwen Ifill and the Condiliar.
-
Apply, rinse, and repeat
Just to pile on the "Dean" some more: when you read these columns in succession, another thing that you notice on top of Broder's obsequiousness toward Bush is a stale and annoying stylistic regularity.
Here's the basic pattern:
1. "Most people believe conventional wisdom X about Bush, or DC politics, etc."
2. "But if you were as wise and tuned in as I am, you would notice Y."
3. "Only time will tell if we keep seeing more of Y. One would hope, but you never know."
(... and now, if you'll excuse me, I feel like going to sleep. As a soporific, chamomile has nothing on Broder.)
-
Mistake: Treating Bush as a Serious Person
Broder argues that he has been critical of Bush and maybe he has been, albeit very mildly. He and the other pundits, however since the beginning of this presidency have been unable or unwilling to admit that Bush Cheney and their minions are radical demagogues who believe that their higher purposes (whatever those are)justify lying,the use of pure propaganda techniques,and ruthless suppression of dissent to further their aims. I find Broder and others delusional in analyzing a piece of propaganda, or a cynically crafted set of talking points las if it was an actual statement of political philosophy,or a policy argument intended to persuade, when it is only a tool used to incite the base, shame the opposition or obfuscate their true aims. By this they lend legitimacy to Bush where it is not deserved.
-
how many ways to be wrong, a beginning
Broder in November 2004:
"At the personal level, it was clear in 2000 that more Americans liked Bush than his opponent, Al Gore."
I don't know what Broder's measure is but by any account Gore won the majority of the popular vote. Is that "liking"?
"The same is true in Bush versus Kerry, reinforced this time by the powerful emotional bond formed between millions of Americans and their president in those scary days after the terrorists struck New York and Washington. . . ."
Well no again. Minimally Bush won by the smallest vote margin of any president ever and had Kerry disputed Ohio and similar "irregularities" then, as later examinations revealed, Kerry would have beat Bush in vote totals. Even Broder will now concede that the "emotional bond" he noted was actually driven by fear inculcated and fed by BushCheney prevarications.
"In this sense at least, the betting is that the country is truly conservative. Everything changes, the insiders say, except the votes."
Well Mr. Broder tell me, have the American people undergone mass brain transplants in the past two years or rather have they simply woken up to the Lying Liars and their Willing Tools in the Pundidiocy?
-
Falling down on the job
I sent Broder a link to this column. Will he read it? Probably not. I told him that history would not be kind to him. If we flood his email, maybe he'll respond in some fashion. Send him email here:
davidbroder@washpost.com
-
Broder Glasses
"At the personal level, it was clear in 2000 that more Americans liked Bush than his opponent, Al Gore."
This clearly illustrates Broders determination to see the world the way he wants to see it, which is OK I suppose, until you use your position as the Dean to try to convince others that your own demonstrably false perceptions are in fact true.
He then goes on the claim the same is true for the 2004 election, which is probably true. We'll find out some day that Kerry indeed got more votes than Bush, and Bush still ended up being installed as Fearless Leader.
Broder has been desrcibing the world the way he wants people to see it for years now. He started out as a regular reporter, and did a decent job, but as soon as he was given the keys to the car he began abusing his position in the ways that have become the norm in modern journalism. His abuse of the profession has been horrendous. Juxtaposed with the quotes put up by Susanmc the other day where Broder rants about the demise of journalism and how it breaks his heart to watch it happen under his watch shows us the sad unfolding of the life of a confused man.
-
I asked one of the questions that didn't make the cut.
or someone is screening out all those icky challenging voices so Broder can continue to live in fantasy.
I confess that I posted a little late into the chat, but I very politely asked him if he actually believed the last sentence of his column which said, in effect, that no one could say at this point how Iraq is going to turn out.
-
No Excuse
The eclipse of our journalistic watchdogs during the Bush administration, compounded by the imense success of the right wing in popularizing propaganda as fact, or at least a reasonable alternative to reality, has put our basic democratic freedoms at risk.
Part of this problem has its roots in the extensive corporate ownership of the media, since it is in a corporation's interest, indeed it is part of their fiduciary duty to their shareholders, to avoid doing battle with the government which regulates them, or even with powerful competitors.
Another part of this problem is the profound failure of senior analysts and prominent pundits such as Broder to recognize the truth and courageously represent it.
I can sympathize, given the viciousness and effectiveness of the radical right in persecuting anyone who seriously obstructs not just their agenda but their propaganda, with someone unwilling to engage in that battle and endure the sacrifices, both personal and professional, that ensue. I can sympathize, but not excuse.
-
I have been reading
The Washington Post for 40 years - since grade school. Since the death of Kay Graham, the Post has abdicated its role as watchdog of our three branches of government. This failure has been most evident in its unwillingness to go after Bush/Cheney et al.
Instead of employing serious journalists who actually know something about how government works, they have a stable of ideologues (Krauthammer, Will, and alas, Broder has joined those ranks)who employ a he said/she said heavens to Betsy we don't know anything so we're going to throught it out there so that they can distort and you can decide infotain stenographers.
The Founding Fathers did not give the press its extraordinary powers for nothing. If our press will not use their extraordinary powers for the purposes intended, perhaps it has come time to strip them of these privileges and regulate them like any other business.
I still have hope, though. In the summer of 2005, I took in a National's baseball game. When it was announced that AG Alberto Gonzales was going to throw out the first pitch, the entire stadium erupted in boos. Yes, perhaps there is some hope, Virginia...