« Office Of Special Counsel To Look At Karl Rove
President Bush’s Last Chance: To Save Himself From His ‘Friends & Cronies’ »
The Bungling of Broder
Not so long ago, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said that the “war is lost” — the Iraq War, that is — and aroused the ire of the warmongering right. (As Media Matters pointed out, Reid went on to say during the same press conference that “the surge is not accomplishing anything” and that “the war, at this stage, can only be won diplomatically, politically, and economically” — which is to say, Bush’s military war is lost, but there can still be engagement with Iraq in other and more constructive areas. The media, true to form, neglected to mention this. It was the sensationalism of “war is lost” — and the prospect of partisan combat — that drew their narrow attention, not Reid’s more nuanced argument.)
The knee-jerk hostility on the right was predictable, but so, too, perhaps, was the response from the so-called “dean” of the Washington press corps, David Broder. (I hardly pay any attention to Broder, whether it’s in The Washington Post or on Meet the Press; still, what he has had to say in response to Reid merits commentary.) Speaking on XM radio, as Think Progress is reporting, Broder called Reid “an embarrassment” who doesn’t think before his “mouth opens”. Reid’s leadership has been a “bungling performance,” and “about every six weeks or so there’s another episode where he has to apologize for the way in which he has bungled the Democratic case”.
Such uneducated malignancy from the so-called “dean” of the Washington press corps, eh? What he’s doing in the Post and on Meet the Press is beyond me, although his continued presence in the spotlight attests to the corrupted state of journalism as it is practised within the cozy confines of the Beltway.
As Think Progress argues:
It doesn’t matter whether what Harry Reid said was actually true or false, but whether it was impolitic. And what determines whether it was impolitic isn’t the opinion of American public, but whether conservatives got angry and called Reid “reckless” and “disgraceful“… It’s apparently irrelevant that Reid’s views are shared by President Bush’s regular military adviser Henry Kissinger, or senior U.S. military officials, or the majority of the American people.
Nor does it matter that Broder neglected to read beyond the sensationalistic “war is lost” comment — Does that not say a lot about the quality of his journalism, not to mention the validity of his self-appointed and self-important role as partisanship policeman, not to mention his very integrity? Does that not make you wonder even more why he has those prominent media platforms from which to spew whatever nonsense happens to tickle his fancy, including standard right-wing partisan spin?
Yes, the “dean” is here, as elsewhere, the purveyor of partisan spin. How else to take not just his neglect for the context of Reid’s comments, as well as for everything else Reid had to say at that press conference, but his blatant lie that Reid has had to apologize regularly for how he has handled “the Democratic case”? Here’s Greg Sargent, proving that Broder is a liar: “I just checked with Reid’s office, and they told me in no uncertain terms that Reid has not apologized for any of his remarks during his first four months or so as majority leader. He certainly hasn’t apologized for the ‘war is lost’ comment.”
Of course not. Because there’s no need to apologize. He’s been a fine leader in the Senate and he was right about the Iraq War. His own party agrees with him, and so do the majority of the American people, and so do many on the other side of the partisan divide.
But none of that matters to Broder. The only reason anyone pays any attention to him is that he’s been there a long time, hence the “dean” tag. And his whole schtick, whether in print or on TV (or on radio, it seems), is to seem to be above the partisan fray and hence a neutral arbiter. But there’s nothing genuinely neutral about him and there’s certainly nothing to suggest that he is a competent arbiter. As he shows here, he takes a single statement out of context, blows it out of proportion, and gets it wrong.
Shouldn’t he be working for Fox?
opinions powered by SendLove.to
9 Responses to “The Bungling of Broder”
Michael, you are engaging in pure pushback.
This is similar to the debate here over Soros’ “Nazi” reference. Recall how the Left backed Soros to the hilt…saying there was absolutely nothing wrong in the comment by their leading bankroller, that he was simply being misinterpreted…until Soros himself conceded it was a dumb thing to say.
You also seem to be engaging in “working the refs” as I have heard it called…hammering the MSM who go off the liberal reservation.
How dare anyone in the MSM criticize a Democrat! In effect, that is what you are saying.
Like Soros, Reid should have chosen better language. His words resonated across the Middle Eastern media…like anyone with a brain knew they would. This gives comfort to the enemies of the United States.
Reid, like Soros, went for dramatic language. It was a dumb mistake.
As for Reid apologizing, he has had to do that a number of times in his career as Democratic leader. He called Bush a “loser”, and apologized. He accused 33 GOP Senators of unethical practices, and apologized.
Broder is referring to Reid’s consistent and calculated pushing the envelope in his partisan language. Consider, for example, the quote below:
Reid knew precisely what he was doing here. When Italian American groups protested, he conceded he may have gone “too far” but did not apologize.
Yes, Reid did not apologize (in the last four months). However, he has repeatedly apologized while Senate Minority Leader. He has often “gone too far” by his own admission, but refused to apologize knowing it would have political repercussions.
Michael, on this basis I conclude your attack on Broder for being a “liar” in regard to Reid and his apologizing is purely partisan pushback.
As with Pelosi’s disastrous ME outing, or with Soros, the Democratic leadership and its allies must be protected from all criticism.
Bravo Linking Reid, Soros and the Nazis in one comment. You magnificiently take the Goodwin Law to new heights. I seem to recall the MSM went after Clinton and that devil of a “Blue dress”. With the Dimicrats in some power, the press should go after them and not kiss ass at Texas barbeques.
Its vision. Reid has vision. Those lacking in Reid’s vision simply “cannot see”. They fear what they cannot see because its unknown to them. So they criticize.
That’s why there are neocons. Lack of vision. They cannot envision what is going on, (such as in Iraq), so they believe what they want to believe rather than what is really happening. That leads them in divergent directions than those with vision.
Rudi said: ” Bravo Linking Reid, Soros and the Nazis in one comment. ”
Ah, Comrade Rudi, but it was Soros who made the “Nazi” reference…there was simply no other way to reference Soros comment and the debate for readers’ identification other than to reference it.
Please note how this is indicated by my highlighting “Nazi” in quotation marks in my comment above.
Moreover, I did not apply “Nazi” in a perjorative manner in any regard. It was an incidental identification reference.
Thus, I do not think Godwin’s Law can be invoked here.
Rudi said:
While I dispute the Godwin reference, thank you for comment on my magnificence.
The MSM invariably tacks liberal in elections, but once Democrats are in power they are free game for liberal media attack…as the Clinton affair demonstrated. Dowd of the NYT demonstrated this perfectly…rhapsodizing at the Clinton inauguration…and within a couple of years, regularly gutting and mocking him in her column.
Perhaps it is because liberals have been out of power so long that they have become so thin-skinned?
White Agent: I would disagree. I think Bush has “too much vision”. The Neocons wanted to transform the world in all sorts of visionary ways…not thinking about messy things like people.
It is probably a Freudian thing with Bush. His Dad always had issues with “that vision thing” as he called it. Thus, Bush had lots of visions…perhaps they were flashbacks to his druggy days…but lots of visions for sure.
Reid did the most dangerous thing a politician can do–he told the truth.
Of course we’re getting the crap kicked out of us in Iraq. Reid just forgot that we’re supposed to pretend otherwise until we can figure out a way to get out of the war without looking like we got the crap kicked out of us.
Our efforts in Iraq have been futile from the beginning. As Bill Bradley pointed out a few weeks ago, it is naive to think that one can create a liberal democracy out of three provinces of the former Ottoman Empire that are really a figment of Winston Churchill’s imagination.
Supporters of the war can self-righteously rant and rave about Andy Reid’s latest remarks, but one has to wonder whose view is closer to reality–Reid, who says “the war is lost” or Bush, who says we’re making “progress”, something that he has been saying for the last four years. For all the talk from war supporters as to how the troop surge is working, the number of American troops dying these last ten weeks certainly don’t support that claim.
This issue is bigger than whether the war goes down as a win, loss, or draw. Our foreign policy should be dictated by what’s in the best interest of our country’s history–not what’s going to salvage President Bush’s reputation.
We’re talking about a war that the majority of the American people and a majority of people in congress (including Republicans Representative Ron Paul-TX, Representative John Duncan-TX, Representative Walter Jones-NC, and Senator Chuck Hagel-NE) believe we never should have entered in the first place.
When George W. Bush campaigned for president in 2000, he unamibiguously opposed nation-building and policing the world. He spoke out against such policies during his second debate with Al Gore. Yet now we find ourselves in what has become the biggest nation-building endeavor since post WWII Germany.
How many conservatives who supported Bush’s nation-building policies today, spoke out against him back when he was OPPOSED to nation-building?
Frankly, pro-war politicians and pundits have been SO WRONG, SO MANY TIMES, that it’s a wonder that they have the gumption to tear down others who offer a more sober assessment of the war.
Let’s compare what Reid said with previous remarks made by our president and vice president:
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.
- Vice President Dick Cheney, August 26, 2002
I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.
- Vice President Dick Cheney, March 16, 2003
Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.
- President George W. Bush, speaking aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, May 1, 2003
The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they’re in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.
- Vice President Dick Cheney, June 20, 2005
Between the recent remarks made by Andy Reid and those previously made by Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, whose remaks, I wonder, will future historians consider to be most grounded in reality?
LOL! That ought to be Harry Reid. That is, unless Senator Reid is the coach of the Philadelphia Eagles.