Considering what the Bush Administration has done with almost unlimited political power, maximizing political problems for them by any means is not despicable, but a moral imperative. They’ve already demonstrated that they can’t be trusted with power.
Since we don’t know exactly what winning in Iraq means, and we certainly haven’t seen any believable way to get there, perhaps a loss there, while a loss for the White House, might be a gain for the country. Withdrawn troops can be restored as a reserve for real threats to us. We might have more resources for the true WoT in Afghanistan. Continuing to invest in a lost cause just because you don’t want to admit it’s lost is a classic mistake.
In any case, Reid is not making us lose. No one is sitting in Baghdad, ready to give up, but reenergized by CNN.
The problem is not that Reid was being political, it’s that he stopped being political for an entire sentence; a rare thing these days. The reason what he said is stupid is that it is vulnerable to political demagoguery. Factually, it seems true. If we define “winning” as establishing a pro-western, democratic, and stable secular government that is capable of maintaining itself without a large number of American forces, then “we” have lost. Of course it is not “we” it’s “W” that lost.
The creepy hand thing he did to Pelosi was a lot funnier anyway. It’s on Comedy Central right now. Look for the Mess O’ Potomac under the Daily Show’s “Recent Headlines”, with a blurb about the “creepy, creepy solidarity”.
The New Republic put the best response to the idiotic OP assertion:
Reid may be an embarrassment, but Gonzales (pro-torture, anti-habeus, etc.) is an obscenity. It’s pathetic that any partisan is so desperate for a distraction from their own corruption (not to mention intellectually bankrupt) that they have to contrive some equivalency out of an overpriced apple and a 6-month old orange laced with arsenic.
Let’s stay within your parameters. Broder doesn’t quote Reid to demonstrate Reid’s poor communication in the ‘war is lost’ quote. He quotes Schumer. Just because Schumer managed to fall all over his own feet in trying to rationalize what Reid said, doesn’t mean what Reid says was confusing. But taking Schumer’s diahrrea of the mouth, and applying it to Reid’s case, sure does make Reid look stupid, if the reader’s not paying close attention.
And then because Schumer makes a fool of himself, Broder brings in Clinton’s pondering of the meaning of ‘is’ and applies it to Reid.
Hackery, or having simply lost his marbles? We report, you decide.
Can’t say I found the rest of Broder’s examples to be more than trivial stuff. That’s not hackery; I think maybe they just look like a far bigger deal to Broder than anyone outside the Beltway would.
But even if they are, a few middlin’ gaffes over a period of years hardly add up to Gonzo’s truly impressive performance over a single day, which is the comparison Broder draws.
Especially since Gonzo wasn’t trying to communicate - quite the opposite. Gonzo’s testimony was a display of mendacity, not of failed communication. If Broder can’t see that, he’s politically blind. If he could, and was equating Reid with that, then he’s a partisan hack.
And there’s the paragraph I cited earlier:
In short, Broder expects a certain standard of Reid, but not of Bush.
Yes, Broder is a partisan hack. I’ll be happy to illustrate this with other recent columns, if you like.
Odd, the absence of any similar Broder comment about Bush, who has trashed this place, replacing professional competence with political hackery in Federal agencies from Justice to FEMA.
Instead, we get tripe about how Bush “has been impressive in recent days,” “is poised for a political comeback,” “has been far more accessible – and responsive – to the media and public,” and the like.
Damned straight he’s a hack. The fact that he’s the Dean of Beltway Punditry doesn’t change that. As Moyers made clear last night, that title ain’t worth a tinker’s damn anyway.
Evisceration of a political opponent, though sometimes an understandable impulse, would be forbidden by the Eighth Amendment. At least for those of us who think the Constitution reflects the government of today and not 1789.
And speaking of sucking up to warmongers, Atrios digs up this great (cue ominous music) stab from the past in the form of Broder’s column from October 7, 1969.
He’s been a hack in five different decades. A stunning record of achievement!
…and once again John Mace presents the clearest-heading thinking on the subject. Many thanks.
Much ado about nothing, etc. But yeah, it is indeed worth pointing out that a majority of Americans agree with Reid. That’s not an excuse, but it does provide context.
Actually, both the Democrats and our country deserve much worse and much less than Harry Reid, but he’s the best we’re likely to get at the moment. A President Kucinich or, better still, a President Sanders would be the best-case scenario. But so what? Politics is the art of the possible.
He’s baaaack!! And giving a sloppy wet kiss to John McCain: Straight Talking Again.
In a nutshell, Broder thinks it’s great that McCain is running against Bush’s policies again, disregarding the fact that McCain has flipped from Bush opponent and critic (1999-May 2004) to Bush’s bestest buddy (June 2004 - last week) to sharp critic of Bush’s policies, though not Bush himself.
What - accuse McCain of flipflopping? Not if you’re the Dean of Beltway Pundits. No, for Broder, it’s time to rejoice at McCain’s long-awaited return to Straight Talk.
Yes, tom, Broder’s a partisan hack. Nevertheless, it was kind of him to provide a fresh example of his hackitude so quickly.
Anyone else think it is - um - at least bad manners, for someone to start a thread that many might consider provocative and that engenders considerable response, and not even check in again to say “How ya doin?”
What a stand up guy!