David Broder eviscerates Harry Reid.

[Malodorous]

@ElvisL1ves

It’s about all he does anymore…

That’s “bashing”? Both of your quotes there are just Lieberman saying that he thinks the Dems are wrong about what should be done in Iraq. He goes out of his way in both those cases to say that he thinks the people he’s arguing with are well meaning and that he respects their intentions (contrast recent comments by Delay that Reid and Pelosi were commiting treason by opposing the war).

I really don’t see how you can call that Dem bashing?

[RTFirefly]

@tomndebb

Of course, when one’s own perspective causes one to misread every statemenrt by any person who is not in 100% agreement with one’s own position, it is easy to cherry pick enough statements to “prove” whatever one wants.

I see no significant difference between your characterization of Broder and your actions.
You’re the one with the shovel.

I’ve made a case for my characterization of Broder. You haven’t made one for yours. You’ve just dropped in with these ex cathedra pronouncements about him.

Seems simple to me.

[RTFirefly]

Broder’s bio at Washington Week:

Broder was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in May 1973 for distinguished commentary. He has been named “Best Newspaper Political Reporter” by Washington Journalism Review. A survey for Washingtonian magazine found that Broder was rated “Washington’s most highly regarded columnist” by both editorial-page editors and members of Congress, leading 16 others in ratings for “overall integrity, factual accuracy and insight.”

In 1990, a survey by Washingtonian magazine of the opinion-page editors of the largest 200 newspapers rated Broder as “Best Reporter,” “Hardest Working,” and “Least Ideological” among some 123 columnists.

Broder has been called “the high priest of political journalism” by author Timothy Crouse, “the unchallenged ‘dean’ of what many political reporters like to think is their ‘priesthood’” by U.S. News, and “probably the most respected and influential political journalist in the country” by columnist Richard Reeves. Esquire said Broder “has few challengers as the most influential political journalist in the country,” and media critic Ron Powers on CBS-TV said “Broder is not famous like Peter Jennings, he’s not glamorous like Tom Brokaw, but underneath that brown suit there is a superman.”

[ElvisL1ves]

@Malodorous

That’s “bashing”?

Call it “strenuously disagreeing” if you like. The point is still that, on the major, possibly *only * issue today, Fightin’ Joe is so firmly in the Bush camp that all he says is to condemn the Democratic position - er, make that the We the People position.

He goes out of his way in both those cases to say that he thinks the people he’s arguing with are well meaning and that he respects their intentions

Right, ff he were a Southerner, he’d say “Well, bless their hearts!” instead. In general, the unspoken subtext of “They mean well” is typically “They’re either deluded or stupid”.

[RTFirefly]

Jamison Foser of Media Matters makes his case against Broder. Just go read it - too many goodies to quote. But here’s one:

In 2005, Broder blamed Democrats – who were in the minority in both the House and the Senate – for Congress’ failure to conduct oversight hearings. Which, of course, they didn’t have the power to do, being in the minority and all. Then, in March 2007 – just two months into Democratic control of Congress – Broder complained that the House had “slowed to a crawl,” doing little other than “filling time with investigations.” Later that month, Broder claimed “Democrats find it easier to investigate than to legislate. … Accountability is certainly important, but Democrats must know that people were really voting for action on Iraq, health care, immigration, energy and a few other problems. Investigations are useful, but only legislation on big issues changes lives.”

To be fair, Broder in 2005 blamed both parties equally for the failure to do oversight - but didn’t bother to mention that only the majority party - the GOP, at that time - could hold hearings and subpoena evidence. And this spring, of course, Broder didn’t bother mentioning that the House was passing legislation, but the Senate often couldn’t because the GOP was filibustering everything. Nor did he mention that GOP corruption was one of the things that post-election polling revealed that voters wanted Dems to do something about. Hence investigations and oversight.

Yes, Tom, he’s a hack. You think I’m being partisan in my analysis, then show it.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

Here’s more summary, with examples, of Broder’s history. I’m sure Tom will dismiss this as simply more cherry picking. From Media Matters.

[RTFirefly]

@Hentor the Barbarian

Here’s more summary, with examples, of Broder’s history. I’m sure Tom will dismiss this as simply more cherry picking. From Media Matters.

Beat ya to it!

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@RTFirefly

Beat ya to it!

D’oh. Well, only by 6 hours. I was in the middle of composing my post when you snuck in there. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

[Liberal]

Well, since we’ve heard from Media Matters, here’s World Net Daily’s take.

[Squink]

Well, since we’ve heard from World Net Daily, here’s the Cato Institute’s take.

Whatever price we will pay for withdrawing from Iraq, however, must be measured against the probable cost in blood and treasure if we stay. That cost is already excessive. We are losing soldiers at the rate of more than 800 per year, and the financial meter is running at some $8 billion per month. With President Bush’s announcement of a “surge” of 21,500 additional troops, the pace of both will increase.

Worst of all, there is no reasonable prospect of success even if we pay the additional cost in blood and treasure. We need an exit strategy that is measured in months, not years.

[RTFirefly]

@Liberal

Well, since we’ve heard from Media Matters, here’s World Net Daily’s take.

It’s always good to see what [del]WorldNetDummy[/del] [del]WorldNutDaily[/del] WorldNetDaily has to say about things.

And it’s got that strawman that’s been moving up the charts lately:

If Reid believes this, he has a moral duty to vote to terminate any further funds for this war.

I love this whole “if the Dems say we can’t win, then the only alternative must be to pick up and leave, this instant if not sooner” bit. Wingnuts like Buchanan (the author of the WND piece) can’t tell the difference between “we can’t bring security to Iraq” and “pulling out immediately is the least harmful of all our options, including all the gradual withdrawal options.”

The other thing I find amusing is the notion that Reid needs to vote to terminate further funds for this war. Apparently Buchanan doesn’t know how this appropriation works. Assuming Bush vetoes the current bill, doing nothing from then on will end funding for the war - no vote is needed.

[Squink]

Broder tells us that Victory is Really Doubtful:

EDWARDS: And what constituencies need to be pleased by these negotiations?

BRODER: Well, there are a whole variety of them. The Democrats have – are being pushed by the anti-war wing of their party, which gets stronger, probably, every day. The president is – still has the backing of most Republicans, who say that they support his effort to try to salvage something that would look like a victory in Iraq – whether that’s achievable is really doubtful.

[RTFirefly]

Broder also says, “I’ve written many columns critical of this administration’s actions in Iraq.”

Yeah, suuuuuure. My guess is that if he were chivvied into producing some of those ‘critical’ columns, they’d be minor criticisms amidst overall support. He wouldn’t be lying - they’d be ‘critical’ of specific individual ‘actions’ - but not of the war itself, or of whether we should stay on.