To Parker, Dems' letter was "hissy fit" rather than rebuttal of Broder claim
In her May 4 nationally syndicated column, Kathleen Parker wrote that "50 Democratic senators felt compelled to respond" to Washington Post columnist David Broder's April 26 column, in which Broder, in Parker's words, "set off a firestorm" by calling Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) an "embarrassment." Parker asserted the Democrats' letter had "the unmistakable whiff of a powder room manifesto, otherwise known as a hissy fit," but made no mention of the specific factual claim Broder made in his column -- that there was a "long list of senators of both parties who are ready for" Reid's "springtime exhibitions of ineptitude to end." As Media Matters for America noted, the senators directly challenged Broder's charge: "[W]e believe Mr. Reid is an extraordinary leader who has effectively guided the new Democratic majority through these first few months with skill and aplomb."
After Broder asserted without evidence in his column that there is a "long list of senators of both parties who are ready for" Reid's "springtime exhibitions of ineptitude to end," the entire Senate Democratic Caucus sent a letter to the editor of the Post expressing its members' support for Reid:
We, the members of the Senate Democratic Caucus, contest the attack on Sen. Harry Reid's leadership by David S. Broder in his April 26 column, "The Democrats' Gonzales."
In contrast to Mr. Broder's insinuations, we believe Mr. Reid is an extraordinary leader who has effectively guided the new Democratic majority through these first few months with skill and aplomb.
The Democratic caucus is diverse, and Mr. Reid has worked tirelessly to make sure that the views of each member are heard and represented. No one ideology dominates the caucus, so that a consensus can be reached and unity achieved. It is hard to imagine a better model for leadership.
Broder has since defended his remarks, though he has yet to identify any Democratic senator "ready" for Reid to step down as majority leader. As Media Matters documented, on the April 30 edition of XM Radio's The Bob Edwards Show, host Bob Edwards asked Broder: "Did you get it wrong, or is the Democratic support weaker than they would have us believe?" Broder responded "no" and added with apparent sarcasm:
BRODER: I thought it was terribly moving that 50 Democratic senators, including one who's been hospitalized for months and has not made it to the Senate floor, spontaneously put their names on the letter to you and to The Washington Post, condemning me for what I had said about their leader, Harry Reid. I have never seen such a wonderfully orchestrated outburst in a long time. So, it was -- gotta be impressive testimony that they really want to keep him as their leader.
Additionally, during a May 4 online chat, Broder again did not provide evidence of Democratic senators who are "dissatisfied" with Reid's leadership, nor did he back down from his assertion that there is a "long list" of senators who feel so. Broder refused to answer the specific question by a reader asking "[w]hat Democratic senators were on that long list" of senators decrying Reid's leadership.
Asheville, N.C.: You wrote in your column of April 26 that Senators in both parties (indeed, a long list of them) were dissatisfied and embarrassed, etc. about Harry Reid. What Democratic senators were on that long list? What was your source? Do you stand by what you reported in that column?
David S. Broder: Yes, I do. The senators will have to speak for themselves, but his record speaks volumes.
From Parker's May 4 column:
Veteran political columnist David Broder set off a firestorm recently when he called Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid an "embarrassment" for declaring the Iraq War "lost."
From the assault subsequently directed at Broder -- from other journalists, political operatives, left-wing bloggers and even the entire 50-member Senate Democratic Caucus -- you'd have thought Broder had had an intimate encounter with an intern.
Or, in the spirit of bipartisanship, had broken into Democratic National Committee headquarters.
Broder committed no such dastardly deed, but merely did what he has done for the past 35 years. He called it as he saw it -- just as Reid claims to have done, and that his defenders seem to find so refreshing.
Nevertheless, the 50 Democratic senators felt compelled to respond. Doesn't the U.S. Senate have more important matters to attend to than David Broder?
In a letter to the Washington Post that had the unmistakable whiff of a powder room manifesto, otherwise known as a hissy fit -- as opposed to a "bed-wetting tantrum," as Paul Begala described Broder's column -- the senators asserted that their leader is a "good listener," who has an "amazing ability to synthesize views and bring people together," and who also demonstrates a "mastery of procedure."
It is perhaps admirable, and certainly reassuring to Reid, that his fellow senators came to his defense. But this kind of overreaction to a columnist is rare, if not unprecedented, and betrays a disturbing hostility to legitimate criticism.
[...]
Broder needs no one to defend him. His record, which includes at least equal numbers of columns criticizing Republicans as Democrats, speaks for itself. But the Reid-Broder dust-up reveals the degraded state of public debate today. People don't disagree; they brawl. Punditry has become a free-for-all -- and mutual respect is locked in the attic with Aunt Sadie.
Part of this devolution in discourse has been brought about, no doubt, by the volcanic explosion of the blogosphere, which has democratized free speech in a way that is not always positive or pretty. Everybody can type, but not everyone can write. Everyone has an opinion, but not everyone comes equipped with the same skills and experience.
The disinhibiting effect of anonymity, meanwhile, has unleashed something dark in the human spirit that seems to have infected the broader culture. It isn't enough to say that Broder is all wet; instead he's "foaming at the mouth," a "gasbag" and a "venomous" bloviator throwing a "bed-wetting tantrum," borrowing again from Begala.
Begala, who came to punditry via the Clinton White House, isn't anonymous, of course. But many other lesser-knowns have taken Broder to task in what has become the typical blog-inspired pile-on.
[...]
A fair treatment of Broder's recent column would consider the broader context of his body of work, but fairness is missing from this debate. Also is respect for those, like the Pulitzer Prize-winning Broder, who have toiled long in the fields to earn the kind of forum others merely feel entitled to.
The absence of fairness and respectful dissension -- and the decline of civility wrought by our nation's unhinged narcissism -- now there's something worthy of outrage.
From The Washington Post's May 4 "Broder on Politics" online chat (misspellings in original transcript):
Asheville, N.C.: You wrote in your column of April 26 that Senators in both parties (indeed, a long list of them) were dissatisfied and embarrassed, etc. about Harry Reid. What Democratic senators were on that long list? What was your source? Do you stand by what you reported in that column?
David S. Broder: Yes, I do. The senators will have to speak for themselves, but his record speaks volumes.
_______________________
Minneapolis: Why, in your view, does every member of the Democratic Caucus in the Senate disagree with your characterization of Harry Reid's leadership?
David S. Broder: Since I would never question their motives, I have to assume that they spontaneously and simultaneously chose to express their confidence in their leader on the same day last week. I have a copy of their letter, with all the signatures, and it is gfoing up on my wallo. A semi-historic document to pass on to the grandchildren, as a testament to what a dope their granedfather was. I love it.
[...]
Kennet Square, Pa.: Mr. Broder, your affected bemusement at the letter from the Senate Democrats is beside the point. You claimed widespread dissatisfaction within their ranks over Sen. Reid, yet you just ducked a question as to exactly who those "dissastified" are. You seem to be saying that if you, David Broder, believe they should be grumbling over Senator Reid, then they must be. Fifty Senators say otherwise. Why should we believe you instead of them?
David S. Broder: I think you should beliieve anyone you choose to believe. I would encourage you to judge Senator Reid and anyone else by your own standard, and not be swayed by another opinion. I felt free to give my opinion on his performance, but I do not insist on anyone else adopting it.
This really is much ado about nothing. Democrats throw hissy fits all the time, this is no different.
The one throwing the "hissy fit" is Broder.
He's a hack. Pure and simple.
David Broder is a widely respected columnist and has been for decades. Your "hack" label goes far more to your biased, ultrapartisan discomfort when any Democrat is questioned by anyone, rather than Broder's distinguished career.
Broder may have *HAD* (emphasis on had,) a distinguished career.
But lately, he's the journalistic version of a cheap whore, for the Bush misadministration.
Just look in the transcript, above.
Broder refuses to name any senators who want Reid to step down, and is very snooty and dismissive of any questioning his "wisdom."
This isn't the first time, nor will it be the last time a reporter, writer, whatever, gets (as my Mom puts it,) "Too full of themselves."
Bill O'Reilly is this way. As is Geraldo Rivera, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, even Randi Rhodes.
I think you may be on to something. While Broder has been well respected in the past, it was pretty amateurish of him to print something he obviously has no intention of backing up. Most decent journalists take their work more seriously than that.
Tommy, it would have been nice if he had "questioned" a Democrat, but it doesn't look like he did. Instead, he wrote a column purporting to know what Democrats thought, got called on it, and he should back down. No big deal.
"David Broder is a widely respected columnist and has been for decades. Your "hack" label goes far more to your biased, ultrapartisan discomfort when any Democrat is questioned by anyone, rather than Broder's distinguished career."
The Democratic Party has had numerous, widely respected Senators for almost 200 years. Your "hissy fit" label goes far more to your biased, ultrapartisan discomfort when Broder is questioned by MMFA, rather than the distinguished service of Democratic Senators.
*snicker*
By that logic, Tommy, just because one has had a distinguished career, anything they do is defensible? I guess Brett Favre's decisions in Green Bay should not be criticized this year because of his long and distinguished career and if any fan calls him a hack, its a hissy fit, correct?
Honestly, can you please tell me how you would defend this particular article with the strawmen so present, but no specifics?
Brett Favre is a GOD... leave him out of this nonsense..
I hope he doesn't trip over his clay feet.
Apparently, to Tommy, so is David Broder.
Brett Favre is CHEESEHEAD.
Go Vikings.
Then perhaps Mr. Broder would care to provide sources other than his baseless assertions as support for his comments? Sorry, Tommy, but if he can't back it up with quotes, sources, etc. then I really don't care how "distinguished" his career is, he's being careless and playing loose with the facts. Is the man a journalist or a pundit? If he's a journalist, he needs to support his statements. If he's a pundit, well, that's a whole different story - we all are well aware by now that the punditocracy lacks any "journalistic" scruples - they can base their comments on whatever they pull out of their collective a$$es.
Broder said there were Democrats who were criticizing Reid, so if every Democrat signs their endorsement of him, then it's phony because its orchestrated. But, if some Democrats didn't sign it, then he could say "why didn't these people sign it? HMMMM?". Or should Dems have ignored the issue completely, in which case it's "they obviously don't want to try to defend their leader". Don't mean to be presumptive, but those are clearly things he could say in response to those scenarios. They're much more logical and reasonable arguments than citing "orchestration". What does he want, fifty different letters over a two-week period, or what?
So no matter what the response is, if everyone smacks him for it, if only some people respond, if everyone ignores him, then that proves him right. That's absurd, obviously, which makes it some mighty hacktacular work indeed.
Baloney. Broder said a long list of Senators of BOTH PARTIES say Reid is an embarassment 50 Democratic Senators wrote a letter disputing this. That is not a hissy fit that is saying YOU ARE A LIAR. It is an outright claim that Broder is lying unless he can cough up the Democratic Sentors who told Broder Reid is an embarassment I am inclined to believe the Senators that Broder is LYING. He tried to get away with a hit piece making a claim of bipartisan embarassment about Reid the Senate is disputing that the partisan ideological blindness is YOURS.
hahha.. A day is not complete without Solon calling someone a liar.
Thanks for the laugh!
You notice that Broder's defense wasn't "I had it on good authority" or "I was using sources from Senators' offices" or anything of the like. It's just "hey, they orchestrated their response, how funny!"
Broder won't defend himself, so I guess it's your job, huh?
Is that supposed to be some lame defense of Broder? Do you have a point or are you just trying to make some inane (and false) observation?
Besides, Solon wasn't calling Broder a liar as you say. Read it again. Solon points out that the 50 senators were calling Broder a liar.
Do you have anything accurate or substantive to argue?
Naw. I could give a rip about Broder. I like many here, think he's far past his prime. Besides it is already stipulated that Broder won't back up his charge. He has said it is his unsupported opinion. I can accept that.
I just find it funny and like to point out that Solon uses the term "liar" in so many of his posts that it is like the boy calling 'wolf' too many time. Seeing it makes me laugh. It's like a one size fits all response.
Once again it seems to me you guys get your shorts in a bunch over nothing. The over-response is typical of the hysteria I see on the left. It is not like there have been unsupported accusations against the administration or anything by those same Democrats on a daily basis since GW took office now is there?
You may see the Democratic Caucus letter as an effective rebuttal, but I see it as an over-reaction orchestration by a hyper sensitive Reid who looks to me that he can dish it out but can't take it.
Whenever responding to Repugnant or Corporate Media (I lost my org-chart: which is the dependent agency?) regarding their pervasive, persistent, lying - "liar" is not merely useful - it is mandatory.
To depict such response as laughable is as wrong as Broder's and Parker's unsubstantiated Kreskin act on Senate Dems as a whole, and just as indefensible. Neither is merely expressing a personal opinion, so much as advancing an invidious comparator; worse, in any objective view, all the comparators are both erroneous and invalid.
I do like his use of capitalization in his posts though.. pretty cool
"I have in this envelope the names of 50 senators who say Ried is an embarrassment".
all tommy, all the time.
Dave Broder's a media type
Who just can't live up to his hype
It's telling, it's lame
He can't cough up one name
To counter his Harry Reid tripe
More hackery:
"I have come to have deep respect for the wisdom of the American people, who, in 2004, chose to reelect George W. Bush as president. I have been very critical of his policies, economic, diplomatic and military. But I am unwilling to assume that I am so much smarter than the voting public that I will dism9iss as worthless someone they have chosen as president of the United States." (Bold from ThinkProgress, any typos from Broder).
Alright, so Broder's been very critical of a huge portion of Bush's policies, but because people voted for him, well maybe Broder might not be so smart after all. This is the supposed "Dean" of Washington journalists. One doesn't have to be a raging egomaniac to recognize that he or she knows more than the rank-and-file of Americans regarding policy and the way Washington works. In fact, that's basically his job. He's supposed to be much smarter than the average voter, otherwise what the hell is he being paid for?
And Broder claimed he felt the same way about Clinton. Oh, but what's this?
David S. Broder: We return a second time to President Clinton. What bothered me greatly about his actions was not what he said to his lawyers but what he told the Cabinet, his White House staff--You can go out and defend me because this did not happen. And he told the same,e lie to the American people. When a president loses his credibility, he loses an important tool for governing--and that is why I thought he should step down.
But Clinton had been reelected by those wise American people, and his popularity was high when this controversy was going on (Note:"They also don’t want this alleged affair or his denial of it to force him out of office"). So when Bush has a horrible approval rating and Broder himself disapproves of his policies, then Broder never calls for his resignation, and refuses to think of him as "worthless". But when Clinton has widespread support from the people, he should step down because he lied about a personal matter. Where was Broder's deep respect for the wisdom of the American people then?
Tommy. MMFA has said in this article:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200704280002
that Broder is highly respected by other journalists. But then they proved that he didn't deserve any of that respect he received. You have all the evidence you need in front of you Tommy. Admit it. Broder is a hack. A PROVEN HACK.
The only reason Parker called the letter a "hissy fit" is to avoid talking about the fact that Broder's claim that there is a long list of Senators that think Reid is inept is bogus.
As for you. You don't even try to prove any point at all. You think that name calling proves itself. You make no attempt to debunk because you know the truth cannot be debunked.
Care to provide what you deem an example of the hissy fit parkay is referring to?
"[I]n this age of scripted politicians speaking only to their base or claiming that they "don't recall" anything, the fact that Mr. Reid speaks his mind should be applauded, not derided. His brand of straight talk is honest, comes from the heart and speaks directly to the people."
Ohh, hiss! Spit, rawr-rawr!
Those hissy Democrybabies... why don't they go get a manicure with their best buddy Edwards?
I mean, doesn't it seem like we're all back in fourth grade - where the worst insult was to call you "gay?"
If a sports writer says there's a "long list" of team members who wish to have the coach fired, and then the team responds in writing a unanimous SUPPORT for the coach ... somebody's got their story VERY VERY WRONG.
The easy solution is for the sports writer to LIST those unhappy team members and explain what they said to him as his "source" of the information. Then let THEM explain why they are contradictory in their comments.
But Broder CAN'T DO THAT, because he "has a list" just like the list Sen. Joe McCarthy had ... it's a FICTION of "support" for an opinion that BRODER HIMSELF holds. This kind of "everybody knows" reporting that seeks to give a "consensus" weight to what amounts to a SMEAR is a fraud, a sham, and a mainstay of rightwing punditry.
Broder, like Bush, is simply not man enough to admit he overreached, he lied, he made a mistake, he attempted to FOOL the American People by MISLEADING them into thinking he spoke the truth.
Such writers, in sports or in politics, have reached their expiration date and need to be removed from the shelf. They are done.
Amen, Tex.
Well said.
Republicans are real tough, tough guys, that's why most of them get someone else to do their fighting for them.
TOMMY, wasn't that a song by the WHO? Is the WHO writing to MMFA?
Why are these esteemed journalists writing to a certain fan base? I though that respected "widely" respected columnists got that title by writing the facts. Guess Who was wrong? Me.
Anyway, Tommy can you justify this particular column by this respected columnist. Seems that he is wrong..and Fess Parkers' daughter is trying to support a myth or platy to the crowd
That blind, deaf and dumb kid sure can play a mean pinball!
How can he be saved/From the eternal grave?
For the record, Mr. Broders sunday colunm (this weeks) was, my veiw, pretty much ok. He can't seem to find any democratic plans for Iraq. I only started looking myself this year and I've found plenty of ideas from Democratic sources. I wonder how he is unable to do the same.
Some sources reported that David Broder's writing skills have rapidly diminished and the editors of the Washington Post are considering replacing his column inches with a new RNC direct-feed talking points blog.
So how are we supposed to tell the difference?
Jesus,
What an embarrassment Broder has become.
Those two bloggers caught this pompous, elitist with his finger up his nose.
Frankly, Debunked, I think Broder's finger is up a different orifice.
parker says broder's criticism of reid was "legitimate". well ok. you and he are entitled to think that. what you are not entitled to do is dismiss a letter by all 50 of his democratic colleagues as a "hissy fit". but parker might as well be paid by gop. she trashed everyone that questioned the iraq invasion, and she portrays pretty much every democrat as a calculating power grabber, and every republican, especially bush, as a noble public servant. her credibility is zero. [hope she's not offended.]
What you miss is the point completely. When do you ever see every Democrat in the Senate write a joint letter to a columnist because he wrote something critical about their "leader"?
It seems to me they doth protest too much.
Is Harry "the loser" Reid is so hypersensitive that he dashes off a letter with everyone's name on it, (including the unfortunate Senator Tim Johnson who suffered a brain hemorrhage)? In a word, yes.
Everyone can read between those lines that this is Reid orchestrated rebuttal. Frankly I'd think he'd have bigger things to worry about.
You seem to have missed the point. If ALL of the Dems signed the letter, then which ones is Broder referring to? Kind of puts the onus on Broder to put up or shut up.
I understand the parsing that you are doing. And the flailing defense of hypersensitive Harry where he has to call out all the troops to try, by use of his power over the Democratic Caucus to counter a criticism.
No, Broder cannot publicly identify the Senators. That is understood. It may be that all 50 are in lock step. However it seems to me that Reid countered quickly with this letter so that no Democratic Senator can now say he/she doesn't support Reid. That is what Broder is laughing at. The overkill response shows Broder, Parker, (and me,) that Broder is correct.
Did you see how many Democratic Senators came to Reid's defense over his "war is lost" comment? By my reckoning, two. Kennedy and Levin. Maybe there were more, but they didn't show up right away. But now we have all 50 including a brain hemorrhaged recovering Senator writing Broder about Harry? You gotta be kidding! The disparity in responses is laughable in my opinion. It only shows how thin skinned and petty Reid has become.
He can tell the world the war is lost, which is almost traitorous coming from a man in his position while our troops are in harms way, but don't let an opinion columnist say anything negative about Harry or he'll sic the rubber stamped Democratic Caucus on them!
"Almost traitorous"?
hahaha.. I'm trying to give him the benefit of doubt.
Do you think his comment caused any 'aid and comfort' to the enemy?
The Iraq war itself gives aid and comfort to the enemy. It's a little late to be worried about the effects of honest evaluations of how it's going.
But what about DeLay's comments, if we're concerned about "troops in harm's way"? If you honestly think that the nature of such somments border on treason, then I'm surprised you defended DeLay on any topic, given the severity of those charges.
Brab,
You've got me here. I am not sure of which comments to are referring.
Did you click on the link?
thanks. No I did not.
Good point. However the distinction here is that I do not believe that DeLay said "the war is lost." while troops were in harms way.
Oh for the love of all that's holy. I appreciate that you see the point, but do you really think that's a valid disctinction? This is what DeLay himself said;
"We have people dying," he said. "Not just our soldiers, but innocent citizens dying in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hands of these evil people, and you have your elected leaders making these kinds of statements that embolden the enemy. It's unbelievable." (bold mine)
So comments about America meddling with sovereign nations, body bags, our diminished international respect, our damaged standing, occupation by foreigners, withdrawing our troops (currently known as "surrender" according to Bush-backers) and imperialist armies while innocent citizens are dying doesn't embolden the enemy? Good to get that straightened out.
I am not sure I get your point. I'm sorry. It has been a long day for me.
Are you saying DeLay is talking out of both sides of his mouth. If you are Okay. Go ahead. However I do see some distinction between the words used by DeLay and Reid. We can discuss it some other time.
Does that diminish the 'almost traitorous' talk by Reid because DeLay is out peddling a book? I don't think so.
What I'm saying is that by DeLay's own standards, he was a traitor. I have no idea of where his book came into the picture, I didn't say anything about that at all.
The bottom line is that treason or anything close to it is a very serious charge, and you would do yourself a great service to avoid making such remarks. Let me put it this way;if Hillary Clinton is elected and starts a land war in China for questionable reasons, you wouldn't accept the notion that you couldn't say the war was lost because that would give aid or comfort to the enemy (I would hope!). The "emboldening" of the enemy is no reason to prevent an honest dialogue about the lives of our own troops.
When you've rested, you can let that sink in.
In fact, it was GW Bush who said of the "War on Terror" ... while our soldiers were dying on the battlefield (many because Bush failed to provide them with proper armor) ... Bush said, "I don't think you can win it."
Oh, the MORALE of our soldiers, their Commander in Chief telling them there was no way to win. The horror. The horror!
Yep.
And now success in Iraq will be defined as a 'reasonable level of violence.'
Success is no longer victory, it's just creating an environment in which terrorist violence is only a nuisance.
Gosh! Where have I heard that nuisance term before? Just think about how the candidate who uttered that term, nuisance, was flayed by the punk a** right wing authoritarians as weak, naive, traitorous, elitist and so forth.
Shameless rightwing oppurtunists.
"Aid and comfort" indeed, to all the enemies of such idiocy as this administration has fostered upon the nation. The only treason committed here is by any who, under any imaginable circumstances, do not rise to advocate for the impeachment and conviction of the entire lot of this administration; for this administration has met every requirement of the Constitutional definition of treason, save conviction.
And for those who think that it's ludicrous to bring up impeachment, here's the "Dean" himself:
"Censure is an option. But it is not a wise option, in my view. I agree with those who say a congressional censure of the president could set a dangerous precedent. It is not an option mentioned in the Constitution and in my view it does violence to the principle of separation of powers. The Constitutional remedy is impeachment, and I hope that Congress confines itself to a choice of convicting the president or acquitting him."
Of course, that's when Clinton lied about sex, which is much more serious than our soldiers dying in a war of aggression.
Thanks for adding context - I often forget that not everyone reads everything - and *I* have a lot of trouble keeping up with Broder's penchant for invention in the cause of impugning Dems.
"Parsing?"
Broder said some Democrats didn't support Reid. The Democrats came out and said "we support Reid." I don't know how you spin this any way other than that Broder was lying.
I guess it would be all right if he said, "unnamed sources".
Heck, maybe he is lying. Obviously he will not produce anything to back up his claim. In reality, I could care less about what Broder said. It is the overreaction response by Reid that is this story.
I think Parker is right. It does look to me to be a hissy-fit by Hissy Harry.
Actually, Reid said nothing... the Democratic Caucus sent a genteel letter expressing support. Reid lied and he got called on it. Full stop.
Right, one of the biggest names in the field of journalism creates this charge that Dems want Reid to step down out of thin air, and the only thing that matters is that Dems sent a letter. Wow, how overblown a reaction can you get, really? Sending a letter to correct a blatant lie, well, for shame!
Brab,
The only point I am making is that Reid, (or someone close to Reid,) felt they needed to put every Senator's name on the letter, even one who is valiantly trying to recover from a brain hemorrhage, in order to try to dispel Broder's admitted unbacked opinion.
Does anyone seriously believe Tim Johnson is taking time from his convelescence to get involved in petty arguments like this?To me it is like Reid trying to kill a fly with a howitzer. The response is not in proportion to the charge. Maybe this goes on all the time? Maybe senators or their staff write these letters daily? However it seems like overkill. By invoking the signatures of 50 Senators over something written by a doddering old columnist seems to be way out of proportion. I think Harry looks even worse by this action.
That is simply my opinion.
Broder didn't say it was his "unbacked opinion." He is a Washington insider with enormous access, and he stated it as fact.
He is not, by the way, a "doddering old columnist." He is known as the Dean of the Washington press corps by admirers and detractors alike. He is influential and well-regarded among the power elite.
And, again, I think the Dems could use some more howitzer flyswatters. It definitely beats talking nice to the flies and hoping that will work.
Hahaha.. I see no matter what I say, I can bring out an argument.
I do believe the term "Dean" means most seniority. It could be he is both doddering and dean don'tcha think?
Anyway, this is way off topic to the point I have made.
Thanks for the discussion.
Well, what would you suggest? I mean, if you think it's a lie, and you're admitting that possibility quite clearly, what do you do? Nothing? Then it has credibility, because nobody contradicted Broder. If some people sign a letter, then it shows that others didn't, supporting the point even more. Now if the DNC had booked airtime to have every Senator support Reid one by one, including Johnson (if possible), then that would be overblown. But a letter? What could possibly be as effective of proving the point, while being less dramatic?
There is a reciprocal rule for Democrats, it would seem, for IOKIYAR: It's Always Bad for the Democrats. Whatever they do as a response to anything is always over-reacting, under-reacting, or wrong.
AA, I believe that Sen. Reid said that if we follow the present path we are taking that the war is lost. As usual, forgetting most of the quote is enough for the Slugs. Never talk about the illegal occupation of Iraq, just go after what people say about it. Seems to me that the Repugs doth protest too much about those that know of the stupidity which they follow. By the way, this is becoming a Viet Nam...no way out.
Here is the quote I read, "I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week," Reid told journalists.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070419184534.ileoeb47&show_article=1
"Did you see how many Democratic Senators came to Reid's defense over his 'war is lost' comment?"
-----
Did you see Reid's full remarks, or are you only paying attention to the last clause, just like the wingnuts do with the Second Amendment?
What Reid said was, if we continue to follow the failed policies of the current Administration, then the war is lost.
Quite a bit different from the statement you and yours have been ignorantly spewing about for the last couple of weeks, isn't it?
But I don't think you are the type to ever let the truth get in the way of a hopelessly stupid smear job.
So Parker says this dust-up reveals the degraded state of public debate today. "People don't disagree, they brawl".
No, the Senators sent him a polite letter DISAGREEING his analysis. Hardly a BRAWL. Any claim on her part to the contrary is her own projection.
She says, "Punditry has become a free-for-all-and mutual respect is locked in the attic with Aunt Sadie".
Well, the US Senate is hardly considered a part of the "punditry" in Washington, and Mr. Broder is not showing respect to anyone (including his readers) by peddling this bald-faced lie, and then when called on it, behaving like a snob.
Can anyone find the missing word?
"with"
Have you noticed the Democrats have not written a letter with 50 Senators signing it backing Reid's claim the "war is lost"?
Declining to adopt Reid's particular phrasing and saying that he should step down over it are two radically different things.
I'd like to see the response Harry would get speaking at a Service Academy Commencement.
And this addresses my point how? They don't have to say exactly what he said to support him as the Majority Leader.
Brab,
I think that response got mixed up with another part of this thread. It really doesn't make any sense in your context.
Brabanto's comment is a thunderous refutation of your (replied to) comment, precise and elegant.
Now, for something that misses the point of the posting to which it purports to reply, and seems therefore to belong elsewhere [not necessarily anywhere is this thread, or even in the reality-based universe]: "I'd like to see the response Harry would get speaking at a Service Academy Commencement. " Guess, if you will, who authored that irrelevant slur on the Dem leader?
I thought he was referring to his "service academy" comment as being out of place and not making sense in my context, and that's why I didn't reply to it. If he was really referring to my comment, if he thought his "service academy" comment was relevant to my point, then he really was in dire need of sleep.
I'd like to see the response George Bush would get speaking anywhere, anytime, to anyone other than a hand-picked audience of supporters.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Bush speaking at Yale, Notre Dame, and St.Vincent's College this year?
ps. you make a good point about hand picked audiences. There is a balance between all supporters and a disruptive audience. Unfortunately the few very vocal dissenters can ruin it for everyone.
As an aside, I see Pelosi will speak at Webster University and Cheney at BYU. I haven't seen where Reid is speaking.
Disruptive audiences [would - if ever allowed] tend to highlight Bungle's lies, which otherwise go undisputed in this Corporate Media. One is obligated as a requisite of putative humanity, to disrupt any such liars' session; and were one ever to witness any member of this administration not constantly and insistently worthy of such disruption, one would certainly have no difficulty in issuing a letter over the signatures of some 50 Senators, to so attest.
As to spoiling the event for everyone, everyone who recognizes truth or values it, is already upset merely to share membership in a phylum with any member of this administration; and require for personal wellbeing, the opportunity to demand reclassification of one or the other. As for those who are not already upset, but are not designated as medically brain-dead, just basking in the presence of ultimate evil likely is reinforced by the recognition accorded that evil by the protestors.
I think that if Senator Reid spoke to a service academy, he would speak honestly and forthrightly and would engender respect from these future military leaders. These guys are patriotic americans who obviously have a deep desire to serve their country and probably know how to separate the wheat from the chaffe.
I would give these fine young men and women the benefit of the doubt by presuming they are intelligent and respectful enough to listen diligently to a senior member of the United States Senate and take the time and effort to thoughtfully consider his point of view from an objective standpoint. They would then decide to either accept or reject his viewpoint in an adult fashion. You seem to be under the impression that they would storm the stage and have him drawn and quartered for daring to utilize his constitutionally protected right to express a viewpoint at odds with that of the RNC. You Sir, are disrespecting the troops by projecting onto them YOUR desire to ridicule a fine American.
BTW, that crazy left-wing moonbat Al Franken (soon-to-be senator from Wisconsin) spoke last year at West Point and received a warm welcome and rousing support for many of his comments.
Hey J, that would be Minnesota. Its close to WI but the residents don't put on cheeseheads........ Unless they lost a bet.
I stand corrected. Sorry MinneSOTANs.
BTW, aren't you up a bit early?
Wrong again my friend,
My guess is that the worst that would happen is that Harry would be met with silence.
I see you would cast me in an unfavorable light than take the time to find out if your assumption is correct. Oh well. ;-)
Paul Begala described Broder's column as "a bed-wetting tantrum"
Kathleen Parker shot back that the Democratic response to Broder's column was to throw a "hissy fit"
Score 1-1 all tied up.
Ok kids, recess is over.
*Tomorrow I suppose they'll each claim the other has cooties & be calling each other poopie-heads*
Good point. I didn't know about Begala's column. They are acting like little kids. It is all pretty stupid. Maybe next time Broder will think to only make allegations he can support, so we can avoid this food fight.
hahaha.. thanks for the laugh!
Parker's response to Begala is fine. It may have been over-the-top - I liked it ("Broder, of course, is a gasbag. The Hindenburg of pundits.") but of course Parker is within her rights to take some shots at it.
To call the Democratic senators' extremely genteel letter a "hissy fit," though, is just more feminizing rhetoric coming from the other side. The Democrats tried holding still while the Republicans poured slime over their heads, and look where we are six years later. I, for one, am glad that they're fighting back.
Ignoring your opponents' attacks just lets them control the dialogue. I don't love Howard Dean and Rahm Emanuel, but at least they know how to mix it up a little.
Swing and a miss, Jeter
Paul Begala described Broder's column as "a bed-wetting tantrum"
Kathleen Parker shot back that the Democratic response to Broder's column was to throw a "hissy fit"
Score 1-1 all tied up.
Hardly. Begala is referring to one person (Broder), the "Dean of American Journalists" who made an incredibly foolish statement and refused to back it up when called on it.
Parker is referring to fifty U.S. senators who made a show of support for their leader in a very calm and rational manner, and she called it a "hissy fit."
Begala's remarks were unkind, even juvenile, but much closer to the mark than Parker's.
maybe the dems should get a skin. broder is nobody, just a guy that was parker's point!
I loved this piece in the Arizona Republic. Apparently Paul Begala is the new Ann Coulter of the left wing Democrats. His calling of Broder a gasbag is considered hate speech. Check it out.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/0506maceachern0506.html
You should have posted that in reply to Rrastro. Maybe Broder should get a skin, Begala is a nobody...
That MacEachern can equate Begala's mockery of Broder with the eliminationist, and frequently racist sewage that regularly issues forth from the mouths of Malkin and Coulter means that he is in dire need of the Walter Sobchak response: "You're out of your element, STFU Donny"
For almost any of the old-school beltway pundits like Broderella to talk about "mutual respect" is laughable since they've been nothing but a mindless, insular clique of cocktail party dilettantes who seem more concerned with placating their party pals than actually informing their readership. Broder, for all his past accomplishments now is little more than a corporate/GOP lapdog with a press-pass and a byline
I haven't read anything from Broder or Richard Cohen that was worth the paper or the bandwidth it was printed on in almost as long as i can remember
Parker: "the unmistakable whiff of a powder room manifesto, otherwise known as a hissy fit,"
Yep, we get it. Dems are girls and cons are he-men. Bush and Cheney are itching to enlist. Rush begs the recruiting officer each and every day. Coulter slogs through swamps to prepare for her coming enlistment. Mary Cheney will enlist tomorrow. The Bush twins enlist this evening. College enrollments just dropped 25% as all the young Republicans enlisted today.
And so on with them killa cons.
Meanwhile, all the dems are reaching for crochet needles while the cons reach for their rifles.
After reading the post on this site through the various topics, your analogy doesn't seem far off...
what is with the put your money where your mouth is theme that keeps getting repeated.. you following Bill's lead?
"what is with the put your money where your mouth is theme that keeps getting repeated.. you following Bill's lead?"
-----
Certainly you can't be as stupid as your posts make you out to be, can you?
Sometimes he seems like a reasonable guy, but then suddenly feels an overwhelming urge to start spewing right-wing talking points. Must be a chronic problem. Good luck with that.
I know I'm late to this party, but I have to put my 2 cents in before I read the rest of your comments.
Broder is just being a pompous A**. Its not his opinion that's the problem. Its the dubious 'fact' regarding the disgruntled senators that he is reporting of which he is unwilling to show any proof.
But I don't care
funny. Glad you joined the party. :-)