Broder still won't admit that Dem senators' letter of support rebutted his attack on Reid
In a June 14 nationally syndicated Washington Post column about the performance of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), David S. Broder stated: "When I wrote in April about his shortcomings as majority leader, The Post received a protest letter signed by the other 50 senators in the Democratic Caucus, attesting to their devotion to their leader." In fact, the Democratic senators' letter did more than that -- it refuted Broder's contention in his April column that there is 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 documented, in his April 26 column, "The Democrats' Gonzales," Broder equated Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales' handling of the dismissals of nine U.S. attorneys to Reid's statement that the war in Iraq "is lost" and opined that Reid, like Gonzales, is "a continuing embarrassment thanks to his amateurish performance." Broder claimed that "a long list of senators of both parties" is "ready" for Reid's "ineptitude to end," but provided no evidence of any Democratic senator taking that position.
In response to the column, the other 50 members of the Senate Democratic Caucus signed a letter (which appeared in the April 27 edition of The Washington Post) to "contest the attack on Sen. Harry Reid's leadership by David S. Broder." The senators wrote, "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." They also asserted, "Mr. Reid has the support of members of the caucus."
During an April 30 interview on XM Radio's The Bob Edwards Show, Edwards, referring to the letter, 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.
In dismissing the Democratic caucus' stated support of Reid, Broder again failed to provide any evidence to back up the claim he made in his column -- that there is a "long list of senators of both parties who are ready for these two [Reid's and Gonzales'] springtime exhibitions of ineptitude to end."
During an online discussion with Post readers on May 4, Broder again sarcastically described the Democrats' letter: "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." Broder also again refused to provide evidence for his claim that a number of Democratic senators were "ready" for Reid's "ineptitude to end" after one of his readers expressly asked him to state his sources:
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.
Broder does seem to be getting more detached from reality with every item about him I see here.
To criticize a direct response to his imaginary scenario as "orchestrated", and sarcastically dismiss it as not spontaneous shows either a low regard for the audience, or real delusion.
On a more trivial note, ever since a poster here mentioned Broders resemblance to Monty Burns, I haven't been able to see that photo of him without hearing "Eeeexxxcelllent" in my head.With the Underdog- related posts on another thread today, I'm now seeing him as Simon Bar Sinister.
Broder isn't fit to be one of Monty's chair moisteners.
When Polly's in trouble, I am not slow, So it's hip! hip! hip! and away I go.
I'm going withDishonest John
David S. Broder: LIAR for all to see. Once respected, now bereft of integrity. Unapologetic and unrepentant tool of the Rightwing, casting aside any pretense of relying on FACTS, and instead now simply MAKING UP stuff to hopefully bolster his own "opinion" on today's politics, which now follow the rightwing line.
Broder will "let the senators speak for themselves"? They SPOKE, and not "spontaneously", but in response to your LIE, to call you out as a LIAR.
YOU spoke. The senators spoke. You will not offer any substantive rebuttal to show you were relying on ANY information at all. Therefore, you should simply retire and shut up. The "dean" of the Washington Press Corps now has ZERO credibility, revealed as a partisan hack, writer of FICTION.
Colin Powell should have KNOWN that his integrity, honesty, and reputation would be used and destroyed by the Bush Administration. Broder has gone over to the darkside with his eyes wide open.
Broder slave of the right wing asks Bush for permission to go to the toilet.
In defense of Broder & WaPo, well, there is nothing to be said.
Just because a well respected reporter doesn't suck up to the glowing Harry Reid, he is then a liar and a right wing slave.
Makes perfect liberal sense.
I am a hero who never fails. I cannot be bothered with these details!
Snoop,
I never said he can't be criticized or challenged or disagreed with.......but to call him a liar or a slave is no better than a sleazy right wing radio shock jock's accusations. And I thought the posters here were above that inflammatory rhetoric?
Tommy, You don't recognize that line? Here, let me help you out, here's where it comes from...
There's no need to fear, Underdog is here! When criminals in this world appear,
And break the laws that they should fear,
And frighten all who see or hear,
The cry goes up both far and near for
Underdog,
Underdog,
Underdog,
Underdog.
Speed of lightning, roar of thunder,
Fighting all who rob or plunder
Underdog, Underdog.
When in this world the headlines read
Of those who's hearts are filled with greed
And rob and steal from those in need.
To right this wrong with blinding speed goes
Underdog,
Underdog,
Underdog,
Underdog.
Speed of lightning, roar of thunder,
Fighting all who rob or plunder
Underdog, Underdog.
Course, in an odd way now as I relive the cartoon glory of the past, interesting that the basic premise of the show was the news was always under attack.
You are very good. This can't be all from memory, is it?
some, but I have to admit, wikipedia is a friend of mine!
A coworker of mine was able to do the Super Chicken Theme. I can't remember all of it, so I won't try it.
The Under Dog Theme is much appriciated.
Snidley Wiplash, another in a series. Which one went "Nyah ah ahh!"
Had to get back online! Where is that Dudly Do-right? Must be shacked up with Nell while Horse freezes his behind off.
If I'm not mistaken, he's related to dick dastardly...
Negative, my caped canine.
Snidely Whiplash was the foe of Dudley Doright. Dick Dastardly was the pencil-thin-moustachioed villian who vied for the the affections of Penelope Pitstop. I'm surprised you don't at least remember the trade-mark snicker of your profligate pooch antithesis Muttley...
Oops. Disregard my previous. I misread the previous two posts.
Obviously, I'm no Pat Pending...
Oh, that's ok. Muttley was the dark horse of the family. But you're spot on now!
And Penelope Pittstop, what a hottie. Wonder how she got her name? ;)
Yah you got it. A multi layered show, a lot pretty crazy humor. Duddley's horse often got the best of him. A truer senario Would have Duddly off on a fools errend while his girl friend and horse painted the town red. Then it would dive futher into the absurd. Great show.
My choice for a hero, a little known character called Fission (fish to his friends) Chicken. Well intensioned, often sucessful, often stressful to both sides the the story.
Hey tommy is your post considered a whine?
Broder is a whiner. So is Rush, Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly, and Savage.
The most successful professional whiners are Conservatives. The market shows that Conservatives needs self reassurance hence the success of the whiners above.
Tune into any one of the clowns above and listen to them whine about liberal this and liberal that and the evil liberal consipiracies lurking every where.
Don't you find it odd that Broder would even know the word spontaneity?
Describing spontaneity to Broder is like describing light to a blind man.
Broder is from the Sieg Heil crowd same as Conservatives. The Sieg Heil crowd only knows discipline to a Fuherer aka Bush.
Broder and Conservative lives by order they wouldn't know Chaos if it slapped them in the face.
Yah, maybe......you could call it a whine if you want too. More like an observation on my part, but if you call it a whine, no prob.
Well pat yourself on the back. I never used the word whine when I give feedback.
I simply took note of how you and other Conservatives use the word whine when you run out of rebuttal facts.
Not that I don't have rebuttal facts. I just thought I would try out the word whine against the biggest user of the word whine and see what reaction I would get.
You played is safe of course in your response. Very good of you.
If I can't take it, I don't dish it out. I whine with the best of them sometimes, as do many here.
I have no problem pointing that out.
Sure tommy whatever you say. Such as this from a post of yours:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200706140002?offset=100&show=1#comments
People who have real injustices or grievances and move and act accordingly to correct and improve those circumstances are problem solvers and trailblazers.
Those that pathetically complain about their lot in life or moan about their situations and blame everyone else, are whiners.
Carry on proud whiner.
- tommy / Thursday June 14, 2007 05:09:20 PM EST
Yes it is as a matter of fact. I am flattered that you think I am infallible, but I do on occasion, whine so the description must fit me once in awhile too. Good catch.
And if you enjoyed the gotcha, I am glad for you. You were looking for some sheepish slithering away or something?
sheepish slithering away from you. No not you. I would expect you is defending a Conservative right winger with jelly all over his hands and mouth claiming to have never been in the jelly jar. What you have just read I'm speaking of Broder.
Don't worry Tommy, because...
Whenever sweet polly purebred calls, I take my pill and grab my balls!
I don't have a problem with him not "suck[ing] up" to Harry Reid, whom I have very little respect for. However, when this "respected" reporter makes an assertion that most Democrats hold a position that they do not in fact hold, he is misinforming.
When confronted with that fact, he should issue corrections, not excuses.
But It's OK If You're The Dean, I guess...
Tommy: "Just because a well respected reporter doesn't suck up to the glowing Harry Reid, he is then a liar and a right wing slave.
Makes perfect liberal sense."
No, he's a liar because he lied. It's pretty simple. He wrote that there was a long list of senators from both parties who wanted Reid gone. In fact, each and every one of the Democratic senators say that is false. Therefore is a lie to say that there is a long list of senators from both parties who want Reid gone. Broder, however, stands by the lie, therefore he is a liar.
Just because a well respected reporter doesn't suck up to the glowing Harry Reid, he is then a liar and a right wing slave.
Not even close, Tommy.
Tex called him a liar because he lied. He didn't get called a liar because he didn't suck up to Reid.
He's not a well-respected journalist by anyone who understands what journalists are supposed to do and the standards they're supposed to maintain.
Broder unfairly mocks all the Democratic Senators after he unfairly attacked Reid by saying that some of these Senators don't support Reid. Broder said that these Senators were saying stuff behind his back, but because they didn't say it out loud, you're willing to let Broder get by with that unfair smear. It's not that he didn't suck up. It's that he was wrong. Then, after he got told he was wrong, he still cannot admit that he was wrong! Why don't you find the unwillingness to admit to an error a character flaw, Tommy?
How typical of you, Tommy, that you would be unfair too. How typical of you that you would find kinship with someone who won't admit to an error!
And Broder's unbroken trail of lies speaks volumes as well...
Asheville, N.C.: ...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.
Hmmm. I guess the ethics of journalism are changing. It used to be that they'd make research/sources notes which were immediately at-hand for reference when prompted. Now, reporters seem to take the pseudonymous MMfA commenter approach of making an assertion and then saying "I'm not doing your research for you..." when challenged for references.
I think the paranoid freak actually thinks he was set up.
Well, seems to me that Broder's right on a couple counts here. To get such a prompt response from 50 Democratic Senators sounds like plain ol' strong-arm politics -- sounds a lot like Republican lockstep that we've grown to know. Also, Reid hasn't exactly done a stunning job of making the Democratic Party look really good, excapt by comparison. But for Broder to compare Reid to Gonzalesis wrong, wrong, wrong! Gonzales is right up there with Cheney and Rumsfeld as an architect of Bush's failure both as President and as an American.
If that were true, why was Broder utterly and completely unable to provide ANY evidence before or after the Dems' response, to support his claim that even one Democrat wanted Reid gone or anything close to that?
I don't know about you, but if people slandered me in a major publication like WaPo, it would not take me long to deny it or to get together with others similarly slandered to do so. So why is it necessary to hypothesize that someone pushed those falsely accused to stand up for themselves, if not for someone they supported?
Any journalist who revealed his sources in a situation like that wouldn't remain a journalist very long. Time will tell us if Broder was right or if he was making it all up.
What a pathetic old man. This is pure evidence of what a lack of sex does to man. Broder is yet another COWARD repubCHICKEN exposed for his LIES! Does any repubCHICKEN have a shred of credibility? ROFLMAO!