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.