I take no pleasure in returning, once again, to pointing out still more errors of fact and judgment from the WaPo’s David Broder. For reasons that continue to puzzle me, the “dean” of the DC media establishment continues to slip further and further away from coherent analysis, leading to yesterday’s revealing online chat with Washington Post readers.
Broder’s recent attack on Harry Reid was a major topic of discussion. (all misspellings appear in the original)
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.
I’m genuinely surprised that Broder is this confused. He fundamentally doesn’t understand what happened here. The Senate Democratic caucus didn’t “spontaneously and simultaneously chose to express their confidence” in Reid for no reason — they did so because David Broder wrote a column suggesting that some of them want to replace Harry Reid. “Question their motives”? What in the world is Broder talking about? His column was wrong; 50 senators got together to correct him. Broder appears to have made up an idea out of whole cloth and was exposed by half the Senate. Why would he “love” this?
Later in the same chat, another reader asked about the allegedly long list of senators (from both parties, according to Broder) who disapprove of Reid’s performance. The reader asked which Democratic senators “were on that long list.” Broder responded, “The senators will have to speak for themselves, but his record speaks volumes.”
That’s a classic non-sequitur — 50 senators said Broder got the facts wrong. Alluding to Reid’s “record” is irrelevant; either Broder was accurate or he wasn’t. By dodging the question, Broder seems to concede the answer. So where’s the correction?
Another reader brought up the prosecutor purge scandal.
Tucson, Ariz.: Why do you not see the politicization of the Department of Justice as a grievous threat to constitutional principles? Why does it not irritate you that selective firing of U.S. Attorneys who are investigating Republican corruption and mendacity is obstruction of justice and clearly illegal in all local, state and federal codes?
David S. Broder: What makes you think I am not offended by the politicization of the Justice Department.
I don’t know, Mr. Broder, maybe it was your column from late March that argued the prosecutor purge scandal isn’t worth investigating and is unlikely to help Democrats politically, so they should focus their attention elsewhere.
This exchange also stood out.
Baltimore: What would you say to try to regain the confidence of someone like me who has become increasingly skeptical of opinion makers like you because you have been so wrong so many times about the Bush administration and Iraq?
David S. Broder: I would urge you to view skeptically what any of us–including myself–say. We are very fallible. I certainly misjudged George W. Bush when he was a candidate, and that is not the only such misjudgment I have made. Not by a long shot.
Finally, a point of agreement.