Broder’s confusion

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.

Aw, sheesh—stop calling Broder the “dean” of the DC media establishment. He surrendered his right to that title years ago—and should be summarily demoted to “spleen” of the DC media establishment, as his journalistic intellect has devolved into a symbiance with a certain internal organ that a person can easily live without….

  • 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.

    In fact, Broder is using irony to obliquely questioning their motives. His point, I believe, is that they were strong armed into signing the letter.

  • Broder’s been a horse’s ass since at least 1969, when he wrote a defense of Richard Nixon against all those forces out to “destroy the presidency” as they had with Johnson. (Click my name below, go to That’s Another Fine Mess, scroll down and read the whole original) Ken Silverstein at Washington Babylon traced back bullshit like this clear to 1982 (as far back as it was online).

    David Broder was born a moron. He’s been a journalistic asshole since he typed the first letter of the first word of the first column he ever wrote. How this otherwise-unemployable came to be seen as “intelligent” and the “dean” is why the group he’s a member of isnow known as the Washginton Press Corpse. In the land of the blind, the man who can on occasion distinguish light from darkness is king. That’s Broder.

  • Jonathan Chait wrote a really good piece in The New Republic (not perfect, not totally free of TNR’s evidently genetic asshattery, but very worthwhile and interesting nonetheless) about the rise of the online left–what prompted it and what it pushes back against. As to the second part, he probably could have saved time by just writing “David Broder”–the perfect two-word shorthand for the absurd worldview that privileges “evenhandedness” and “neutrality” over honest analysis (if not objective truth itself, to the extent that’s possible.)

    Chait points out that if there’s one moment of origin for the “netroots mindset” (my phrase, not his), it was the Florida recount, when one side fought savagely to win and the other–ours–seemed mostly concerned with not offending anyone. I have no wish–no mental toughness, no digestive strength–to go back and look at what Broder was writing in those days, but I certainly have a guess.

  • I would have said Broder was being self-depreacting…

    That he was saying all the Democrats changed their minds by magic because he was embarassed at how badly he’d missed the mark….

    He was delighted by the letter because it DOES make a terrific story and souvenir for kids as a lesson in humility “as a testament to what a dope their grandfather was”….

    It would have all been very charming if he hadn’t followed up with the comment: “The senators will have to speak for themselves, but his record speaks volumes.” which seems to think he feels his opinion is more sound than 50 US Senators.

    It may well be true… but it’s not a humble thing to say.

    The whole exchange comes across as a prescription for a mild psychoactive pharmaceutical intervention.

  • I agree with Broder, the letter is gfoing up on my wallo as well. In fact when you think about it, shouldn’t the letter gfo up on ALL of our walloes?

    Time to retire, sir.

  • Comments are closed.