When Are People Going to Stop Taking Broder the Fool Seriously?

I am convinced that our political pundits and commentators are, as a group, among the very worst on the planet. There are the obvious right wing sociopaths, of course--Limbaugh, Hannity, Malkin, Coulter, O'Beirne, Boortz, Savage, Stossel, O'Reilly, and all the other bottom feeders, trolls, and chronic liars. Then there are the less obvious but even more dangerous "political experts"--Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, and especially David Broder. They're more dangerous because they seem superficially reasonable, and yet they stick the knife in the backs of Democrats just about any chance they get, while playing softball with the right wing criminals that are killing America. Broder stands out as the most dangerous of all because of his high status as the "Dean" of American political reporters. MediaMatters, however, has the Dean's number--and his record. Here is a generous sample:

In 1998, Broder suggested President Clinton should resign, apparently because he "he may well have lied to a federal grand jury." Read that again: Broder wasn't even sure if he thought Clinton lied to a federal grand jury, but thought he should resign. Because maybe he lied. About an affair.

But in 2006, Broder wrote that President Bush "has proved to be lawless and reckless. He started a war he cannot finish, drove the government into debt and repeatedly defied the Constitution." Did he think this "lawless and reckless" president who "repeatedly defied the Constitution" should resign? If he thought so, he did not tell us. Broder believes his president is a lawless man who repeatedly defies the Constitution -- yet this superman, this titan, this great and influential man will not say it is time for the president to step down. Now, if Bush "may well have lied" about sex ... then, perhaps this titan would be stirred to speak out a little more boldly.

Broder has repeatedly and disingenuously defended his window-peering coverage of the Clintons' marriage, despite having previously denounced such journalism. He hasn't entirely abandoned his earlier stance, though: when asked if he would write a similar article about Republican candidates, Broder replied: "Why would I write such an article? I know of no occasion for that." He is, however, "the most objective and respected reporter" Tim Russert knows.

In 2002, when Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, a prominent leader in the Republican Party, was forced to step down from his leadership position after suggesting the country would have been better off had we elected a segregationist president in 1948, David Broder explained that the "losers" in the matter were ... Democrats, because four years earlier, they hadn't impeached President Clinton.

In 2005, Broder blamed Democrats -- who were in the minority in both the House and the Senate -- for Congress' failure to conduct oversight hearings. Which, of course, they didn't have the power to do, being in the minority and all. Then, in March 2007 -- just two months into Democratic control of Congress -- Broder complained that the House had "slowed to a crawl," doing little other than "filling time with investigations." Later that month, Broder claimed "Democrats find it easier to investigate than to legislate. ... Accountability is certainly important, but Democrats must know that people were really voting for action on Iraq, health care, immigration, energy and a few other problems. Investigations are useful, but only legislation on big issues changes lives." In yet another March column, Broder warned, "It seems doubtful that Democrats can help themselves ... with more investigations ... At some point, Democrats have to give people something to vote for. People already know what they're against -- the Republicans."

So, when Democrats didn't control Congress, David Broder thought that oversight hearings were good, and blamed Democrats -- who lacked the authority to conduct such hearings -- for their absence. Now that Democrats control Congress, Broder warns Democrats not to conduct oversight investigations.

In 2005, Broder actually touted President Bush's response to Hurricane Katrina. 'Nuff said.

In December 2006, Broder praised Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld as "stalwarts of economic and national security policy." No, really.

And this Bush-Cheney apologist is the "best of the best" as he has been called? He thinks Bush did a good job in handling Katrina?!? He thinks Clinton should have resigned for lying about having affair but thinks Bush should stay in office even though Broder has called Bush lawless and blamed him for starting the war?!? What in the hell kind of "logic" is that?!?

Yes, friends, this is the true state of political commentary in America. Whatever happens, according to the pundits, is basically bad for Democrats. All blame rests on the Democrats, even for events over which they had no control. Democrats are "inauthentic" and "elitist". The narrative is simple: People like Cheney are the "serious adults" while Democrats are "shrill". It is this crackbrained cheerleading for the Right that has dragged this country to the brink of catastrophe. Yes, Broder has criticized Bush, but his real fire has been reserved for Bush's enemies--the people trying to save America. Broder has been consistently wrong in his judgments. It is time for him to suffer the ultimate fate of all those who wrongly imagine themselves to be deep thinking and insightful:

To be ignored.