April 05, 2006

David Broder Examines the DeLay Resignation

And yet again I'm left wondering why The Washington Post continues to print his stuff. He seems stuck in some politics/Washington that hasn't exitsed in a very long time, and seems to so often just land glancing blows at a story, not capture it on a deeper level. Take this for example:

With DeLay's departure, the Democrats lose their most convenient symbol of abuse of power by the Republican majority -- but they have not lost the issue. DeLay's successor as majority leader, John Boehner of Ohio, continues to manage the House on the same partisan basis, looking for votes almost exclusively on his own side of the aisle and declining to offer Democrats any incentives to cooperate.
Um, how does having to resign in the face of a very possible electoral defeat (and of course a possible indictment) cost the Democrats a symbol? If they run a big Culture of Corruption ad (as the should all fall) they can now stamp a big red "resigned" across a black and white shot of DeLay's face, right after they flash "convicted" over Duke Cunningham's face. And Broder seems to think that pastisanship is the key political issue here? Oh, Mr. Broder - as if. True, when you were just a young reporter and Washington still had lots of open segregationists strict partisanship in the House might not have been the norm - but it has been for a very long time. What makes DeLay a winning issue (and an appalling blight on the American political scene) is his shady dealings, the K Street Project, and the culture of corruption he's helped foster. Everyone expects Washington politicians to be partisan. No one cares about that (well, I guess you do - and that's so cute and nostalgic!). Fostering corruption was the story last week and it will be the story next month (as DeLay begins his journey to a new, lucrative lobbying career?).

Posted by armand at April 5, 2006 09:31 AM | TrackBack | Posted to Media


Comments
Post a comment









Remember personal info?