Yep, who but David Broder can bring out the full Daffy Duck side to my personality. I'd rather read Malkin's work (illogical is at least perplexing which will likely lead to one or two brain cells firing; insipid is just boring, predictable and groan-worthy).
He sees in Senators Warner, McCain and Graham the growth of a new "independence party", a party that will stand up for the Declaration of independence's ideas. What. A. Low. Bar. Not standing up for the Declaration mind you - but standing up to upholding US treaties, US laws and a recent Supreme Court opinion. Such bravery! Such boldness! So much to admire! And who is in this party that's taken the bold step of arguing for upholding Supreme Court opinions, US law and opposing torture (apparently respecting habeas corpus is no longer something the Declaration stands for, b/c these guys don't seem to value that)? Why it's those three GOP senators, Mayor Bloomberg, Colin Powell, Joe Lieberman and Mike DeWine. Yes, apparently Democrats, all Democrats (every single Democrat in the Senate stands for these) don't merit including in this bold new party that respects what the country stands for. Why? Well maybe it has something to do with the fact that Broder admits to personally disliking know-it-alls like John Kerry and Al Gore. Hmmm, so he doesn't like know-it-alls but he's got a hard-on for men who want to trash habeas corpus and create a situation in which thousands of innocent people can be held indefinitely by the US government. Yep, this is exactly the guy we should rely on to trumpet who's really doing the liberty-supporting work that the Founders would be proud of in DC.
The mind reels. He rejects one party out of hand because he has a personal distaste for the party's leaders (even though that's the party that uniformly stands for exactly what he's supposedly praising), he praises the creation of a new party that doesn't and won't exist, and in so doing praises a set of people who, for the most part, have little power, many of whom may have none whatsoever in a year or two. This man and his columns are so pointless (aside from serving as convenient bits of free press for GOP candidates). But that's self-evident, right? He gets on my nerves, and as he himself says, if people are annoying no one should bother taking them, their policies, or the possibility that they might be right remotely seriously. So ... why does the Post still employ this self-important crank?
Posted by armand at September 21, 2006 11:30 AM | TrackBack | Posted to MediaHunter has a great diary on this column on Daily Kos. He tears it apart piece by piece, giving it the ful derision it deserves.
And what on Earth is "Dean" Broder going to do now that his precious Republican (supposed) defenders of what's morally right have caved in to the president's demands? Is he going to write a column saying that this party he saw forming isn't going to form after all? Or that now we have to hold our noses and support Democrats b/c now they are the only one supporting the policy Broder championed? Somehow, I strongly doubt either one of those column will come dripping from his insipid pen.
Posted by: Armand at September 21, 2006 10:52 PM | PERMALINKIt's hardly the worst of his errors, but the idea of the authoritarian McCain as a defender of the Declaration of Independence (btw, WTF?) is just laughable.
Posted by: jacflash at September 21, 2006 11:04 PM | PERMALINK