...some of McCain's more enthusiastic cheerleaders in the media like to argue that this style of destructive politics was foisted upon McCain involuntarily...

As Brad DeLong is fond of saying: "The Cossacks work for the Tsar."

And I think one of the take-aways from Nixonland is that they'll govern -- or 'govern' -- the way they campaign.

I've come up with an analogy that captures my feelings about this. When McCain called for an end to "partisan rancor" on the final night of the RNC, it was like hearing Jimi Hendrix, at the end of the Woodstock festival, calling for an end to rock music.

Steve, please. Did you really need to post that right after breakfast? Gah.

If we appraise McCain's campaign honestly, what he would apparently "reform" is the very style of nasty divisive politics that he is using to get elected in the first place.

At some point voters must begin to judge McCain by his deeds not his words. And while he wants to be the old 2000 McCain, the bi-partisan maverick McCain, the truth is that in the two most important decisions he has made as candidate -- the choice of running mate and the kind of campaign he will run -- he has chosen to be a thoroughly conventional Right Wing cultural warrior -- a creature (dare I say POW) of the GOP base. There is nothing "maverick" about Maverick except his empty promises.

I'm with Charles.

Here's the thing: fine, you want to run a scorched-Earth campaign guaranteed to divide the country a little bit more by increasing rancor and cynicism, then, well that's awful enough.

But if you then, on top of that, represent yourself as a "uniter not a divider"...well, that's a whole new level of despicable-ness.

Bush hit that level...but McCain seems almost to be out-doing him.

McCain loves a fight and searches for a fight wherever he can find it.

Broder tries once again, after repeating this same tired argument for several months. His hope that either candidate can bring a bipartisan spirit to Washington is simply ignoring the fact that the Maverick he once loved and admired has been "reformed" by the Rove team. McCain is still the fighter but one who has no qualms about hitting below the belt. True bipartisanship relies on a strong base of trust which McCain and his team has shattered in this campaign. McCain, Palin, Lindsay Graham, and Joe Leiberman won't be able to govern by themselves.

This why I really like the growing refrain from the Obmama camp: McCain has adopted Bush's policies AND his Rove-style politics. They need to keep hammering this point.

Did you hear that the Democrats beat 120,000 children to death with 120,000 flags during the convention? John McCain hasn't mentioned it or tried to embarrass the Dems with it. He's an honorable man.

WTF I am watching Joe Biden on meet the press and they played the mayor vs community organizer slur from Palin and he says: "That's a good line she has a lot of good lines " HUH? Then he goes on to say she's a smart politician. Welcome to Kerry 2 you spineless fucking wimp!

In Broder's world, America and republican are synonyms. Country first means republican first. Bi-partisan means agreeing with whatever the republican are after. I can't remember the last thing he's uttered that I could even pretend to take seriously. To call his opinions nonsense might be pushing things a bit far, but hollow gobbledygook seems reasonably fair.
Broder is probably proud to be considered the 'Dean of DC pundits'. If he lived closer to reality, he'd realize it's an insult.

OOPS, somebody quickly get to Obama who apparently, as see on TPM, believes you "Can't just make things up!"...has he been listening to McShame and Scarah??? Not only CAN Repugs just make things up they can get our MSM to repeat them as if they are fact checked truths...SAVE US...

David Broder is old. No, wait, David Broder is TOO old! -Kevo

Broder himself is obviously a partisan Republican.

It's simply not credible to treat him as anything else; and it's time to challenge - not Broder himself - but those other pundits who fail to directly to his face call him on his obvious agenda.

Call me an optimist, but I don't believe McCain's non-partisan uniter spiel worked at all. After the jarring attacks by his surrogates the previous couple of days, his claim to be an American first rang hollow with just about everybody. Broder, of course, is the exception. Talk about living in a bubble.

I am a lifelong Dem, but given our inability to play politics at the same level as the Republicans. Maybe we deserve the title - Loyal Opposition. We are the Republican enablers. The Country is worse off or it.

I'm sure everyone's seen it, but just in case you haven't check out Jon Stewart's Friday 5th show. You'll get the true lowdown on McCain's 'Life Story'. It's brilliant and rich.

You give Rove too much credit. Read the Helms biography and you'll see similar tactics (remember Lee Atwater, remember where Charlie Black started?)

You go, Steve!

I think at least part of Broder's line is accurate.

McCain believes that his election, by any means necessary, is in the national interest.

He will save this country from its citizens, even if that means destroying it.

You should set up a TRUTH watch and keep a log of every TRUE statement that McCain says for the next few weeks.

Catching his lies is too easy -- every time he opens his mouth it's another tall tale.

Make it a contest. First reader who can spot 3 truthful statements by Nov. from McCain wins a $100. I bet you'll never have to pay off before the election.

John McCain had plenty of opportunities to display his bi-partisan chops during the last two years. He could have helped bring forward legislation clearly supported by a majority of the House and Senate by refusing to go along with GOP led filibusters against that legislation in the Senate. If he had broken with the GOP partisanship, he might have brought along some other GOP Senators like Spector, Snowe, Collins etc. In fact, had he been so inclined, he could have led a centrist, bi-partisan coalition that could have seized the initiative to bring about the kind of pragmatic, in-the-national-interest legislation he claims to want.

The fact that such a scenario seems absurd to contemplate indicates how absurd it would be to think that he would do it as President.

"I'll embarrass a Democrat any time I get the chance." That line would make the core of a powerful attack ad. It is his own words and completely contradicts his image as a non-partisan maverick.

What distinguishes the McCain campaign and modern Republicanism is the complete disdain for Reason and Rationality. It's only important to go through the motions. Words are so divorced from meaning that they've become props. Words don't contain meaning which is strange for a party made of so many Biblical literalists. Apparently they believe that utterances outside the Bible are so trivial that they have no significance and the normal moral injunctions to tell the truth are of no consequence. How else to explain the instantaneous abandonment of the importance of experience? As soon as the announcement of Palin was made, it was as if the theme of experience was the Wicked Witch of the West dissolving under water.

Neo-cons believe that the mass of men are incapable of ruling themselves, and it's depressing and disgusting to note that there's nothing about the Republican campaign that would refute that idea.

Voting with Bush 90% of the time is the best evidence that McCain is solidly partisan. If his record showed 50% or even 60% then it might be bipartisanship we could believe in.

The reason that we liberals think conservaties are complete hypocrites is because we don't understand the meaning that conservatives give to words.

We we hear McCain decry "partisanship" we think he means that two sides with two different views should be able to sit down civily and work out differences. That's what we mean by the word, and its why we think he's being a hypocrite when his party's entire convention was devoted to polarizing the country more. What we don't understand is that when conservatives attack "partisanship" what they are attacking is anyone who holds a view different from theirs. To be a conservative is to be loyalist. To be liberal is to be partisan, divisive. That's the ideological and religious nature of the GOP base that's sees dissent as deviance.

It's just like the problem we had trying to understand the Soviets when they accused the US of making "war" and being against "peace" when all we were doing is urging communist insurgents to put down their arms and work with others. Since in the language of the Soviets "peace" did not mean the absence of war but the condition when all countries were communist, it made perfect sense in the Soviet view to say that whenever th US urged peace or non-violence it was really promoting war. Bi-partisanship in the GOP view of things is just as twisted.

Broder is the epitome of a mealy, platitudinous idiot tool. A disgrace to his profession.