Worst. Bipartisanship-OpEd. Ever.

Will WaPo ever realize Broder's "course has run"?

I don't think there's any doubt that Franken is at least as smart on policy as the majority of current Senators. But he's also acquired a record of being fearlessly critical of established power and institutions, which is something Broder and other members of the D.C. power elite find threatening. For those people, Franken's history as a comedian and entertainer offers a convenient way to dismiss him.

of course he's also a cum laude harvard grad, which i believe may put him at least one up on broder...
to say nothing of a whole lot of senators.

When are people going to stop calling Broder a "bipartisan fetishist?"

Don't get me wrong, that clearly is his intent with these articles, but has he done this when Republicans were in power? Of course not.

Broder, calling for bipartisanship, is clearly just Broder asking for Obama to help Republicans out, not the country.

It's not surprising that Broder starts off his column with an insult-- I think it's fair to expect that Senator Franken will be a loyal Democrat, and to Broder, this is pretty much the road to perdition. In addition, in the not too distant past, Franken wrote a book that said negative things about Rush Limbaugh-- true things, but not bipartisan things. Tsk. Bad Al Franken.

The article by Broder shows what Broder's thinking is about politics. He sounds as if he has been in bed with the last administrtion. I don't recall questioning Bush about his intelligence and making fun of his thinking of various speaking patterns or actions. After all I recall that Franken is also a well versed lawyer in all subjects regarding the current legislation. Has Broder ever listened to "Air America" when Franken was the host? I hope that Broder hasn't forgotten that our former President Regan was a B actor. Of course he was a Republican. What about Bono that belonged to the US Senate? Of course he was a Republican. It shows the different standards held by the two parties.

"and what he wanted to talk about was the arithmetic of Social Security, or the structure of Medicare Part D"

Really? Well, I can hardly wait to hear what Franken thinks of this administrations current spending. Nobody, and I mean nobody is making much sense about arithmetic in this administration, or Congress. I'll bet Franken fits right in with the majority.

I am also sure Broder is slightly freaked with the two grade school friends from MN whom Franken remains extremely close: Norm Orenstein,Tom Friedman.
Both will have his back.

How about a multiple-choice policy test for Franken, Inhofe, Boehner, Palin et. al. with some kind of friendly wager on the side (like who gets to determine near-term the fate of the free world)? I'd take Franken.

Re: Senate bipartisanship - why should Senate bills be bipartisan in the first place?

Democrats should stop using the term 'bipartisan' which implies 'two equal parts'.

The new term should be "3:2-partisanship" eg: we will make every effort to make the bill "3:2-partisan".

In the early 80s, at a political convention, a friend and I ran into David Broder and stopped to chat a few minutes. I laughed delightedly when my friend (a journo herself) teased, "You've just been interviewed by David Broder!"

Dang, he was so good a reporter for so long. Awful to see someone like that so overstay his professional usefulness. But that's WaPo for you, isn't it?

it isn't broder's bipartisan evangelism campaign that brings on simulations of the pleasure of toothache... it is the sublime folly of his insights.

broder constantly expects his readers to buy into the facade of bipartisanship he describes -- which nowhere exists or could exist on a mortal plane. here is where broder reminds of the man behind the curtain in oz...

broder is a mild-mannered propagandist for corporate amerika ("loud-mouthed comedian": jesus-fucking-christ, david, how terribly harsh of you...) yer too hocked up to your ears in the system ever to fake a good jimmy stewart, david...

it's a shame that a long time ago, Dr. Hunter S. Thompson gave Broder some sort of cache which now has the scent of fried pig skins...

I must agree with Mr Broder - It would behoove the Democratic Party to work with loud mouthed former human beings in the RepuG Party, if, indeed, there are any.

And if Broder is calling Al Franken a"loud-mouthed comedian," it's obvious he's never seen a Chris Rock routine or a Lewis Black segment.

If I had a dollar for every time David Broder has spoken up to defend the virtues of "bipartisanship" ever and only since the Democrats handed Republicans their asses in recent elections, I could retire a wealthy man.

Fixed

Fairly obvious question, but has Broder ever called the various horrors the Republicans the Republicans have given us==there's a very partial list in Justjohn's comment above--anything as intemperate as 'loud-mouthed'?

Broder is a blatantly biased idiot. Too bad he doesn't get out of DC enough to see get a good look at himself in the mirror. All of America's understands just how out of touch the DC pundits have become. They've been stripped of any protective camouflage by the Presidential election and the economic implosion: these guys live in their own little world of greed and power detached from any reality. He should retire before he's replaced by bloggers - opps, too late...

How much did the Washington Post intend to charge for an evening at the "Salon" with Broder?!

Mr Broder, please tell us more about the bipartaniship views of Grover Norquist. Of course, ol' Grover did allow anyone in the RepuG Party to have those views as long as they maintained a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" sort of policy.

about time -- have to disagree there. Broder was calling on Democrats to cooperate in a bipartisan manner with Republicans when Dems were in the minority, too.

Senate loudmouths (just off the top of my head, in no particular order). "Loudmouth" defined as someone who spouts off without knowing what they're talking about.

Inhofe, DeMint, Graham, the other dumb Okie senator, (notice how we've only gotten through two states with this?), Cornyn, Vitter, Chambliss, McCain, the other Arizona idiot, Thune, Bunning...

To paraphraise Mark Twain: "Consider a (Republican) Congressman, then consider an idiot. Ah, but I repeat myself."

Going back to 1969, every one of David Broder's lectures on "bipartisanship" have been him telling Democrats to cooperate with Republicans because the Republicans "have their finger on the pulse of the country." He in fact used that argument directly quoted in telling the Democrats in 1969 to go along with Nixon's Vietnam policy, since it was what the American people wanted, and the Democrats would get in a lot of trouble if they continued to oppose the war.

And every one of Broder's "advice" over the past 40 years has been WRONG when viewed in hindsight with the relevant history. EVERY ONE!

How this halfwitted hack ever became the "dean" of the Washington Press Corpse is beyond me. Ooops - I answered my own question!

If Broder wants to see a whole bunch of "loud-mouthed comedians" he should check out Congress when it's in session.

David Broder is a decorous Village rube who happens to have a job at a paper in which he can express how much he really dislikes loud-mouthed and trashy DC newcomers who don't know their proper place.

His columns have news value only for the people who meet him at cocktail parties and other social occasions in DC, cause that allows them to start a little polite small talk with the words: "By the way, I read your last column about ..., and you're so right, ...".

In return, Broder is kind enough not to overtax the members of his social network by dutifully keeping to his leitmotif of bipartisanship. In that way nobody he shares his cocktails with ever feels the unpleasant urge to disagree with and everybody gets along fabulously.

Will WaPo ever realize Broder's "course has run"?
Posted by: Danp
-----------------------

The short answer, of course, is "no."

I think the Post sees Broder's columns as being a lot like Peanuts. No one thought Schulz's death would put an end to the strip, and it hasn't. They just run the old ones, and the Posties probably think they'll be running Broder columns them long after The Dean has become The Late Dean.

And why not? They'll probably be just as appropriate then as now.

And Broder appreciates officials who raise the level of discourse in American politics, right?

Broder's problem is that he doesn't understand what raising the level of discourse means.

David Broder's mind is as crystal clear as Sarah Palin's.

Broder actually seems like someone who would make a nice neighbor, as long as my yard maintained certain rules and my dog didn't bark.

Here's the thing with Franken - the narrative is written, and the media never strays from the narrative. So it doesn't matter that he actually knows more then about 90% of the people in the senate (sadly, not a difficult feat...). He is and will always be "a loud mouth", a "clown", etc.

Well, at least Franken is a *former* comedian, though he still has his sense of humour, which allowed him to be an entertaining and successful one. But some of the rest of the clowns (Tom C in LA has the list, @14:28) were never very amusing and they're *still* clowns and still as clueless as ever. If Broder thinks that Senate has turned into a second-rate circus, he may have a point but he needs to look to his own party for culprits.

I remember a time -- oh, 25 years ago -- when Broder used to be on Washington Week, when it was run by someone good and was worth watching.

At that time, he was relatively sane. I remember running into him @ Dulles Airport and complimenting him on his work. He was gracious.

However, since at least the Bush Administration he's really gone off the rails. I don't know what it is: folks not listening to his "advice" and regarding him as King of All Washington? Who knows?

But he's an embarrassment and should be banished from the pages of the WaHo.

I guess Broder hasn't noticed all the efforts made by Obama and Congressional Dems to get bipartisan efforts and votes.

Looks like Broder is just reminiscing instead of reporting.

karl rove has been criticized for going after bills strong enough (from the conservative point of view) that would gather only 51 votes. That strong partisanship has been attributed helping to lead to the failure of republicans at the polls. Many on the democratic side internalized that critique and do not want to duplicate that "mistake".
But Rove's partisanship was not the problem, the policies were. If the republicans had gotten fifty one votes for policies that left the country in good condition they would be in the majority for a long time.
Republicans are still extremely partisan, and even now they use "bipartisanship" only to kill any chance a bill has of being successful for democrats.
The democrats are at the front end of a democratic majority. It is time to do some good policy, as partisan as it needs to be to succeed, give it some time to work, and let the political rewards come.

From East Grand Rapids he came and to East Grand Rapids he is returning. No one wants to tell the old duffer that he could confess to murder in one of his columns are remain at large, but the next buyer of the Post group will probably replace him with Meaghan McCain. He'll wait for his friends to find him something else, and when he finds he lost his friends with his column, he'll pack his grips, go home and write that book whose jacket will have the remainder sticker already attached.

The good news is, he'll have plenty of autographed copies by his Laz-E-Boy to throw at the set when loudmouth Al Franken appears.

How about a multiple-choice policy test for Franken, Inhofe, Boehner, Palin et. al. with some kind of friendly wager on the side (like who gets to determine near-term the fate of the free world)? I'd take Franken.

I'd take Franken, too, and give points.

The best friendly wager would be if Franken wins, Broder retires.

Broder seems to imply that 60 votes isn't very much because the 60th vote is a liberal. But the 60th vote will be Ben Nelson of Mary Lanrieu or Evan Bayh, etc They are equivalent to republicans before the the republicans went bat-sh*t crazy.

Unfortunately for Franken, being a policy wonk won't win him any friends on the Sunday morning talk shows. Anybody who tries to discuss specifics of any program is accused of "getting into the weeds". Chris Wallace uses that phrase all the time. I think it's just his way of saying "I don't know enough about the subject so I can't refute what you're saying".

Franken indeed is a policy wonk and let's not forget that actor and TV host Ronald Reagan was, too. In his early '30s radio sportscaster days, Reagan amazed colleagues with his knowledge of news far away. He agonized over Stalin's treatment of Ukrainian
farmers when others didn't even know where the Ukraine was.
Ideology aside, just as Reagan was more than a "B-picture actor,"
Al Franken is more than a loud-mouth comedian.

Reagan amazed colleagues with his knowledge of news far away. He agonized over Stalin's treatment of Ukrainian
farmers when others didn't even know where the Ukraine was.
==================================

And each month, as soon as the Reader's Digest came out, he had opinions too! A most amazing man.

There's no comparison with Franken, who actually knows what he's talking about.

Everything dynamic and very positively! :)
Zoran