Beltway Broderism Taking It On The Chin

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Off Topic
Posted on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 03:23:36 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

One of the more interesting things to happen politically this year is the manner in which the Beltway Establishment has basically been utterly rejected by most of the country. While David Broder bleats for "sensible bipartisanship" without ever explaining what substantive policies should actually look like, the American People have basically rejected the performance of the Washington Establishment.

For Democrats in Washington, their performance on Iraq has pushed their approval ratings to extreme lows. For Republicans, it has been Bush's immigration bill.

One thing is clear about this year, the big loser has been the Washington Elite. NOBODY likes them. They have never been as out of step with the country as they are now. I wonder if they have any clue about this.

< 2006: America Increases as Prison Nation | Same Time, Next Year >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Beltway Broderism Taking It On The Chin | 10 comments (10 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The truth is . . . (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by hellskitchen on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 04:35:25 PM EST

neither party gives a damn what the people think. Individual politicians might, but when the whole group is together, protecting their flanks is more important than protecting the interests of the people (i.e., society at large).

Until we have true election reform where money isn't equated with free speech, nothing's going to change. In some other countries, the government sponsors the election, each candidate/party gets the same amount of exposure. In some countries they even ban campaigning several days before the election so the the populace can reflect on their options without the intrusion of politicians' chatter.

I don't know whether it was Ben Franklin or Tom Paine that said this (paraphrased) about the requirement to own property in order to vote:

Yesterday a man had a mule worth $50, so he was allowed to vote. Today, the mule dies and the man has no property. So tell me, who voted, the man or the mule?

The problems you describe are obviously (none / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 03:37:19 PM EST

partisan. What this country needs is more bipartisanship!

-----------------------------

More seriously, I think what's beneath most beltway wisdom is that most Americans don't actually believe in any partisan ideas, and that they're just sick of the "bickering." It's a road to whiny Liebermanism.

This is Arnold's meme also. But his (none / 0) (#2)
by oculus on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 03:55:15 PM EST

popularity ratings are pretty good at present.


But he's a celebrity (none / 0) (#5)
by hellskitchen on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 04:20:42 PM EST

And, my, our people do love celebrities.


So is Thompson. Caution advised. (none / 0) (#7)
by oculus on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 04:36:10 PM EST

: Exactly my point. (eom) (none / 0) (#8)
by hellskitchen on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 04:37:33 PM EST

"Sensible bipartisanship" (none / 0) (#3)
by Alien Abductee on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 03:56:16 PM EST

I guess one example of how this works would be PBS hiring Frank Luntz to provide post-forum analysis of the next Democratic debate. Both Democrats and Republicans are involved, so it's bipartisan, right?

Broder rejects Broder (none / 0) (#4)
by profmarcus on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 04:13:27 PM EST

mark the date - june 28, 2005 - on your calendar as the moment that david broder, the consummate spokesperson of washington's elite punditry and the unabashed consumer of all the pearls that fall from the mouths of the white house swine, began to let a little light shine in on the fetid swamp that passes for his mind...

[W]hen presidential candidate George W. Bush chose Dick Cheney as his running mate, I applauded the choice... . Boy, was I wrong.
[...]
Bush has allowed Cheney to play a bureaucratic role inside the White House that Cheney never permitted anyone to employ when he was guarding the door as Gerald Ford's chief of staff.
He could exercise this power only with the compliance of the president and only because he often could bypass the procedures he had put in place in the Ford administration, procedures meant to protect the president's interests. He used his intelligence and his grasp on the levers of power -- and most of all he used secrecy -- to outflank and outwit others and thereby shape the Bush administration's agenda.
It was not illegal, and it was not unconstitutional, but it could not have happened unless the president permitted it and enabled it.

remember, i said that it was only a LITTLE light... when he says it "was not illegal, and it was not unconstitutional," i will give broder the benefit of the doubt and assume he's referring to cheney's exercise of power... the remaining light that needs to penetrate his thick skull is that many of the OUTCOMES of that exercise of power are very clearly BOTH illegal AND unconstitutional... ah, well... a step at a time...

And, yes, I DO take it personally

The Convenient Repug (none / 0) (#10)
by Dan D on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 09:29:41 PM EST

Please...the only reason that Broder, Coulter, et al or distancing themselves from President Shrub is because it is politically expedient for them to do so. The entire Repug Party have decided that they have nothing to lose by throwing the Boy King under the bus, so they do. So much for loyalty! The Repugs realize they need to go on the offensive to gain back Congress, and maintain the Executive, next year.
Certainly, the American public feels disenfrachised, because the corporate sponsored media has told them that "the Democrats promised to get us out of Iraq. They failed. So your attempt to change government in 2006 failed and you are impotent." They do this because they believe, rightly so, that the moderate American voter and many liberals will give up and not show up at the polls. But who will show up? The Religious Right; Neocons and their followers; Dittoheads; Republican diehards; Republicans who worship the rich; etc.
So when hellskitchen above says that neither party cares, it is a direct assault on liberal candidates. It's time to stop playing the game of the corporate MSM and Repugs, and to tell people that the Liberal Democratic Party will make a positive difference in their lives...if they put 60 of us in the Senate!

Broder lost me long ago (none / 0) (#11)
by SeeEmDee on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:49:03 AM EST

with his griping about the referendum process undermining 'democracy'...at least, his version of it. With that, he proved himself another Power Fellator; such a process seems to be the only way to end-run the barriers imposed by a corrupt and self-serving legislature riddled with special interests. It represents actual democracy as opposed to the Potemkin Village sort his masters project. So, of course, he rails against it and anything else that even remotely reminds the hoi polloi that they are indeed supposed to determine their own fates...not have them determined for them by their self-appointed 'betters'.