×
LOW BRODERISM. One could spend considerably more text than the column itself explaining the countless problems with David Broder's latest adventures in center-right false equivalence. First, you have the Dean's horror over Harry Reid's criticism of Alan Greenspan's political motives, just because the latter's positions on fiscal policy changed when it came time to justify Bush's upper class tax cuts, the horror! And then there's this:
Given the way the Constitution divides warmaking power between the president, as commander in chief, and Congress, as sole source of funds to support the armed services, it is essential that at some point Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi be able to negotiate with the White House to determine the course America will follow until a new president takes office.To say that Reid has sent conflicting signals about his readiness for such discussions is an understatement. It has been impossible for his own members, let alone the White House, to sort out for more than 24 hours at a time what ground Reid is prepared to defend.Let's try to connect the dots of Broder's argument here:
- Harry Reid is willing to modify legislation concerning the Iraq War to get a bill passed.
- George W. Bush is not willing to change his position an iota and has repeatedly said that he will veto any bill that has any kind of attempt to compel a withdrawal of troops from Iraq disaster. He has also rejected the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group.
- Broder's conclusion: the lack of consensus is solely a product of the fact that Harry Reid refuses to negotiate and refuses to accept the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group.
--Scott Lemieux
