home

Broderism on the News Pages

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Sat Nov 04, 2006 at 08:40:08 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Borderism is bad enough on the opinion page. It is unacceptable on the news page. But WaPo's Shaleigh Murray does a Broderist opinion piece disguised as a news story on the upcoming election:

Moderate Republican House members such as Bass, Christopher Shays of Connecticut, and Jim Gerlach and Michael G. Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania often side with Democrats on environmental, social and budget issues. On the rare occasion when a vote fails in the House, they are usually the culprits. Ditto for internal dissent. After then-Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) was indicted on campaign finance charges in Texas, Bass helped launch a petition drive to replace the powerful House majority leader. DeLay gave up his post a few days afterward and later resigned from Congress.

But what of Bass' votes for leadership? Or Iraq? Charlie Bass is not a moderate based on those votes, the most important he casts. You know who else will side with Democrats on environmental, social and budget issues? Democratic congresspersons. Charlie Bass enabled the Rubberstamp Republican leadership and President Bush. He is part of the problem. He must go.

Murray quotes one voter in the 13th graf of her story:

That bigger picture is which party controls Congress. "Change is good," said Mike Gagne, who owns a gift shop in downtown Tilton. Michelle Bladecki, a receptionist at a nearby hair salon, said she is leaning toward Hodes because he is not a career politician. "He sounded the least unrealistic," she said.

Murray, practicing news Broderism, buried the lede.

< Had Enough? Accountability | The GOP Spins Begins >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Broderism on the News Pages | 4 comments (4 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    they all must go....................... (none / 0) (#1)
    by cpinva on Sat Nov 04, 2006 at 10:39:22 PM EST
    hoist them on their own petards. oh, wait, we're out of those, they're on back order!

    You don't want moderates or bipartisanship. (none / 0) (#2)
    by thetruth on Sat Nov 04, 2006 at 10:43:48 PM EST
    The blog author does not even pretend to want moderation.  They want absolute fealty and yes I will say it - gasp, a rubber stamping of the Democratic agenda.   Being a moderate means working with either party depending on the issue at hand.   To say that while moderate Republicans might work with Democrats and even vote with them against the Republican Leadership frequently, that their failure to be lock-step voters with the Democrats means that they "enabled the Rubberstamp Republican leadership and President Bush" and must go.

    Thinking people always bemoan the partisanship in Washington and mumble to themselves that any civil group ought to be able to work together for the good of the country.   These Republican moderate are the people who do just that.  Moderate Republicans (they were once called New England Republicans or Rockefeller Republicans) and moderate Democrats (now called Blue Dogs or are part of the DLC) are in the same position and can only pull the country back toward the middle if there are people to work with just over the aisle.

    This quotes says it all:  "These Republicans also tend to be centrists, and if they lose in droves next week, the House GOP conference will become even more conservative than it has been in recent years. That has wide-ranging implications, no matter which party wins the majority."  When the Republicans win the House back, and they will someday, then the Democrats will only have the more conservative group to work with. I suspect then they will wish they left thoughtful centrist like Charlie Bass, Chris Shays, Nancy Johnson, Jim Gerlach, Mark Kirk, Mike Castle, Michael Fitzpatrick, Jeb Bradley, and Rob Simmons alone.

    There is a very good reason why military strategy urges that opposing sides not fully decapitate the other side.  Someone needs to be left to call off the fight and to work with at the end of hostilities to work our the surrender.  Think about whether you really want to reward those who have pushed the Republican Party to the right by eliminating so many moderates from the party that it becomes an even more conservative and less tolerant and pragmatic group.

    We will all reap what we sow.

    Horse fodder (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 11:50:40 AM EST
    Since when did the current crop of Republican nutjobs ever and I mean EVER...show any fealty towards any Democrats of any stripe? The fact is that the moderate Republicans are in regions of the country (outside the Old Confederacy) where it is unlikely they can be replaced by far-right candidates that would win a general election. So your premise just does not stand up to the political reality.

    Parent
    Hahaha (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 05, 2006 at 01:19:01 PM EST
    Your comment is delusion. IT has bot existed since 1994.  Grow up.

    Parent
    Broderism on the News Pages | 4 comments (4 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment