David Broder has never tried to hide his positive bias toward the Bush, Cheney, and Rove administration.
But Broder's bias extends to the GOP generally, and because it's difficult to manage regular, substantial plaudits for the Party, Broder does what he does best: Banal pandering.
Watching last week's CNN YouTube Debate while attempting to adopt the mindset of a Republican primary voter, the immigrant-bashing, war-mongering, hate-fest nature of the forum was impossible to miss.
John McCain and Mike Huckabee did come out with positions approaching rational and human concern for immigrants and their families, positions similar to the standard Democratic position.
Yet, for David Broder, only GOP candidates draw praise in taking rational positions contra the GOP. [In fairness to Broder, rational GOP positions do not often come.] Writes Broder:
What sets McCain and Huckabee apart is most evident in the way they treat the contentious issue of illegal immigration. ...
But, unlike the others, who seem to take their rhetorical cues from the rabidly anti-immigrant Tancredo, Huckabee and McCain always remember that those who struggle to reach the United States across the deserts or rivers of the Southwest are human beings drawn here by the promise of better lives for their families. ...
If the Republican Party really wanted to hold on to the White House in 2009, it's pretty clear what it would do. It would grit its teeth, swallow its doubts, and nominate a ticket of John McCain for president and Mike Huckabee for vice president -- and president-in-waiting. ...
McCain and Huckabee have been notable for their clarity, character and, yes, simple humanity.
So, does this clarity, character, and humanity apply to the Democratic candidates who have taken essentially the same positions (but less putative) as McCain and Huckabee on immigration? No.
Broder continues:
McCain is ... a principled battler for what he considers essential on Iraq and other national security issues.
McCain's position is that we should sacrifice more American soldiers in Iraq (though even the most dim of observers realize that the war was sold through lies), bankrupt our military's readiness, and begin a massive influx of new troops into the slaughter, a pro-war position that is supposed to appeal to the GOP primary voters.
McCain's pandering to the religious right is well known and merits no further comment, other than to ask Broder whether this is another demonstration of McCain's character.
McCain's principle is that he wants to be president. [Though he chastised Romney on torture at the debate, McCain also has caved in to Bush on torture last year, and besides shouldn't the not-torturing position be axiomatic, and GOP pro-torture positions be the subject of non-stop media and political condemnation?]
Broder says this of Huckabee: "His combination of religious principle, good humor, tolerance and clear passion on education and health care ...," blah blah blah.
Clear passion? Huckabee is against universal health care, and, whatever Broder thinks, Huckabee will not go down in history as the Education Governor.
Huckabee is a religious right zealot who does not believe in evolution, and these beliefs have propelled Huckabee to be the favorite to win the Iowa caucuses.
Broder then writes the following of Ron Paul (and other candidates):
" ... are exercising their lungs but running for exercise, happy to be part of the proceedings but with no hope of being nominated."
Broder, like the national GOP, is afraid of Rep. Ron Paul because of his libertarian, clear anti-war positions, his lack of cant, and criticism of Bush's lies on Iraq that has helped Paul raise millions of dollars in weeks in grassroots' contributions.
And Ron Paul's clarity has earned him the favored candidate status from veterans across the nation.
But for Broder, that will not win Ron Paul (or any Democratic presidential candidate) the praise of having "clarity, character and, yes, simple humanity."
###
No comments:
Post a Comment