After publishing an astoundingly positive column about Republican presidential candidate John McCain Thursday, the Washington Post's David Broder must have felt the need to bash some conservatives or risk being excommunicated by his liberal friends.
Looking to make amends, Broder went on Sunday's "Meet the Press," and disparaged CPAC attendees as being "aginners" with "a limited constituency."
Yet, moments later, he returned to his McCain love-fest.
But, before we get there, here's what Broder had to say about CPAC (video available here):
I had an interesting conversation the other night with Frank Fahrenkopf, who was the Republican National Committee chairman when Ronald Reagan was president, and he was recalling that exactly the same people who were raising hell with John McCain now at CPAC and these other conservative conventions were doing the same thing with Ronald Reagan when Reagan was in the White House. And he said, there is an element in that conservative wing of the Republican Party that are just "aginners." And these folks have a limited constituency.
Having duly insulted many on the right, Broder felt free to once again express his love for the Arizona senator:
MR. RUSSERT: Now, David Broder, I read in your column on Thursday you may have dissent from that. You wrote this:
"Still, McCain is the only candidate in either party with a favorable personal rating by Republicans, Democrats, independents and evangelical voters. He will be formidable."
MR. BRODER: I believe that, and I think against either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama--they're very different races, depending on which Democrat wins, but I don't see how McCain, positioned as he has been over time now, is anything less than a 46, 47 percent candidate.
Is Broder just trying to be a tad controversial, or did his "46, 47 percent candidate" delimiter make such remarks more palatable for his constituents?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Oh, here we go. Here comes
February 10, 2008 - 16:55 ET by motherbeltOh, here we go. Here comes the "Conservatives are an outside the mainstream, extremist, fringe group.
Politician thinking
February 10, 2008 - 17:02 ET by KC MulvilleA politician needs to adjust his personal agenda to reflect the will of the general public. He is, after all, a representative. But that doesn't mean that this is how everyone is supposed to act or behave. We ordinary citizens have no obligation to swallow the party line.
This is an example of Beltway-thinking, or politician-thinking. Once the party line is set, or there's a common consensus, politicians take it for granted that you should abandon whatever you believe so you can unite behind party leadership. That's because to politicians, victory is more important than principle. They actually resent people who stand on principle. They resent people choosing "right" over popular.
Broder is one of the media elders, a mandarin of the establishment. His experience gives him occasional wisdom, but he has no right to demand obedience or submission from everyone.
But the vast majority of
February 11, 2008 - 18:50 ET by JerBut the vast majority of politicians do possess an actuating philosophy--core principles which they fear may be sacrificed on an altar of folly by the self-annointed, self-defining "true believers" in the party.
Believe me, there are millions of "principled" liberals who are still furious with Nader for choosing to run his Green Party campaign at a time when arguably the "greenest" candidate in the nation's history was already in the race, and thus handing the presidency to Bush.
Jer
Jer
February 11, 2008 - 21:02 ET by KC MulvilleIt's one thing to cast your vote for the best candidate available. But that doesn't mean you have to adjust your principles to align with his (or hers). We conservatives will give our vote, but the GOP brass wants us to shut up and pretend that McCain represents our values better than any other candidate. This is literally an example of the "party line," and they want us to shut up about what we believe and salute whatever flag they send up.
I don't see anything wrong with telling the GOP that we'll vote for McCain over the Democrats, but don't expect us to shut up. If an issue comes up for debate, we're going to speak out. If that embarrasses McCain, tough.
There's the famous story of Bobby Kennedy commanding the cabinet room, "Just remember, no matter how you voted here, you were for whatever we decide." Well, McCain and the GOP brass better not play that game with conservatives. We don't play the game that way.
Broder attempting to
February 10, 2008 - 17:04 ET by bigtimerBroder attempting to compare Reagan, McCain and voters today is, well, just spin.
Plus of course he is also spinning to stay in the leftist circle of his ilk....they know what the next step is now that they have helped McCain get to where he is...it's a coming.
"aginners"??? Did I read that correctly
February 10, 2008 - 17:28 ET by Lame CherryDid David Broder use a racial slur as malevolent as "darkie" or "beaner" by the label "aginners" as a slang for southern white Christians who are BORN AGAIN??????????
As pimping Chelsea is verboten and as Bill using the N word reference in race baiting is verboten...........David Broder should be fired and made to apologize as he just did something so condescending and sinister that if this was about Jews or Blacks, all hell would have broken loose.
If he did this, in liberal equal time he needs his Don Imus nappy firing as hate speech is hate speech.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
My take
February 10, 2008 - 18:00 ET by KC MulvilleVery interesting, LC. I must say, I'd never heard that expression. My first take was simple "against"ers, which was hillbillyized into aginners. In other words, the CPACs are just stubborn. The born again interpretation hadn't occurred to me. Now that you mention it, it makes as much sense as my interpretation, and I'm curious as to what it really meant.
On Principle I'm A McCain Aginner
February 10, 2008 - 21:03 ET by stratmana·gin·ner /əˈgɪnər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-gin-er] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun Informal.
a person who opposes a plan, proposed legislation, or any drastic change: He won the election by appealing to the aginners.
[Origin: agin + -er1]
a·gin (ə-gĭn') Pronunciation Key
prep.
conj. By the time that.
[Regional variant of against.]
The spelling of agin reflects both the raised vowel before a nasal consonant, typical of Southern dialects, and a reduced final consonant cluster, typical of several regional varieties. Agin has a wide spectrum of senses in the regional speech of those who pronounce it this way. Indeed, these regional senses are tied to the pronunciation, for standard English against does not quite capture the full implication of the assertion "I'm agin him"—that is, "opposed to him and all that he stands for." Another regional sense recalls the original literal Old English sense of "facing; next to" (see the first four senses of against in the Oxford English Dictionary), where standard English would have by: Their house is agin the mountain. Agin may be used figuratively with regard to time, meaning "by or before (a specified time)," in South Midland dialects:"I'll be there agin daylight" (North Carolina informant in DARE).
And yet no words from Broder
February 10, 2008 - 17:34 ET by Sonny LykosAnd yet no words from Broder about the "aginners" on the Democratic party - those who refused to let the left of their party pass the Bills they wanted because they are not that far to the left.
Well, Sonny, here's why I
February 10, 2008 - 23:04 ET by motherbeltWell, Sonny, here's why I think that is..and this goes back to KC's post too.
It's really an insult. He doesn't call Democrats "aginners" because, I think, it's a sly, if unthinking, slap at those "southern conservatives"...you know, the ones the WaPo once called poor, uneducated and easy to command" (or was it easily led? No matter). They, of course, would say "I'm agin' it." Those well-educated Democrats don't talk like that.
It's like when Liberals use the term "libruls" when describing how conservatives refer to them. That's because that's how they imagine (ignorant) conservatives talk.
So even if Democrats are anti-something, I doubt Broder, or any other liberal would ever call them "aginners."
Am I missing something
February 11, 2008 - 23:03 ET by JerAm I missing something here, or is Broder not merely quoting the descriptive term "aginners" as it was purportedly used by Frank Fahrenkopf, the Republican RNCC chairman during Reagan's presidency?
As far as "libruls"....that's how the 'voice overs' of GOP campaign commercials generally sound the word. Although the pronunciation is not grammatically incorrect--just not preferred--the announcer often says it [at least here in Georgia] as if liberals are some form of diseased specimens of humanity.
Jer
It says it all
February 10, 2008 - 17:57 ET by c5thenBroder and other liberals love McCain. Why? There is no media outlet that I am aware of other than in the conservative blogosphere investigating this aspect and asking why. Why would people who are registered democrats and self-admited liberals, or "progressives" as they like to call themselves, like McCain and plug him?
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Because they see him as
February 10, 2008 - 22:48 ET by motherbeltBecause they see him as being reasonable:...an "even Republican." They love the fact that he is willing to put a thumb in the R party's eye, so they don't have to. They know that, in spite of the "R", he's only a little more "Republican" than Michael Bloomberg. In short, he's the closest thing to a Democrat that the Republican Party has.
Broder isn't making any sense here.
February 10, 2008 - 19:25 ET by R D HelmOn the one hand, he falls all over himself "praising" John McCain, then turns around and trashes CPAC, even though the "moderates" that have apparently co-opted that organization gave McCain what sounded to me like a heroes welcome.
What gives?
Is it possible his column praising McCain was really just a puff piece, only inteded to boost McCain in the eyes of moderate voters?
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
As a Conservative I don't
February 10, 2008 - 19:34 ET by ConservativeRexAs a Conservative I don't give a rat's red ass if David Broder thinks I am in the "fringe" or "not mainstream". Mainstream got us Juan McAmnesty thank you very much. Last I checked, Broder has NEVER represented anything I thought or believe in.
I sure hope Juan enjoys his swim in the "mainstream" with the MSM, he's fixin' to get washed away by it. I'll let ol' Broder throw him a flotation ring. More likely he'll throw him an anchor, but we'll see.
Watching this dude
February 10, 2008 - 20:09 ET by celatorI've been watching Broder for more years than I can count. He has championed left-wing causes his entire career, while still presenting himself as an objective writer. Guess he figures no one noticed. From 'Nam to Iraq, from Carter to Bush, left wing all the way. In recent years he has been particularly and actively demonizing R's and conservatives, as we all know.
Liberal's Basic Rule For Discourse: I don't care if you agree with my premises, but I demand that you agree with my conclusions.
He has championed
February 10, 2008 - 22:45 ET by motherbeltHe has championed left-wing causes his entire career, while still presenting himself as an objective writer.
Well, that's because he doesn't see them as "left-wing causes." He considers them "normal" and "mainstream." In his little world there is no left wing...there is only the mainstream and right-wing extremists.
David Broder
February 10, 2008 - 21:36 ET by Redrowan2000He might be right about those "aginners" but they have an awful lot to be agin McCain. By the way Broder loooks like he'll be ready for St. Pat's, nice tie David.
"Don't let the bastards grind you down"
Red
Guess I’m a member of the
February 11, 2008 - 00:51 ET by maggieqpublicGuess I’m a member of the “limited constituency”. As such, does that mean I’m stupid or limited in some way? Does David Broder measure quality in numbers?