« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

David Broder: Dana Milbank Is A Tool

they're running and they're on fire


There is trouble in River City.

Today the supposed dean of the liberal Washington commentariat, David Broder, took a swipe at his colleague and well known twit, Dana Milbank:

In the space of 10 days, thanks in no small part to my own newspaper, the president of the United States has been portrayed as a weakling and a chronic screw-up who is wrecking his administration despite everything that his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, can do to make things right.

This remarkable fiction began unfolding on Feb. 21 in the Sunday column of my friend Dana Milbank, who wrote that “Obama’s first year fell apart in large part because he didn’t follow his chief of staff’s advice on crucial matters. Arguably, Emanuel is the only person keeping Obama from becoming Jimmy Carter,” i.e., a one-term failure.

A week later, presumably the same anonymous sources persuaded Milbank to pronounce that Obama “too often plays the 98-pound weakling; he gets sand kicked in his face and responds with moot-court zingers

It sounded, for all the world, like the kind of orchestrated leaks that often precede a forced resignation in Washington. .”

And on Tuesday, The Post led the paper with a purported news story by Jason Horowitz saying that a president with Obama’s “detached, professorial manner” needed “a political enforcer” like Emanuel to have a chance of succeeding, “because he [Emanuel] possessed a unique understanding of the legislative mind.” Unfortunately, the story said, “influential Democrats are — in unusually frank terms — blaming Obama and his closest campaign aides for not listening to Emanuel.”

Fascinating. One Democrat shill calls out another Democrat shill for straying from the fold. And it is truly amazing to see Broder, who was according to all accounts on the Post payroll during the Valerie Plame affair, the brouhaha over Bush’s National Guard record, the misrepresentation of the response to Katrina, etc., etc., accuse his paper running a “purported news story.” I’d suggest he read his own paper more often.

What is happening is that power is rapidly sliding from Obama’s grasp. Democrat members of congress are discovering that not only does Obama not have the power to reward them, he doesn’t have the power to punish them and he has put their jobs in jeopardy by his monomaniacal pursuit of radical changes to the our government and culture.

While Broder, and presumably this is received wisdom from his White House sources, clears Emanuel of being the source for the stories clearly he believes Emanuel is the source of the narrative:

Emanuel, who left a leadership post in the House to serve his fellow Chicagoan, Obama, has worked loyally for the president and is not suspected personally by his colleagues of inspiring these Post pieces.

But, as one White House staffer said to me, “Rahm likes to win,” and when the losses began to pile up, he probably vented his frustrations to some of his old pals in Congress. It’s clear that some of them are talking to the press.

A safe bet is that Emanuel is going to be spending more time with his family and his tutu by the Christmas recess.

But they greater fault lines are underscored between those who have talked to Milbank who believe Obama is a doofus in need of someone to lead him to the men’s room and those who talked to Broder who are still swilling the Kool-Aid.

None of this would rise above the level of petty Washington gossip except that some of Emanuel’s friends are so eager to exonerate him that they are threatening to undermine the president. Milbank, presumably reflecting what he hears, calls Obama “airy and idealistic” and says he readily succumbs to “bullying” from Republicans and Democrats alike. I hope the mullahs in Iran don’t believe this.

From too many years of covering politics, I have come to believe as Axiom One that the absolute worst advice politicians ever receive comes from journalists who fancy themselves great campaign strategists.

Milbank now is urging Obama to emulate Gordon Brown, who is probably just weeks away from being voted out as Britain’s prime minister, and start bullying people himself. That is — well, it’s in the great tradition.

Fortunately for our posterity, though it may be very painful if not fatal to a lot of us in the short run, there is a much larger body of evidence supporting Milbank’s informants than Broder’s. We are on the cusp of a disastrously failed administration.

COMMENTS

  • Achance

    or even take out the boss. I know I sure liked to have bosses who were content with the ceremonial role and just let me run things. I suspect there’s a strong streak of that in Rahmbo. Might be fun to get a friendly reporter to say some bad things about your boss so that you can be just that much more the indispensible man.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    You would think arguments between Emanuel and Obama were akin to arguments between Epictetus and Tacitus. It’s more like Groucho Marx and Moe from the Three Stooges.

    Two ideologues don’t make a right. They should have at least learned that by now.

    By the way, what’s the news here? Obama was a no-nothing and Emmanuel a jerky bully before the election. At least most regular people other than sloths like Broder and Milbank knew that.

    • Finrod

      .

      • nessa

        Its here for your “democrat government in action” enjoyment.

      • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

        This is the version from “And Now for Something Completely Different”.

        • Flagstaff

          Only all together, with an audience.

    • lockedandloaded

      and we need to be ready with the gasoline – just to make sure.

  • Tbone

    for us.

  • kowalski

    At the risk of sounding like one of Maureen Dowd’s early columns (back when things were less mean), Milbank and Broder are to the Washington Post what Abbott and Costello were to American television.

    Milbank is Abbott, who makes serious things look and sound funny, while Broder is Costello, who attempts to make ridiculous things look and sound serious. Together, they’re quite a comedy team, and I read the Washington Post mostly for the laughs these days.

    No matter which one you prefer, you have to love their contrasts, and you really have to laugh at the questions about which person in the White House is really talking to whom more.

    I would bet on Milbank, too, just because he lapses into the smart-alecky style of snarky commentary more easily than Broder does. To me that says it’s Milbank who gets more calls and emails. It’s a generational thing.

    • Flagstaff

      Milbank’s Sunday column appeared today in the Arizona Repugnant (we’re west of the Continental Divide, you know), and my own reaction to it changed as I read through it.

      At first I thought it was over-the-top crazy. What “summit” did Milbank see? After all, what is demagogic about Jon Kyl stating

      “Does Washington know best about the coverage people should have?” he asked. “Or should people have that choice themselves?”

      That’s not a talking point, it’s a rhetorical question. And then

      Sen. John McCain made a lengthy comment accusing Obama of breaking campaign promises and of unsavory and “particularly offensive” deal-making.

      Talking point? Was that not true? Did it have no bearing on the question at hand, the Health Care Demolition Bill? And was he really suggesting that Obama should be shoving, grabbing, screaming, kicking and throwing? I thought, “Dana Milbank is a tool.” I read further.

      By the time I got to the end, I thought that maybe Milbank was just trying, unsuccessfully, to be funny. I guess your comment confirms that. Too bad for Milbank, the funniest thing about the column was his own take on reality.

    • Flagstaff

      They almost all shared two characteristics.

      1. They didn’t think it was an audition for Comedy Central, they thought it was a serious column. Not much sense of humor among Post readers, combined with not much humor in the column.

      2. They were on the Republicans’ side.

      The President is in deep doo-doo on the Health Care Demolition issue. If they force it through via reconciliation, I think it seals his fate as a one-termer. Think of all the campaign ads that can be developed using his “can’t govern with 51 votes” comments up against his “we’ll do what we have to do to pass this sucker” sentiments. There are any number of similar statements on both sides of many issues, contrasting the candidate with the post-election chief executive.

  • SharonR

    at the senate seat which he probably would have won with his reputation in Illinois. But, he drank the koolaid and will now forever be associated with the failed presidency of Obama. He is trying to rescue his reputation as a savvy politician but if that were the case, he would have seen through the facade.

  • WarEagle01

    or so my White House sources tell me.

    • Achance

      especially lefty weaklings. The Strelnikov character in “Dr. Zhivago” didn’t come from nowhere.

      • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

        Not too different from the psychology of serial rapists.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    a spectacularly successful one, given their goals and values. It is the best possible alternative given the raw material.

  • rbdwiggins

    and the rest of Broder’s column seems fairly credible…