Senate Caucus Broder letter: not so smart, maybe?
by skeptic06, Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 11:43:27 AM EDT
My main concern would be with the precedent that such a letter sets.
Now, the Broder piece seems not casual about the facts, but straining for the most extreme counterfactuality that it can manage.
For propaganda to be effective, it must be sufficiently grounded in fact to persuade readers to swallow the false elements.
No reasonably attentive Post reader could view as other than absurd a comparison between Reid and Gonzales.
The person the piece makes look grossly incompetent is Broder.
And - there are detailed points I could make on the content and style of the Caucus letter.
My concern, though, is with sending the letter at all.
What happens the next time some Times or Post op-ed takes a crazy, fact-free swing at a leading Dem MC? (Pelosi, I seem to recall got some hits earlier in the year.)
Do the Congressional leaderships intend to send a rebuttal letter ever time this happens?
And then there's the unanimity point: it's great that even CT Joe could be persuade to come to the aid of the party.
What if, next time, there are one or two MCs who can't square it with their (for want of a better word) conscience to join their colleagues?
Immediately, the media will pounce, and say the party is losing cohesion.
What about the history of such letters? (History, if conservatively interpreted, may be some guide.) I cannot think of similar letters, but it would not surprise me if there were some.
Then one has to consider whether the purpose of the Broder piece - of no journalistic value - was not to goad Dem senators into just such a reaction, with a view to setting up a yardstick for responses to future such outrages.
Points to ponder further.