This David Broder column is a perfect example of overstatement and exageration in politics. I am not really holding Broder responsible for causing this, it is merely that this column so perfectly reflects the views (and passions) of both the elite media and the Demo presidential candidates. It is fascinating how Bushs not insgnificant trip to Africa was intentionally overshadowed by the uranium buzz. Then before that it was the WMD buzz, and so on. To go from item to item--in an attempt to to de-authorize Bush by de-legitimizing some specific decisions he made (or words he used) when there are much larger and politically more interesting and substantive issues that really are arguable--is a sign of political tactics replacing political strategy. Bushs opponents have placed themselves in the unenviable position of trying to question Bushs motives, integrity, and character, rather than raising important truly political questions (e.g., are we handling the Iraqi military-political situation well, etc). I predict, contrary to Broder, that this method will not go very far at all, indeed, it will backfire on Bushs opponents because they cannot establish, especially on foreign policy, a greater share of the citizens trust than Bush can for their motives and integrity are more deeply in doubt than that of Bush or any member of his cabinet. This is not the way politics should be conducted.
"I predict, contrary to Broder, that this method will not go very far at all, indeed, it will backfire on Bush’s opponents because they cannot establish, especially on foreign policy, a greater share of the citizen’s trust than Bush can for their motives and integrity are more deeply in doubt than that of Bush or any member of his cabinet."
I read Broders column in todays Columbus Dispatch, and came to the very same conclusion. Call it Nixonophobia. If you cant win at the ballot box, sue the crap out of em!
No wonder the American Bar Association supports the Democratis Party, eh?