I found today's political analysis by the Washington Post's David Broder embarrassingly off the mark, particularly for a journalist known as the "Dean Of The Washington Press Corps". 

Specifically, he made the critically naive mistake of using a single legislative event as the basis for predicting an entirely new movement in American politics:


American politics reached a critical turn last week.  The revolt of several Republican senators against President Bush's insistence on a free hand in treating terrorist detainees signaled the emergence of an independent force in elections and government.

What it really signals is a new movement in this country — what you could rightly call the independence party.  Its unifying theme can be found in the Declaration of Independence's language when Jefferson invoked "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind."


Then he just plain insults the Democrats, who are noticeably absent from Mr. Broder's "Independent Party".


Bush was elected twice, over Democrats Al Gore and John Kerry, whose know-it-all arrogance rankled Midwesterners such as myself.  The country thought Bush was a pleasant, down-to-earth guy who would not rock the boat.


Neither of the above statements can be construed as true.  Bush was genuinely elected president once, in 2004, over John Kerry.  But no honest "political analyst", i.e. Broder, can say that he was elected in 2000 over Al Gore.  He was selected by the Supreme Court to be the president of the United States, against the will of the American people. 

And how can Broder write that by 2004, "The country thought Bush was a pleasant, down-to-earth guy who would not rock the boat"?  Since Bush was originally inaugurated, we had already entered two wars, radically overspent the federal treasury, attempted to withdraw from the Geneva Conventions, and successfully withdrawn from the ABM treaty.  Whether you agreed with these decisions or not, there is no way a rational person could say that by 2004, Bush was not "rock(ing) the boat".

Then Mr. Broder becomes unhinged:

Now, however, you can see the independence party forming — on both sides of the aisle.  They are mobilizing to resist not only Bush but also the extremist elements in American society — the vituperative, foul-mouthed bloggers on the left and the doctrinaire religious extremists on the right who would convert their faith into a whipping post for their opponents.


How the tiny lefty blogs of Daily Kos, Atrios, Huffington Post, etc., are in any way comparable to the political power of the religious right is beyond me.  But it is really sloppy writing on Mr. Broder's part, when you consider that he has been covering politics professionally for the last 51 years.  The religious right movement, since its birth in the late 70's, has been central to the elections of American presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush, not to mention the vast majority of regional Republican candidates over the past twenty years.  The left-wing blogosphere, since its inception in the late 1990's, can count a single electoral success: the nomination of Ned Lamont, Connecticut Democrat for U.S. Senate, 2006.  And even that ain't lookin' so hot.

Don't blink, major events are unfolding:


The center is beginning to fight back.  Michael Bloomberg, the Republican mayor of New York, is holding a fundraiser for Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Democrat running as an independent against the bloggers' favorite, Ned Lamont.


Did you read that?  A major Upper West Side fundraiser is about to set this new centrist political movement loose on the entire nation!

Then Mr Broder spits this out:


Americans are saying no to excess greenhouse gases and no to open borders; yes to embryonic stem cell research, yes to a path to earned citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants and yes to a living wage.  Six more states are likely to approve increases in the minimum wage through ballot initiatives in November.


Tell me, dear reader: do the above political trends sound like the hallmarks of a brand new independent movement in American politics?  Or do they sound more like the platform of an existing, major political party, one that Mr. Broder seems to have barely noticed over the half-century of his journalistic career?