Posted 9:06 AM by Gene

A SKNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNX "fan" asks a burning question:

How did WP's Broder go from being revered to reviled?

First off, maybe SKNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNX' rep wasn't justified to begin with. He won a P-Ulitzer. How? For what? Who knows? That and his high standing in ST. WARREN's op-ed section allowed him to be the Oracle on the Mount, with all the perks attendant thereto. Moreover SKNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNX favors not so much bi-partisanship or non-partisanship as a kind of marshmallow faux-centrism pleasing to liberals, and this plus his blazing writing style have earned him deserved brickbats. And as we've noted before his notion of an earlier Valhalla of gentle, quiet, civilized give-and-take is largely rooted in fantasy. We don't like the population explosion of political crybabies, but SKNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNX isn't the answer, and he never should have been.

P. S. And wouldn't you know, by relying on Romy we missed the true laugh-out-loud hilarity of this piece, starting with the masterful hed:

Why can't we all practice Broderism?

What? And sleep all day?

Our distraught SKNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNX fan further belches:

In the wilds of the blogosphere, Broderism propagates a false stereotype of a columnist slavishly locked into the status quo. Actually, Broder appears quite able to push the envelope — albeit in a civilized way. Thus, in a recent column, Broder, after interviewing Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), suggested that the country would be better off in 2008 with a presidential third-party victory by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, with Hagel as his running mate.

Okay, let's say he's slavishly locked into the status quo before its time, and leave it at that.