But I digress. I sheepishly called Broder after having unintentionally
misled him and apologized. He was very decent. And from that day
forward, I have always viewed Broder as one who is able to distinguish
his role as a columnist and his role as a crack political reporter. In
his columns, Broder is a nondoctrinaire liberal. It is the reason I
always read his column. It is not predictable. Generally liberal, yes,
yet an open-mindedness uncharacteristic of most liberals. In his
straight reporting I never found any liberal slant. I was searching for
it. Perhaps he was so clever and I so dumb that I could not detect bias
in his role as a reporter. And the reason I never miss one of his
columns is because even when he is supporting liberal causes he does so
because in his mind they work. He has never blindly followed the liberal
line. He is not a leftist. The one and only time I was totally
disappointed in him was the scathing column he wrote against my then
boss, Senator Carl T. Curtis (R-NE), and in support of Senator Jacob K.
Javits (R-NY), when the two ran against each other for the Chairmanship
of the Senate GOP Conference. Broder suggested that my boss was
intellectually inferior because he was a conservative. Javits was
defeated with only 12 votes. I had told Broder that Curtis was going to
win and by how much. By this time I had learned to count. Thus did I
learn that Senator James L. Buckley (R-NY) confided to an operative in
the New York Conservative Party that while he had given his word to
Curtis he wished he could be released from his commitment. Subsequently
he asked me to ask Curtis if he could switch. After discussing it with
Curtis I told him no and figured that the column was probably a payback
for Javits' having been a source.
I digress again. It is that over these now nearly four decades I have
learned to respect David Broder even when I profoundly disagree with
him. He is always informative, frequently insightful and has integrity.
That integrity was demonstrated again last week when Broder wrote a
column on the Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson affair. He pointed out that he
himself had written very little about this supposed outing of Valerie
Plame. "No one behaved well in the whole mess...not [Former Ambassador
Joseph] Wilson, not [Scooter] Libby, not Special Prosecutor Patrick
Fitzgerald, and not the reporters involved," Broder wrote in his column.
"...Caution has been notably lacking in some of the press treatment of
this subject-especially when it comes to Karl Rove. And it behooves us
in the media to examine that behavior, not just sweep it under the
rug...."
He then recounted the words of several journalists who had Rove
indicted, tried and convicted without his being fingered by the Special
Prosecutor or by anyone else for that matter. Who did the culprit turn
out to be? Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage, who is no
conservative. All this time and Armitage never had the decency to come
forward on his own. He had to be outed in a book.
After citing some of the outrageous statements made by liberals in the
media, such as Joe Conason, who wrote the cover story for the Auust 2005
edition of American Prospect. In that publication Conason said, "Rove is
a powerful bully. Fear of retribution has stifled those who might have
revealed his secrets. He has enjoyed the imunity of a malefactor who
could always claim, however implausibly, deniability-until now...."
Broder concluded his column that "...these and other publications owe
Rove an apology. And all of journalism needs to learn the lesson: Can
the conspiracy theories and stick to the facts."
If I were Karl Rove I wouldn't sit by my phone waiting for apologies
from the American media, especially the savage television "reporters."
But at least Rove, who has been more falsely maligned than any figure in
my political memory, has the satisfaction to know that the dean of
political journalists, David Broder, a man revered by young media
upstarts, said he is owed an apology. It shows Broder's integrity.
Something like that happens once in a political lifetime.