David Broder snuck some of his leading opinionating into a chat session in yesterday's Washington Post. I'm guessing from Broder's clipped and sullen tone that the moderator had a busy and entertaining time of it. Here are a few back-to-back Q&A's from the peak of the chat, the great man by then firmly ensconced in a defensive crouch:
Washington: Regarding Huckabee's candidacy, the man does not accept the theory of evolution! Can we really afford another four years of a resident who is ignorant of -- if not antagonistic toward -- science? Will the media explore Huckabee's views on science, such as whether he believes the earth is roughly 5,000 years old -- as many fundamentalists believe? Sadly, I think the answer to both questions is "no."
David S. Broder: I know people who rule out Gov. Huckabee because of his view on evolution. I do not, and I do not find any hostility to scientific research in his record or his philosophy.
_______________________
New York: Will you and the media ever apply as much scrutiny to the Giuliani marriages as you have done to the single Clinton marriage?
David S. Broder: I plan to leave both subjects alone.
_______________________
Lafayette Hill, Pa.: You said earlier in this chat that "I have never written, or believed, that Reagan deliberately appealed to racial prejudice." Do you believe his use of the term "welfare queens" to not have been a deliberate appeal to racial prejudice?
David S. Broder: Welfare as an issue was always racially tinged, and so the term "welfare queen" had racial overtones. But the welfare system was also a legitimate subject for debate, and as you know, it was President Clinton who finally signed a major overhaul of that system into law.
Such a civil man speaking in such civil tones living in such a civil world. You'll be a big hit at the home, "Dean." Sadly, no one's buying evasions like this anymore here in our little civilization.
|