Will David Broder Weigh In on Giuliani's Tryst Fund?
As the scandal surrounding his surreptitious taxpayer-funded Hampton frolics continues to envelop Rudy Giuliani, two questions are coming into focus. Obviously, the first is to what degree Giuliani's efforts to conceal his NYPD-financed romps with then-mistress, now third wife Judith Nathan imperils his presidential campaign. The second? Will David Broder, supposed dean of the Washingtonpress corps and inquisitor of the Clinton marriage, break his silence on Rudy's?
That the Giuliani story has legs is supported by the proliferation of nicknames for his clandestine expense account adultery. Talking Points Memo quickly labeled the affair the "Shag Fund." MSNBC's Keith Olberman contributed "Tryst Fund" to the vernacular. And Daily Kos readers voted for their own TV show parody, "Sex on the City."
But in his column since the Giuliani uproar broke, the Washington Post's David Broder has yet to weigh in. (Broder, of course, showed no such hesitation during President Bill Clinton's intern eruption, known by such as monikers as MonicaGate and Bimbroglio). During a June 2, 2006 online discussion, Broder made it clear that the marital failings of Republican candidates were off-limits as far he was concerned. As MediaMatters noted:
Broder was asked, "When can we expect an article from you on the marriages and divorces of the top Republican contenders for the presidental race of '08?" Broder's response? "Why would I write such an article? I know of no occasion for that."
And during an online chat with WaPo readers on November 7, 2007, Broder proclaimed that Rudy Giuliani's serial marriages would not be a subject for his column:
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.
As it turns out, not so much. The private home life of Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton is under Broder microscope, and continues to a mainstay of his coverage of election '08.
In his May 25, 2006 column ("The Shadow of a Marriage"), Broder put Hillary Clinton's domestic life front and center:
For the better part of an hour, the senator from New York held forth in a disquisition on energy policy that was as overwhelming in its detail as it was ambitious in its reach.
But the buzz in the room was not about her speech -- or her striking appearance in a lemon-yellow pantsuit -- but about the lengthy analysis of the state of her marriage to Bill Clinton that was on the front page of that morning's New York Times.
As Greg Sargent detailed, Broder's November promise to abstain from discussing political marriages lasted exactly one week. Again, Hillary Clinton's bedfellow was the subject:
No one who has read or studied the large literature of memoirs and biographies of the Clintons and their circle can doubt the intimacy and the mutual dependence of their political and personal partnership.
No one can reasonably expect that partnership to end should Hillary Clinton be elected president. But the country must decide whether it is comfortable with such a sharing of the power and authority of the highest office in the land.
It is a difficult question for any of the Democratic rivals to raise. But it lingers, even if unasked.
When it comes to Hillary Clinton, David Broder is certain to leave no question of her marriage and personal life unasked. Will Broder subject Rudy Giuliani's covert taxpayer-funded philandering to the same scrutiny? It should come as no surprise if his answer again is "Why would I write such an article?"
|
Don't hold your breath. Broder's hypocrisy is now legendary.
Posted by Max on December 1, 2007 12:52 PM