BRODER Uses SCIENCE To Explain How Chimpy's Dismal #'s Are BAD For DEMS!!

[Beetwasher]

"David S. Broder: The column for Sunday is an effort to explain why Bush has a tactical advantage over the Democrats at the moment, but why it is unlikely to last. That's my best effort at an update."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/04/26/DI2007042601989.html?hpid=topnews

W/ the above news that Broder is going to try to explain this fascinating phenomenon to all of us idiots, I figured I'd give a crack at it first.

Broder Turns To SCIENCE To Explain The Inverse relationship between Bush's unpopularity vs. the disadvantage this causes for Dems.

You see, like a black hole, Bush is so unpopular he actually sucks things into him, and the bigger you are (in the Dems case, the MORE POPULAR you and your positions are) the more political "mass" that you have, and therefore, applying the laws of physics, there will be more gravitational attraction between the "massive" positive popularity of Dems and their positions and the ever expanding negative suckiness of Chimpy. Eventually, the Dems will become so massively popular that they won't be able to avoid being sucked into the immense singularity that is Chimpy's suckiness.

[karlrschneider]

1. And Broder defies the laws of physics,

having a true perfect vacuum between his ears.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. And also because he sucks and blows simultaneously.

[karlrschneider]

14. LOL!

You know, if I could do that, I'd be rich!
:rofl:

[Jim Sagle]

16. Well, THAT'S his secret. He can, and he is.

[ramblin_dave]

2. Broder was sucked in long ago and

no intelligent thought has escaped his mind since.

[sarge43]

3. Wow, just wow.

"The honourable member has proven that there is no such thing as unutterable nonsense."

[tularetom]

4. Why is everybody picking on Broder now?

I knew he was an ignorant elitist bottom feeding piece of shit ten years ago when he regularly appeared on Meat the press and other crappy news shows and moralized about how Clinton was draggin the country into the abyss.

He has no more idea what's going on in the minds of the amurkin people than I do of nukular physics.

Am I the only one who saw this before now?

[Beetwasher]

6. Why Not?

Yeah, he's been a dingbat forever who's being given prominence in one of the nations supposedly foremost "news" sources. Why is he given prominence? I dunno, but he deserves as much ridicule as can be heaped upon him. And then some. Besides, it's just gosh-darn, good-ol', clean, wholesome fun!

[zeemike]

5. Ha ha haha ha...using physics to explain politics

Now that cracks me up
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Old and In the Way]

17. Must be that quantum physics I keep hearing about.

You need a quantum leap of faith to believe Broder can apply a positive spin to Bush's negative poll numbers.

[stopbush]

7. I wish there was an elegant explanation for Broder, but he's just an idiot.

[wtmusic]

8. Well you know, you can't argue with science nt

[Snarkoleptic]

9. It's all part of well planned and executed Bushco strategery.

[ClassWarrior]

10. Actually, science helps us explain why Broder's wrong.

According to the Rockridge Institute's recent book "Thinking Points," there is NO "moderate position" on many of the important questions of the day.

Take abortion. When it all comes down to it, you believe it's acceptable or it's unacceptable. One or the other. Therefore, by definition, any position one takes is extreme. Yes or no. The left end of the spectrum or the right.

So who are these "practical people seeking practical solutions" that Broder hails? Otherwise called "moderates?" They're people who have a variety of extreme positions from both sides of the political spectrum. Therefore they don't fall easily into one bracket or the other.

What's key is that they can be motivated by either political side. So Rockridge more accurately calls them "swing voters."

:shrug:

Just sayin...

NGU.

[aquart]

11. HERE's his fatal error: He thinks Bush was honestly elected.

"David S. Broder: Perhaps because I have come to have deep respect for the wisdom of the American people, who, in 2004, chose to reelect George W. Bush as president. I have been very critical of his policies, economic, diplomatic and military. But I am unwilling to assume that I am so much smarter than the voting public that I will dism9iss as worthless someone they have chosen as president of the United States."

All his reasoning proceeds from this fallacy.

[Cha]

15. NO worries, broder..you are a piece of

dumb fuckin' gobshite and the American People actually elected John Kerry in 2004 and they elected Al Gore in 2000..in spite of the fucking mediawhores and karl the hit zombie rove.

You must fuckin' know the American People really elected Al Gore in 2000 and if Gore had been able to take his rightful place then there's no way the retarded chimp would have been elected in 2004.

Why do ya think, broder, that rudy mcromney is running from the deceiver? Because he's had such a good record and the American People like him? Even you are smart enough to know the answer to that. So, I conclude that you are a whiny ol' mediawhore who has betrayed his country for what? Your fuckin' bank account?

[Raksha]

13. What, Broder has recovered from his last blockbuster ALREADY?

I'm referring to his famous "Harry Reid is the Democrats' Gonzales" column of a week or so ago that drew well over 500 sarcastic comments, as well as a letter from the entire Democratic caucus in support of Harry Reid.

So now Broder's going to try to top THAT masterpiece...the guy's nothing if not resilient and determined...you gotta give him that!