All Intensive Purposes

David Broder's even-handed centrism leaves him unequipped to describe how Washington works now. His column today describes how, in restoring threatened cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Congress whacked an equal sum from various worthy things such as job training, health programs, and other government programs so boring that Broder himself couldn't be bothered to figure out what many of them were, even in a column decrying the cuts. Broder's conclusion is that all this is "one more instance of the prevailing political culture -- controlled by a budgetary and tax system that puts the lowest value on the needs of those who are most vulnerable." But for "prevailing political culture," read "Republican government." It was pretty clear (to me, anyway) that the CPB funding was not going to be cut, but what Broder describes was the use of that issue as cover to cut money for non-Republican constiuencies. Why can't he just describe what he sees?

D.C. Pundit Bonus Coverage
David Ignatius's column in today's WaPo is full of all sorts of interesting observations about how repressive governments help us fight terrorism, but then he wraps up with this insipid closing: "America has a lot of chips on the table now, betting on outcomes that are uncertain. Bush should be wary of adding to these risks without examining them very, very carefully." Is there any point in urging that Bush should examine something -- anything -- "very, very carefully"? The electorate voted for steely resolve, not thoughtful deliberation.