Affichage des articles dont le libellé est David Brooks. Afficher tous les articles
Affichage des articles dont le libellé est David Brooks. Afficher tous les articles

samedi 12 novembre 2011

Quote of the Day: Still the Best edition

Nobody does it like Drifty:
After all Romney really is the perfect Brooksian Candidate: hollow, reprogrammable and rich. Where John McCain was willing to grit his teeth and bellycrawl to kiss Jerry Falwell's ass, the humanlike simulacrum named "Mitt" gives every indication that, if required to complete his Prime Directive, he would cheerfully disinter Falwell's mortal remains, dress them up in Nancy Reagan's 1981 inaugural ball gown and dance a tarantella with it on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on the Fourth of July.

Warning: Seriously demented Photochoppery at the link.

vendredi 4 novembre 2011

I really should leave this to the professionals.

David Brooks has become almost too easy a target, but when he comes up with an opinion of this level of idiocy, I just can't keep quiet. The only thing I can tell you is to keep your eye on Driftglass, TBogg, and John Cole today, as they are the Holy Trinity of Brooksiana.

Brooks is recognized among those who still have gray matter in their crania as being perhaps the most unfairly still employed man in America. I heard a colleague tell the other day of someone she used to work with -- a Ph.D. researcher -- who is working at a Target because there are no jobs for scientists. While visiting family in North Carolina recently, we encountered a wonderful waitress who is a veterinarian who can't find full-time work in her field, so she works part time in her field and supplements her income by waiting tables. She's back where she was in college, before spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on education. These are people whose talents are being wasted -- thrown away by a Washington establishment that is willing to throw them in the garbage in their pursuit of absolute power (Republicans) or corporate campaign cash (Democrats).

But Brooks is still getting paid to write stuff like this:
The U.S. now seems to possess a 100-year supply of natural gas, which is the cleanest of the fossil fuels. This cleaner, cheaper energy source is already replacing dirtier coal-fired plants. It could serve as the ideal bridge, Amy Jaffe of Rice University says, until renewable sources like wind and solar mature.

Already shale gas has produced more than half a million new jobs, not only in traditional areas like Texas but also in economically wounded places like western Pennsylvania and, soon, Ohio. If current trends continue, there are hundreds of thousands of new jobs to come.

Chemical companies rely heavily on natural gas, and the abundance of this new source has induced companies like Dow Chemical to invest in the U.S. rather than abroad. The French company Vallourec is building a $650 million plant in Youngstown, Ohio, to make steel tubes for the wells. States like Pennsylvania, Ohio and New York will reap billions in additional revenue. Consumers also benefit. Today, natural gas prices are less than half of what they were three years ago, lowering electricity prices. Meanwhile, America is less reliant on foreign suppliers.

All of this is tremendously good news, but, of course, nothing is that simple. The U.S. is polarized between “drill, baby, drill” conservatives, who seem suspicious of most regulation, and some environmentalists, who seem to regard fossil fuels as morally corrupt and imagine we can switch to wind and solar overnight.

The shale gas revolution challenges the coal industry, renders new nuclear plants uneconomic and changes the economics for the renewable energy companies, which are now much further from viability. So forces have gathered against shale gas, with predictable results.

The clashes between the industry and the environmentalists are now becoming brutal and totalistic, dehumanizing each side. Not-in-my-backyard activists are organizing to prevent exploration. Environmentalists and their publicists wax apocalyptic.

Like every energy source, fracking has its dangers. The process involves injecting large amounts of water and chemicals deep underground. If done right, this should not contaminate freshwater supplies, but rogue companies have screwed up and there have been instances of contamination.

The wells, which are sometimes beneath residential areas, are serviced by big trucks that damage the roads and alter the atmosphere in neighborhoods. A few sloppy companies could discredit the whole sector.

These problems are real, but not insurmountable. An exhaustive study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology concluded, “With 20,000 shale wells drilled in the last 10 years, the environmental record of shale-gas development is for the most part a good one.” In other words, the inherent risks can be managed if there is a reasonable regulatory regime, and if the general public has a balanced and realistic sense of the costs and benefits.

"A reasonable regulatory regime"? And just where in his Republican dreamland -- the one that's going to take place next November no matter what people who are actually allowed to use a voting machine decide, is this reasonable regulatory regime going to happen? And what is a "realistic sense of the costs and benefits" when one of the costs is this:
Two small earthquakes near Blackpool in northwest England earlier this year were probably caused by hydraulic fracturing, a technique of grinding underground rocks to extract natural gas.

It’s “highly probable” that fracking, as the process is known, at the Preese Hall-1 site caused the quakes, U.K.-based shale explorer Cuadrilla Resources Ltd. said in a report published today. The geological circumstances were “rare” and the strongest possible tremor, of a magnitude of 3, wouldn’t be a risk to safety or property on the surface, it said.

Do YOU want to rely on a Republican regulatory climate in the face of this:



Look, I live in a town where my neighbors finally got their power back yesterday. I have colleagues from Connecticut who aren't expected to have their electricity back until Sunday. I understand how dependent we are on energy. But risking mass contamination of drinking water and relying on corporate executives' assessments of safety should hardly give us confidence in their assessment of long-term and short-term risks of this practice.

Fracking is being done by corporations, one of them being Halliburton. Does that make you feel all warm and fuzzy? It shouldn't. These companies are about making a profit, and energy companies in particular have shown little inclination to have concerns about safety. Just like the rest of the companies that are determined to suck everything they can out of this country, then leave a polluted, smoking shell behind and find someplace else to plunder, these companies should not be trusted.

That David Brooks think they should is just another example of why no one should take him seriously.

vendredi 14 octobre 2011

Around the Blogroll and Elsewhere: Is It Friday Yet? edition

Well, I've already run over Maggie's tail with the chair casters, so today's not off to a great beginning. And to make matters worse, she insists on sitting on the floor in the same place. Life is like that around here sometimes as Maggie heads into her dotage, one that finds me trying, far too belatedly, to correct her incessant yowling before she get senile and it never stops.

So what's going on?

A week without Driftglass skewering David Brooks ls like a week without sunshine. (WARNING: Some seriously disturbing Photochopping to be found at the link.)

Once upon a time, two nice young men had a blog called Pandagon. Ezra Klein may have gone on to Pundit Stardom, but the OTHER original Pandagonist, Jesse Taylor, does a nice job of pointing out how Herman Cain's Say No Three Times in German plan will make people more expensive to employ. Can we say "Job-Killing Tax CUTS" now?

I really, really, really hate to link to anything at HuffPo, but this is a good one (and Amanda Terkel DID used to be with ThinkProgress): Scott Brown may have plagiarized his web site from Elizabeth Dole, but Herman Cain may have lifted his from Sim City. (More on this from Southern Beale.)

Michael J.W. Stickings blogs even earlier than I do, this time on Rush Limbaugh's War On Romney.

Laffy sets the record straight.

CheezWhiz: The Occupy movement need look no further than FDR's 1944 State of the Union address.

Some "Elsewhere" from the You Can't Make This Up file: The son of the late Bo Diddley, who carries his father's name, was arrested last night as part of Occupy Gainesville (FL), in Bo Diddley Park.

Rick Ungar on Congressional Republicans' relentless drive to kill women.

And on that same subject, I'll leave you with Congresswoman Jackie Speier from last night's Rachel Maddow Show, telling it like it is on the Republicans' war on women:

mardi 11 octobre 2011

Tuesday Big Blue Smurf Blogging: What They Said

TWO honorees today. First, John Cole again, though I really ought to stop reading Balloon Juice if it's going to make me do things like go to the liquor store next to the Trader Joe's and spend eight bucks on a bottle of Southern Tier Pumking -- and I don't even LIKE beer most of the time, drinking only a sip or two of Sam Adams scrounged occasionally from Mr. Brilliant when the Jets are stinking up the joint on the TeeVee; or a tiny Kölsch beer with colleagues when I'm in Germany.

Anyway, he didn't write the beer post, so he gets today's award for this money quote:
All that is left now is for Chuck Todd and David Gregory to explain how this is a failure on the part of Obama. And no, I am not watching the damned debate tonight.


Second, the Almighty Driftglass, with some truly frightening Photochopping as he takes on Bobo again. Drifty has a fundraiser going, if you want to throw him a few shekels. But save some for #OWS.

mercredi 2 mars 2011

Wednesday Big Blue Smurf Blogging: What They Said

Yesterday's David Brooks column had me so angry I thought the back of my head was going to explode. I was so angry it rendered me speechless. Fortunately, Tom Scocca has more intestinal fortitude than I do, and that makes him today's honoree.

Money quote:
What happens when there is no money to give to the people who have no money? That is the moral question. It's fine to say that the old people should have saved more, they should have worked an extra job, they should have done without cable TV, they should have invested more wisely. Saying that doesn't change the fact that there will be old people who do not have money. These old people will believe that they need food and shelter and medical care.

Will they get it? At the arch-plutocrats' end of things, the Koch brothers' end, the end occupied by the most devout worshippers of Ayn Rand, the answer is: no. That's the goal. It's long since time for the sloppy, implicit, badly supported social contract to go away. Rich people have been trimming their contribution to the general revenue for decades now. They are not interested in paying the premium that keeps old people and ailing people or just backward people out of the streets. If the day comes that they have to travel to and from their various compounds in armored helicopters, they can afford the helicopters. It's not their problem.

David Brooks do not believe they are that kind of person. David Brooks are responsible. David Brooks care about the need to "invest" in "effectiveness" for all.

Alas, living is not effective. Employers have stopped paying people for their post-productive years. They have done this, welfare-capitalistically, with the sense that the cost and responsibility they are shedding will be picked up by...someone, somewhere.

mercredi 27 octobre 2010

The most unintentionally hilarious sentence in the history of sentences

David Brooks, talking about the Rally for Sanity with Gail Collins:
I grew up wanting to be a humorist.


(This post is dedicated to the tireless Bobo-blasting of Drifty and John Cole)

vendredi 16 juillet 2010

Friday Big Blue Smurf Blogging: What They Said

For about five minutes today I found myself wishing I were going to Netroots Nation. After all, Melina and I had a great time when we went in 2007, snarking about self-important people like the Big Blue Smurf himself and sitting around eating margarethe pizza and blogging. Then I remembered that it's in Las Vegas, and a quick look at the Weather Channel site revealed that at 8 PM Eastern Time (5 PM in Vegas) it was 110 degrees out there, which puts our mid-90's to shame. I don't care how much air conditioning you have; I am going to be hot as hell in that kind of weather. Sorry, but not even Alan Grayson is enough to get me to spend a bunch of money to shvitz like that.

Especially when the Kossacks are all excited about being able to ask Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid questions.

So along comes today's honoree, who perhaps gets honored more than anyone else, largely because in times like these, sometimes the niceties have to be dispensed with. And no one spills bile (or curses more than I do) better than Bustednuckles.

Money quotes
:
Jesus Christ, some people just don't get it..
Oh My God!! Nancy Pelosi is coming to the Net Roots National Convention!! Piss my fucking pants and eleventy eleven, Whoo Hoo!
Bonus, Harry Fucking Reid is too!!

Oh My Fucking God, where is my Sharpie..

[snip]

Oh, we don't have enough votes, the Republicans are going to Fillibuster, yadda fucking yadda.

You pussy mother fucker. Ram your fucking agenda down their fucking throats and if they want to fillibuster, make damn sure they have a few cots and some fucking hot tea.

Now ya have some crazy fucking bitch taking you on and you can't even handle that shit.

[snip]

If that crazy bitch Angle whips yer ass in the Primary, it will go a long way to rehabilitate the Electoral process..
Just think, Michelle Bachmann won't be the craziest fucking moron in Congress any more and you and old Bitch McConnell can have a nice honeymoon. After ya just fucked over the millions of folks who were counting on some fucking unenjoyment, gave billions to the cunt fucking bastards in the banking industry and let BP get away with killing three fucking states and a few hundred thousand former tax payers, it's time for you to retire. Take Joe Fucking Lieberman with ya.

I just wish he'd lay off the "c" word.

Honorable mention: Driftglass, who is the perfect antidote to David Brooks.

Meanwhile, on an unrelated note, our esteemed co-blogger and friend Melina, who is so far ahead of the zeitgeist that she was doing the backyard chicken thing before it was cool, was on the local news this evening. I have a 15" pot on a table on my front walkway with 2 pepper plants, basil, and a cucumber plant that can't decide whether it's a vegetable plant or a flowering one. I'm starting to think I need a hen to go with it. I'm sure my neighbors would be thrilled.

vendredi 1 janvier 2010

This would be a great op-ed if I wasn't so sure it would be followed by one denouncing any government role in health coverage reform

It's really too bad that "Don't trust the government with any role in regulation of health care coverage" is the subtext that keeps seeping through Bobo's op-ed in the New York Times today, because otherwise it would be a piece he should have written during the Big Daddy era of George W. Bush, who treated Americans like children who needed to be lied to about the risks we face:

...there was a realistic sense that human institutions are necessarily flawed. History is not knowable or controllable. People should be grateful for whatever assistance that government can provide and had better do what they can to be responsible for their own fates.

That mature attitude seems to have largely vanished. Now we seem to expect perfection from government and then throw temper tantrums when it is not achieved. We seem to be in the position of young adolescents — who believe mommy and daddy can take care of everything, and then grow angry and cynical when it becomes clear they can’t.

[snip]

For better or worse, over the past 50 years we have concentrated authority in centralized agencies and reduced the role of decentralized citizen action. We’ve done this in many spheres of life. Maybe that’s wise, maybe it’s not. But we shouldn’t imagine that these centralized institutions are going to work perfectly or even well most of the time. It would be nice if we reacted to their inevitable failures not with rabid denunciation and cynicism, but with a little resiliency, an awareness that human systems fail and bad things will happen and we don’t have to lose our heads every time they do.

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney treated Americans like children, who needed to be told that their Big Swinging Dick Daddy Wars would keep them 100% safe. That if we just invaded enough countries or dropped enough bombs or eliminated enough freedoms, they could be 100% safe and never, ever, ever die and nothing bad would ever happen to them. Now we have Joe Lieberman advocating turning Yemen into a sheet of glass, we are still in George Bush's phony ginned-up war in Iraq, and we are escalating in Afghanistan. And there are those who think that if we just go to war against enough guys who think that dying will get them laid by 72 virgins in heaven, there will be ABSOLUTELY ZERO RISK to being an American. We will never, ever die and we will live forever.

In my neighborhood, after this winter is over, we will once again see parents putting their kids in what is practically full body armor before letting them get on a bicycle. They don't teach the kids to ride single file; I see entire families riding four abreast with the kids on the outside. But they put kids in helmets and kneepads and elbow pads and wrist guards, thinking this will keep them safe. I used to work with someone whose son was one of the last kids in the state killed on a bicycle before the helmet laws went into effect here in New Jersey. Since the helmet law was passed, parents have deluded themselves into thinking that a helmet will 100% assure that their kids are safe. They are wrong.

And yet when George Bush got up and said that if we just eviscerate everything we stand for; if we give up all our freedoms and allow him to torture anyone he wants to, we can all go to bed with visions of sugarplums dancing in our heads every night and we will never, ever die. And Americans believed it, because it is more comforting to think that a National Guard deserter and dry drunk can keep us 100% safe than to recognize that we live in a world of risk. I never believed that, and it has nothing to do with partisanship. I drive the Garden State Parkway to work every day, in a section where some genius decided that there should be no shoulder on the right and a large one on the left, so that there is nothing between the right-hand-lane and the Passaic River but a concrete divider that doesn't even come up to the door handle of the average car, and where the average prevailing speed is around 75 in a construction zone. So I know that on any day, I could leave the house for work and not come home. It's a risk I have to take because I have to earn a living. One has to leave the house in order to live.

I feel the same way when I agree with David Brooks as I do when Chris Matthews steps out of his Village head -- that what's infuriating about these guys is that they know better. And that they are willfully stupid because it buys them access and invitations to the right parties.

vendredi 30 octobre 2009

Shorter David Brooks

The military brass are worried that Barack Obama may not throw American kids into a meatgrinder indefinitely, the way that codpiece guy who made a thrill go up their leg did.

Can Barack Obama stick to a failed policy come hell or high water? That's what they want to know:
They are not worried about his policy choices. Their concerns are more fundamental. They are worried about his determination.

These people, who follow the war for a living, who spend their days in military circles both here and in Afghanistan, have no idea if President Obama is committed to this effort. They have no idea if he is willing to stick by his decisions, explain the war to the American people and persevere through good times and bad.

Their first concerns are about Obama the man. They know he is intellectually sophisticated. They know he is capable of processing complicated arguments and weighing nuanced evidence.

But they do not know if he possesses the trait that is more important than intellectual sophistication and, in fact, stands in tension with it. They do not know if he possesses tenacity, the ability to fixate on a simple conviction and grip it, viscerally and unflinchingly, through complexity and confusion. They do not know if he possesses the obstinacy that guided Lincoln and Churchill, and which must guide all war presidents to some degree.


There's tenacity, and then there's "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging." Clearly the military thinks that you should just keep digging indefinitely, until you hit a gas line and it blows you up.

We've been in Afghanistan eight years. Yes, a good chunk of that was a skeleton crew while George W. Bush was busy trying to resolve his daddy issues in Iraq. But Iraq is in no better shape:
Baghdad's top government security official has announced the arrest of close to a dozen officers and around 50 members of Iraq's security forces for alleged involvement or negligence in Sunday's suicide bombings in the Iraqi capital.

Iraqi TV reported that Major General Qasim Atta, acting as a military spokesman for the Iraqi capital, announced the arrests of 11 officers and 50 members of the military and police for alleged responsibility or negligence in Sunday's attacks in Baghdad.

About 155 people were killed and hundreds of others wounded in the massive explosions that rocked the Iraqi capital, gutting two government ministries and blowing out windows across the entire center of the city.

The explosions, which killed dozens of children near the government-controlled Green Zone, provoked widespread outrage. Several opposition members of parliament called on top ministers to resign and called on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to testify to parliament about security lapses.

General Atta, who had spoken only recently of the improving security situation in Iraq, announced the crackdown to journalists. He said that both the military commander and the police chief of Baghdad's Salhiya district, site of Sunday's explosions, were under arrest, pending investigation.


How much "tenacity" is required? How long should this country, and its president, cling to a failed policy, feeding more of an entire generation into a meatgrinder because even decades after Vietnam, even with "birthers" and gun nuts and teabaggers and others calling themselves patriots while talking about overthrowing the government by force, we have still learned nothing?

David Brooks may have that peculiar homoerotic fascination with a man in a uniform with a bunch of medals that most pundits seem to have, but that's no reason to regard a foolish consistency as some kind of virtue.

vendredi 22 août 2008

First Andrew Sullivan, now David Brooks? What is the world coming to?

It isn't bad enough that I'm going to be unemployed in a week, now I have to find myself agreeing with not just Andrew Sullivan, but David Brooks as well?

Barack Obama has decided upon a vice-presidential running mate. And while I don’t know who it is as I write, for the good of the country, I hope he picked Joe Biden.

Biden’s weaknesses are on the surface. He has said a number of idiotic things over the years and, in the days following his selection, those snippets would be aired again and again.

But that won’t hurt all that much because voters are smart enough to forgive the genuine flaws of genuine people. And over the long haul, Biden provides what Obama needs:


...and for once I'm going to tell you to go read the rest.

It isn't that Biden is the dream candidate. He's a hack to end all hacks, and I can't get that image of him saying "I like you....you're the real deal" to Alberto Gonzales" out of my head. That he said it as part of a typically long-winded Biden diatribe that when read in full, is meant to disarm Gonzales through bonhomie while asking him tough questions is immagerial. It's that one line that we remember. He's an attention hog, he was entirely too chummy with the gasbags of the Sunday morning "news" shows, and then there's that disastrous bankruptcy bill, which now looks definitively like what it was -- an early attempt to keep lenders and credit card companies from holding the bag whenthe housing bubble burst.

But it's his very brash style that would be a terrific counterpoint to Obama's more measured, thoughtful, unflappability. Imagine a campaign where the #1 guy who's the cool customer you want doing the thinking in the crisis, and the #2 guy who's leaping around like a puppy. That image of Dan Quayle being introduced in 1984 just popped into your head, didn't it? Now imagine that the leaping puppy has 30 years of experience in not just navigating the hackery of Washington, but foreign policy cred behind him.

And now I just want to go back to bed. Because the fact that I linked to David Brooks without the word "idiot" appearing in its context is just too depressing.

mardi 1 juillet 2008

Where does one even start with something like this?

That David Brooks is an idiot isn't a secret to anyone. But just when you think Brooks can't get any dumber, he comes out with a column like this one, in which he bemoans that fact that highly-educated people are giving more money to Barack Obama than to John McCain (perhaps because EVERYONE is giving more money to Barack Obama than to John McCain), that these "educated elites" are (horrors!) taking over the government, and he even gets in a veiled allusion to the Twelve Jewish Bankers of legend.

Excerpts illustrating the above:

As in other recent campaigns, lawyers account for the biggest chunk of Democratic donations. They have donated about $18 million to Obama, compared with about $5 million to John McCain, according to data released on June 2 and available at OpenSecrets.org.

People who work at securities and investment companies have given Obama about $8 million, compared with $4.5 for McCain. People who work in communications and electronics have given Obama about $10 million, compared with $2 million for McCain. Professors and other people who work in education have given Obama roughly $7 million, compared with $700,000 for McCain.

Real estate professionals have given Obama $5 million, compared with $4 million for McCain. Medical professionals have given Obama $7 million, compared with $3 million for McCain. Commercial bankers have given Obama $1.6 million, compared with $1.2 million for McCain. Hedge fund and private equity managers have given Obama about $1.6 million, compared with $850,000 for McCain.

When you break it out by individual companies, you find that employees of Goldman Sachs gave more to Obama than workers of any other employer. The Goldman Sachs geniuses are followed by employees of the University of California, UBS, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, National Amusements, Lehman Brothers, Harvard and Google. At many of these workplaces, Obama has a three- or four-to-one fund-raising advantage over McCain.


You notice that he isn't saying the COMPANIES are making these donations, it's people who WORK for the companies. That of course means it's as likely that these donations are coming from secretaries, clerks, back-office workers and the mailroom guy, as the brokers and hedge fund managers. But why even look at this when you can attack everyone who doesn't work for Wal-Mart?

The trends are pretty clear: rising economic sectors tend to favor Democrats while declining economic sectors are more likely to favor Republicans. The Democratic Party (not just Obama) has huge fund-raising advantages among people who work in electronics, communications, law and the catchall category of finance, insurance and real estate. Republicans have the advantage in agribusiness, oil and gas and transportation. Which set of sectors do you think are going to grow most quickly in this century’s service economy?


Of course Brooks regards this as a BAD thing -- that rising sectors favor Republicans. He's too dumb to realize that this flies in the face of the Republican conventional wisdom that Democratic policies hurt business development. Why would rising sectors favor Democrats if they think they're going to get screwed? Is Brooks saying that the titans of rising economic sectors are dumber than the titans of Big Oil?

And now we get to the truly cranium-combusting part:

If the Democrats are elected, this highly educated class will have much more say over policy than during the campaign. Undecided voters sway campaigns, but in government, elites generally run things. Once the Republicans are vanquished, I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for that capital gains tax hike or serious measures to expand unionization.

Over the past few years, people from Goldman Sachs have assumed control over large parts of the federal government. Over the next few they might just take over the whole darn thing.


ZOMG!!! SMART PEOPLE AND JOOOOOOOOZZZZ MIGHT BE TAKING OVER THE GOVERNMENT!!! HORRORS!!

Just whom does Brooks think should run the government? The guy in the two-can beer hat whose belly is painted green at the Steelers game? And don't you just love that mention of "people from Goldman Sachs" assuming "control over large parts of the federal government"? This wouldn't be the first time that "Goldman Sachs" was used to mean "Jews".

Google "Goldman Sachs as code for Jews" and you'll see what I mean.

That Brooks is himself Jewish doesn't excuse him from using standard boilerplate white-supremacist code, even in the service if this peculiar agenda he has to fancy himself as the spokesman for the common man against all those smart people who would dare think it takes intelligence to solve complex problems.

vendredi 18 avril 2008

Bobo is getting frightened

How cool was it to see Barack Obama turn ABC's attempts to turn him into the man who would revive the Weather Underground right back on them?





We are so used to seeing "toughness on the campaign" take the form of saber-rattling at other nations and attacks on the opponent taking the form of dire predictions of what he/she is going to do to the country. We're used to Democrats apologizing for lamebrained photo-ops that make them look silly instead of coming out and saying, "Hey, you want these photo ops? Well, sometimes we're going to look silly doing them." But we have never, ever seen a cool customer like Barack Obama. I would like to see this "shoulder brush" become THE memorable moment from this campaign.

Doesn't it seem like Obama is really starting to enjoy this? Sure, it's easy to be confident when everything your opponent does to try to bring you down backfires on her. It remains to be seen what happens when the Republican noise machine really starts in earnest. But the fact that ABC's obvious and craven attempt to bury the Obama candidacy seems to have not only backfired, but backfired spectacularly, with fireworks and a big brass band, may mean that such tactics no longer matter, that the hunger that Americans have for a change of direction isn't just limited to young people, or black people, or whatever groups the pundits decide form Obama's voter base. On the contrary; Obama's voter base includes everyone -- young, old, black, white.

Yes, it's "scary", because we are so used to seeing white men, mostly old white men, sworn in on January 20 every four years. Because Obama is not only African-American, but also has this unusual background that flies in the face of the kind of log-cabin, homespun, Norman Rockwell picture that we associate with presidents. But when George W. Bush has shown just how much a white guy can screw things up, there's something about Someone Different that has this aura of potential that Just Another White Guy doesn't have.

You can make the argument that Hillary Clinton, as a woman, would also represent this kind of sea change, were it not for the baggage that her husband's presidency brings to the table, and were it not for the fact that she's arguably more of a warhawk than John McCain and wants as much if not more of a unitary executive than George W. Bush:





With Clinton not having gained any traction from the debate, and with Obama closing the gap in Pennsylvania despite the best efforts of ABC and others to stop him, the upcoming election being one of Bush III vs. some kind of very real change is becoming clearer.

Unless you're David Brooks, in which case despite Obama's lift in the polls every time the punditry declares him dead in the water, Obama is doomed:

Back in Iowa, Barack Obama promised to be something new — an unconventional leader who would confront unpleasant truths, embrace novel policies and unify the country. If he had knocked Hillary Clinton out in New Hampshire and entered general-election mode early, this enormously thoughtful man would have become that.

But he did not knock her out, and the aura around Obama has changed. Furiously courting Democratic primary voters and apparently exhausted, Obama has emerged as a more conventional politician and a more orthodox liberal.

He sprinkled his debate performance Wednesday night with the sorts of fibs, evasions and hypocrisies that are the stuff of conventional politics. He claimed falsely that his handwriting wasn’t on a questionnaire about gun control. He claimed that he had never attacked Clinton for her exaggerations about the Tuzla airport, though his campaign was all over it. Obama piously condemned the practice of lifting other candidates’ words out of context, but he has been doing exactly the same thing to John McCain, especially over his 100 years in Iraq comment.

Obama also made a pair of grand and cynical promises that are the sign of someone who is thinking more about campaigning than governing.


Do you get the sense that Brooks had this column ready to use about either one of the Democratic candidates?

For decades, the pundit corps has been able to rely on their games of gotcha and their conventional wisdom about voter blocs and about the "fact" that what Americans really care about is flags and abortion and two guys kissing and other things completely irrelevant to the lives of most people. And for the most part, Americans have willingly gone along.

This time it seems to be different. How much different it is remains to be seen. But there is a different aroma in the air today, and it's scaring poor David Brooks half to death.

mardi 13 novembre 2007

Don't mess with the master

David Brooks, last Friday, November 9:

Today, I’m going to write about a slur. It’s a distortion that’s been around for a while, but has spread like a weed over the past few months. It was concocted for partisan reasons: to flatter the prejudices of one side, to demonize the other and to simplify a complicated reality into a political nursery tale.

[snip]

The distortion concerns a speech Ronald Reagan gave during the 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Miss., which is where three civil rights workers had been murdered 16 years earlier. An increasing number of left-wing commentators assert that Reagan kicked off his 1980 presidential campaign with a states’ rights speech in Philadelphia to send a signal to white racists that he was on their side. The speech is taken as proof that the Republican majority was built on racism.

The truth is more complicated.

[snip]

In reality, Reagan strategists decided to spend the week following the 1980 Republican convention courting African-American votes. Reagan delivered a major address at the Urban League, visited Vernon Jordan in the hospital where he was recovering from gunshot wounds, toured the South Bronx and traveled to Chicago to meet with the editorial boards of Ebony and Jet magazines.

Lou Cannon of The Washington Post reported at the time that this schedule reflected a shift in Republican strategy. Some inside the campaign wanted to move away from the Southern strategy used by Nixon, believing there were more votes available in the northern suburbs and among working-class urban voters.

But there was another event going on that week, the Neshoba County Fair, seven miles southwest of Philadelphia. The Neshoba County Fair was a major political rallying spot in Mississippi (Michael Dukakis would campaign there in 1988). Mississippi was a state that Republican strategists hoped to pick up. They’d recently done well in the upper South, but they still lagged in the Deep South, where racial tensions had been strongest. Jimmy Carter had carried Mississippi in 1976 by 14,000 votes.

So the decision was made to go to Neshoba. Exactly who made the decision is unclear. The campaign was famously disorganized, and Cannon reported: “The Reagan campaign’s hand had been forced to some degree by local announcement that he would go to the fair.” Reagan’s pollster Richard Wirthlin urged him not to go, but Reagan angrily countered that once the commitment had been made, he couldn’t back out.

[snip]

...spoke mostly about inflation and the economy, but in the middle of a section on schools, he said this: “Programs like education and others should be turned back to the states and local communities with the tax sources to fund them. I believe in states’ rights. I believe in people doing as much as they can at the community level and the private level.”

The use of the phrase “states’ rights” didn’t spark any reaction in the crowd, but it led the coverage in The Times and The Post the next day.


It's unusual for one New York Times columnist to so publicly smack down another, but Bob Herbert masterfully does it to Brooks today:

The murders were among the most notorious in American history. They constituted Neshoba County’s primary claim to fame when Reagan won the Republican Party’s nomination for president in 1980. The case was still a festering sore at that time. Some of the conspirators were still being protected by the local community. And white supremacy was still the order of the day.

That was the atmosphere and that was the place that Reagan chose as the first stop in his general election campaign. The campaign debuted at the Neshoba County Fair in front of a white and, at times, raucous crowd of perhaps 10,000, chanting: “We want Reagan! We want Reagan!”

Reagan was the first presidential candidate ever to appear at the fair, and he knew exactly what he was doing when he told that crowd, “I believe in states’ rights.”

Reagan apologists have every right to be ashamed of that appearance by their hero, but they have no right to change the meaning of it, which was unmistakable. Commentators have been trying of late to put this appearance by Reagan into a racially benign context.

That won’t wash. Reagan may have been blessed with a Hollywood smile and an avuncular delivery, but he was elbow deep in the same old race-baiting Southern strategy of Goldwater and Nixon.

Everybody watching the 1980 campaign knew what Reagan was signaling at the fair. Whites and blacks, Democrats and Republicans — they all knew. The news media knew. The race haters and the people appalled by racial hatred knew. And Reagan knew.

He was tapping out the code. It was understood that when politicians started chirping about “states’ rights” to white people in places like Neshoba County they were saying that when it comes down to you and the blacks, we’re with you.

And Reagan meant it. He was opposed to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was the same year that Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney were slaughtered. As president, he actually tried to weaken the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He opposed a national holiday for the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He tried to get rid of the federal ban on tax exemptions for private schools that practiced racial discrimination. And in 1988, he vetoed a bill to expand the reach of federal civil rights legislation.

Congress overrode the veto.

Reagan also vetoed the imposition of sanctions on the apartheid regime in South Africa. Congress overrode that veto, too.

Throughout his career, Reagan was wrong, insensitive and mean-spirited on civil rights and other issues important to black people. There is no way for the scribes of today to clean up that dismal record.


Game, set, match to Herbert

mardi 25 septembre 2007

More slicing and dicing

This time it's Glenn Greenwald, quietly slipping the shiv into that sanctimonious, self-styled Oracle of the Heartland, David Brooks.

Money quote:

So the real Heart and Soul of the Democratic Party is not bloggers, but those "high school educated women in the Midwest" whom Brooks condescendingly idealizes. And there is, of course, no overlap between those two groups. Bloggers are rabid elitists freaks from the coasts, while "high school educated women in the Midwest" are the saintly salt of the American earth who don't know what blogs are.

And how do we learn what the true political beliefs are of the all-important "high school educated women in the Midwest"? Do we consult polls or the outcome of elections? No, there is no need for any of that. We can just ask David Brooks, because he profoundly understands them, and they always think as he does. Like David Broder and the rest of the Beltway class, David Brooks speaks for Them. Thus, Democrats can only win elections if they adopt the views of David Brooks, because those are the views which are adored in the Heartland.

dimanche 9 septembre 2007

Last time I looked, I hadn't masterminded any terrorist attacks

But David Brooks thinks "lefty bloggers" inspired Osama Bin Laden:





You know, it was bad enough when only the mouthbreathers like Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin were raving that anyone who disagreed with George W. Bush's so-called anti-terrorism policies was a terrorist him or herself. But Brooks is a regular on The News Hour and has a regular column in the New York Times.

Why is Brooks not asking why Osama Bin Laden is still out there to even MAKE a tape of the sort we saw this past week? Why is he not asking why the president he worships allowed Bin Laden to escape at Tora Bora? Why is he not asking why Bush closed down the unit going after Bin Laden? Why is he not asking why, six years after the 9/11 attacks, the guy whom Bush first said he wanted "dead or alive", but later said "I really am not all that concerned about him" has not been apprehended?

I realize that David Brooks fears for the future of his job and of his industry because of bloggers, but that doesn't make us terrorists. One would think that with the botch Bush has made of Iraq, we'd be beyond this kind of simple jingoism that characterized political discourse in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, particularly by a member of the so-called Serious Washington Pundit corps.

Jeff Feldman calls for PBS to fire Brooks and apologize to its viewers, citing PBS's status as "public" (no matter how much its funded and is increasingly beholden to its corporate funders), and I agree. Let Brooks go work for Fox News, where this kind of idiocy passes muster.

mardi 17 juillet 2007

Hey! Get a room!

David Brooks is perhaps the last person in the country not named William Kristol who is still so ardently fellating the president:

Far from being beleaguered, Bush was assertive and good-humored. While some in his administration may be looking for exit strategies, he is unshakably committed to stabilizing Iraq. If Gen. David Petraeus comes back and says he needs more troops and more time, Bush will scrounge up the troops. If GeneralPetraeus says he can get by with fewer, Bush will support that, too.

Bush said he will get General Petraeus’s views unfiltered by the Pentagon establishment. He feels no need to compromise to head off opposition from Capitol Hill and is confident that he can rebuild popular support. “I have the tools,” he said.

I left the 110-minute session thinking that far from being worn down by the past few years, Bush seems empowered. His self-confidence is the most remarkable feature of his presidency.

All this will be taken as evidence by many that Bush is delusional. He’s living in a cocoon. He doesn’t see or can’t face how badly the war is going and how awfully he has performed.

But Bush is not blind to the realities in Iraq. After all, he lives through the events we’re not supposed to report on: the trips to Walter Reed, the hours and hours spent weeping with or being rebuffed by the families of the dead.

Rather, his self-confidence survives because it flows from two sources. The first is his unconquerable faith in the rightness of his Big Idea. Bush is convinced that history is moving in the direction of democracy, or as he said Friday: “It’s more of a theological perspective. I do believe there is an Almighty, and I believe a gift of that Almighty to all is freedom. And I will tell you that is a principle that no one can convince me that doesn’t exist.”

Second, Bush remains energized by the power of the presidency. Some presidents complain about the limits of the office. But Bush, despite all the setbacks, retains a capacious view of the job and its possibilities.


Maybe it's because he doesn't actually work at it. When you vacation as much as he has, and you are in your footie pajamas with the covers pulled up tight over your chest by 9:30 at night every night, and you spend half your day jogging and working out, no, the presidency is not going to wear you down. And if you're too stupid to realize the implications of your policies and surrounded by people who tell you everything is just wonderful, of course you're going to retain an expansive view.

Remind me again why this guy is getting paid to write while so many of us slog away for free.

vendredi 1 juin 2007

Heaven forbid

There is no justice in the world when people like Driftglass and Digby and Cernig toil away for free and David Brooks gets paid for writing verbal blowjobs like this:

What Thompson’s campaign represents, then, is a return to basics. It’s not primarily engaged in the issues that have dominated recent G.O.P. politics. Thompson is campaigning to restore America’s constitutional soul. He’s going back to Madison and Jefferson and the decentralized federalism of the founders, at least as channeled through Goldwater. As Thompson himself said while running for Senate, “America’s government is bringing America down, and the only thing that can change that is a return to the basics.”

Thompson thus becomes one pole in the debate now roiling the G.O.P. Nobody is running as the continuation of Bush. The big question now is: should the party go back to the basics or should it jump forward and transform itself into something new? Thompson articulates the back-to-basics view in its purest form. Newt Gingrich articulates the transformational view in its purest form. The other candidates are a mishmash in between.

If I were a political consultant I would tell my candidate to play up Thompson’s back-to-basics theme. This is a traumatized party, not in the mood for anything risky and new. But over the long run, back to basics is no solution because it doesn’t produce a positive agenda for today’s problems.

Fred Thompson’s political skills are as good as anybody now running, but his challenge is going to be building a concrete agenda on his anti-Washington message. It will be translating his Goldwater risorgimento philosophy into policies on energy, health care reform, Islamic extremism and education. For if there is one thing the last 30 years have taught us, it is that campaigns that are strictly anti-Washington do not command 50 percent of the vote because they don’t address the decentralized global challenges that now face us.

Perhaps, as my friend Daniel Casse notes, what the G.O.P. needs is Newt Gingrich’s brain lodged in Fred Thompson’s temperament.


Yeah, right. Just what we need -- a hypocritical wingnut authoritarian lunatic lodged in an actor phony with a deep voice who appeals to American morons who think that his television and movie roles qualify him for the presidency.

And they PAY Brooks to write this stuff?

And by the way, here is the temperament Brooks thinks is so wonderful.

mardi 29 mai 2007

Because big words, are, like just too hard to read

David Brooks runs this year's Al Gore meme up the flagpole to see if anyone salutes: Al Gore is Weird.

But, hey, nobody ever died from contact with pomposity, and Al Gore’s “The Assault on Reason” is well worth reading. It reminds us that whatever the effects of our homogenizing mass culture, it is still possible for exceedingly strange individuals to rise to the top.

Gore is, for example, a radical technological determinist. While most politicians react to people, Gore reacts to machines, and in this book he lays out a theory of history entirely driven by them.

He writes that “the idea of self-government became feasible after the printing press.” With this machine, people suddenly had the ability to use the printed word to debate ideas and proceed logically to democratic conclusions. As Gore writes in his best graduate school manner, “The eighteenth century witnessed more and more ordinary citizens able to use knowledge as a source of power to mediate between wealth and privilege.”

This Age of Reason produced the American Revolution. But in the 20th century, television threatened it all. In Gore’s view, TV immobilizes the reasoning centers in the brain and stimulates the primitive, instinctive parts. TV creates a “visceral vividness” that is not “modulated by logic, reason and reflective thought.”

TV allows political demagogues to exaggerate dangers and stoke up fear. Furthermore, “conglomerates can dominate the expressions of opinion that flood the mind of the citizenry” and “the result is a de facto coup d’état overthrowing the rule of reason.”


Brooks has a serious problem with this notion. The loss of reason has allowed Fox News to spin utter horseshit as fact and allows George Bush to declare that Americans agree with HIM on Iraq. But the loss of reason has also allowed David Brooks to make a handsome living pretending to actually think while writing some of the most moronic columns in the history of opinion journalism.

In today's column, Brooks resembles nothing so much as the high school lunkhead who refuses to do the assignment because the big words are just too hard to read. And besides, there are poetry nerds and science geeks out in the quad who need to be beaten silly. And after school, there's pizza to be eaten with Maureen Dowd and the rest of the Heathers.