David Brooks is making me bald

Another column by David Brooks, another instance of my reading and trying hard not to pull my hair out.

As is usually the case with Brooks, he is convinced he's writing about very profound and "deep" ideas, when it's just not the case. I am too often embarassed for him, making reading his columns that much more cringe-worthy. (And please, in no way do I profess to be a Mensa candidate -- all the more worse for Brooks).

In his latest "thought piece," Brooks is apparently struggling (surprise!) with a chicken and egg dilemma: do we arrive at opinions on our own independently, or do we just adopt them from membership groups? Original thought or groupthink? Meanwhile, Rome (aka USA) burns, but I digress.

Brooks writes:

Busy fighting communism and fascism, people back then emphasized individual reason and were deeply allergic to groupthink.

We don’t think this way anymore, and in fact thinking this way can get you into trouble.

This is exactly the kind of Brooksian generality that drives me nuts! Just lazy prose. People back then what? Oh sure, back then people were all about "individual reason" and were not in any way susceptible to "groupthink" -- really? Show evidence! Brooks is much like Fox News: say or write it, and -- poof -- it's true. No need to provide proof with facts and sources. Just sound off with generalizations that seem to sound right (to him), don't bother doing any actual research to bolster and support your claims.

It's like my older relatives who wax nostalgic about the "good old days" (1950s), mentioning several positives, but of course selectively leaving out many negatives. Preferring to just broadly generalize based on memories and notions. I'll dare to say to them, "But what about the many diseases then (now gone)? What about how women were regarded as second class citizens? What about racism? What about intolerance for gays? Bullying in schools? What about the pollution and lack of protective regulations?" By then, I get brushed aside with a hand gesture, not wanting to be heard. Facts are often inconvenient and bothersome.

More from Brooks:

How many times have we all heard somebody rise up in conversation and say, “Speaking as a Latina. …” or “Speaking as a queer person. …” or “Speaking as a Jew. …”?

Now, when somebody says that I always wonder, What does that mean? After you’ve stated your group identity, what is the therefore that follows?

The inference being that the person is about to say something that stems from his/her group identity and not anything originating independently from the individual. Again, more lazy thinking based on a tired notion and assumption. How does Brooks draw this conclusion? And frankly, I believe when a person makes this sort of intro to a statement, it's not to then expound a groupthink-derived idea or sentiment, but rather is simply letting the listener know that the person has at least some direct relevance to what is about to be said. In other words, rather than saying something that is likely an assumption or commonly-held notion (Brooks' forte), the person is giving a helpful heads up "been there, done that, i.e. I know at least a little about what I speak."

But no, Brooks just assumes that whatever comes next is group-based dogma or platitudes, the person just regurgitating cliches adopted from his/her "kind."

Brooks continues:

When I started, it was very important for opinion writers to never think of themselves as a Republican or a Democrat. We were individual inquirers, not polemicists for some political team. Over the years, many people stopped making that distinction.

Classic Brooks. He writes about something almost not realizing that it tends to go against the point(s) he's trying to make. Brooks is Republican (he may deny it -- ignore). What political party is known for lemming-like behavior, in which the members all predictably circle the wagons, fall into line and back the chosen candidate 100%? It's certainly not the D party!! Herding cats is easier than getting Democrats to universally agree on most things. But Republicans started with 17 (?) presidential candidates, narrowed it down to Trump, and despite many in the party complaining, we've seen GOP voters staunchly back Trump. No groupthink there!

But I'm sure Brooks will claim he's spreading the blame and his criticism. It's meant for all sides, not just one. Right. Read the column, you tell me.

Brooks writes:

[I]n the 1990s, African-Americans strongly supported tougher criminal justice laws. Now opinion has shifted and a majority of African-Americans strongly oppose them.
<..>
Why are people’s views of global warming, genetically modified foods and other scientific issues strongly determined by political label? That seems ridiculous.

Is that true about African-Americans in the 1990s? Am I to just assume Brooks is correct?

As for science-based, factual issues such as global warming and GMOs, yes, it is ridiculous that the Republican Party has increasingly become about non-science and non-facts and nonsense.

Our political system is based on the idea that persuasion and deliberation lead to compromise and toward truth. 

Just hilarious. Which political party is more to blame for lack of compromise? Which party steadfastly refused to work with Obama as president? In 2012, which political party was Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein referring to when they wrote, "ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition"? And which party is willfully ignorant of facts and the truth, and repeatedly looks to mislead and distort and con? You guessed it, the Republican Party.

But it's more dignified and "fair" for Brooks to employ the oft-used false equivalency canard, that both sides are guilty. And he gets to then shake his head and hands in frustration, stating that "he's confused."

Oh please.

It's been several days but I didn't want to let David Brooks' last column fade into infamy without my commenting.

Many already have, labeling it one of his worst (which is saying something). Steven Benen wrote, "This isn’t an argument. It’s barely even an opinion piece. It’s more a love letter than anything else." No, it's simply embarrassing, another shameful entry from a non-thinker who frankly in no way should be afforded real estate on the most influential opinion pages in the country.

As it is, Brooks stole his topic (Bush's "confidence" or odd super-optimistic mood) from a Peggy Noonan column appearing in the WSJ just days before, but Brooks paints it differently than the typically-fawning Noonan. Whereas Noonan was at least somewhat critical of Bush (rare moment), Brooks in his infinite wisdom just sees this wide-eyed mood of GW's as one backed by steadfast confidence and faith.

Here are some samples:

He’s convinced leaders have the power to change societies. Even in a place as chaotic as Iraq, good leadership makes all the difference....When Bush is asked about military strategy, he talks about the leadership qualities of his top generals. Before, it was Generals Abizaid and Casey. Now, it’s Generals Petraeus and Odierno....Many will doubt this, but Bush is a smart and compelling presence in person....

Had enough? But to truly appreciate the depths of Brooks' idiocy, you must try to read through the whole thing yourself. BTW, I just love the way Brooks presents Bush praising his military generals, with "generals" being plural because no matter the "leadership qualities" if they disagreed with Bush they were gone.

It's not very often you have one columnist at a paper writing a column in response to another columnist, but I must say that Paul Krugman comes pretty close in this regard, responding to the dimwitted Brooks column described above. (Even Krugman couldn't not respond).

Some of what Krugman wrote:

What I don’t understand is why we’re supposed to consider Mr. Bush’s continuing confidence a good thing.

Remember, Mr. Bush was confident six years ago when he promised to bring in Osama, dead or alive. He was confident four years ago, when he told the insurgents to bring it on. He was confident two years ago, when he told Brownie that he was doing a heckuva job.

Now Iraq is a bloody quagmire, Afghanistan is deteriorating and the Bush administration’s own National Intelligence Estimate admits, in effect, that thanks to Mr. Bush’s poor leadership America is losing the struggle with Al Qaeda. Yet Mr. Bush remains confident.

Sorry, but that’s not reassuring; it’s terrifying. It doesn’t demonstrate Mr. Bush’s strength of character; it shows that he has lost touch with reality.

Actually, it’s not clear that he ever was in touch with reality. I wrote about the Bush administration’s “infallibility complex,” its inability to admit mistakes or face up to real problems it didn’t want to deal with, in June 2002. Around the same time Ron Suskind, the investigative journalist, had a conversation with a senior Bush adviser who mocked the “reality-based community,” asserting that “when we act, we create our own reality.”

People who worried that the administration was living in a fantasy world used to be dismissed as victims of “Bush derangement syndrome,” liberals driven mad by Mr. Bush’s success. Now, however, it’s a syndrome that has spread even to former loyal Bushies.

Yes, most liberals "got it" all along, they/we were right. It's often difficult being ahead of the herd.

But what Krugman is pointing out concerning Bush's disturbing confidence is similar to dumb being characterized as brave. Bush is not so much confident as he is delusional, removed from reality. Anyone can appear confident in a bubble. To some extent, we can't blame him as his entire life has been charmed, his many mistakes taken care of by his father, his worries few and far between thanks to his powerful namesake. And all of this is not a problem per say -- EXCEPT IF YOU ARE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

Krugman closes with:

You know, at this point I think we need to stop blaming Mr. Bush for the mess we’re in. He is what he always was, and everyone except a hard core of equally delusional loyalists knows it.

Yet Mr. Bush keeps doing damage because many people who understand how his folly is endangering the nation’s security still refuse, out of political caution and careerism, to do anything about it.

It's just like a king gone mad, when he's running naked through the palace, ordering the deaths of innocent peasants just for kicks, and yet his court minions do nothing to stop him. They stand idly by, allowing the insanity to continue, enabling the carnage and ruin. In many ways, they're worse than the king who long ago lost touch with the real world.

I've said it before and I'll very likely say it again: David Brooks is a moron.

In his column today, he offers the line, "Iraq has revealed what human beings do without a strong order-imposing state." Brooks spends the entire column making the case that man's nature is inherently evil or "nasty" and thus requires submission to authority. Obedience is to be encouraged to save man from himself.

Recall that Brooks was one of the original cheerleaders for the Iraq war. Logic dictates that given these beliefs, Brooks should have never been for freeing the Iraqi people. Hell, according to his way of thinking, they were apparently better off under Saddam's strict rule.

To sum up, Brooks has all along supported a war that -- after the WMD and links to 9/11 and Al Qaeda excuses fell flat -- was alas about freeing the people from suppression by ridding them of a horrific authoritative tyrant. But if as Brooks professes, man is not nice and needs to be kept in line, then it stands to reason he should not have been so adamantly in favor of the war. Given his dark view of man's nature, what did he think was going to happen once Saddam was removed? At the very least, he should've been pounding the table at the start that many more troops were needed to insure obedience and order would quickly follow.

Yet here we are, 3000+ dead U.S. soldiers later, and what does Brooks have to say? Something along the lines of you see, this disaster in Iraq is what you get when you free people and don't have in place "a strong order-imposing state."

Warm cup of totalitarian rule, anyone? Yup, he truly is an idiot.

The most recent column by David Brooks was another adventure into how David's brain works more than anything else. Like GW, he very much has the mind of a young child trapped within a grown man's body.

To explain the drop in crime and violence over the last fifteen or so years, Brooks offers up wistful explanations that woefully lack any proof or evidence. Again like Bush, he simply chooses to believe a pretty picture, much of it manufactured in his own cranium with no outside help or influence.

His assertions for why the decrease in crime/violence are: 1) "people have stopped believing in stupid ideas," 2) "many Americans have become better parents," 3) "the younger generation, under age 30 or so, are reacting against the culture of divorce," and 4) "over the past few decades, neighborhood and charitable groups have emerged to help people."

I kid you not. The NY Times has a columnist who wrote such "weighty" prose. Gads.

Steven Levitt, an economics professor at the esteemed Univ. of Chicago, proposes a set of four different reasons for the drop in violence and crime over this time period. I would first point out that 1) the Univ. of Chicago is known for producing conservative economists, and 2) take a look at Levitt's CV -- quite impressive, to say the least (many say he's on the Nobel track). Note also that in his recent book, Freakonomics, he performed extensive research and tests to arrive at his conclusions (as compared to Brooks' warm-and-fuzzy guesswork).

Levitt's first reason is the bursting of the crack bubble. This occurred during the 1990s (with Clinton in the White House), with the profits for selling crack plummeting. His second reason: in the '90s (again, Clinton's years), more people were put in jail. Third reason: the number of police on the streets during the '90s increased -- due to legislation passed by Clinton.

Levitt's fourth factor, and likely most controversial, is legalized abortion. Levitt states that at the start of the 1990s, we saw a direct effect resulting from Roe v. Wade, namely the absence of teenagers who would've been born into unhealthy or dysfunctional, or perhaps even abusive, homes, an environment that frequently shapes criminals-to-be. Levitt presents extensive evidence supporting his claims. In fact, he shows that crime and violence dropped first in those five states which legalized abortion two years prior to Roe v. Wade.

Levitt's book has been a bestseller and his ideas concerning the drop in crime have been fairly well-circulated. Why is it the case that Brooks had no clue about Levitt's work? Is it simply easier to drum up reasons off the top of one's head? Yes, perhaps so, but the NY Times should demand and expect more and yet Brooks regularly lets them down.

James Surowiecki seems to be reluctant to say what he really wants to say (which I suppose is understandable given he blogs for the esteemed New Yorker): that David Brooks is an idiot.

Surowiecki has posted several excellent blog entries of late. In another, he again makes mention of David Brooks, namely DB's belief that it would be politically "suicidal" for Obama to resort to reconciliation. Surowiecki rightly says nonsense, stating:

[W]here is the evidence that ordinary voters remember how laws were passed and reward or punish politicians based on that? On the contrary, voters judge politicians (to the extent that they make rational decisions) based on whether the laws they passed worked or not....Political victory on this issue isn’t going to be determined by how the law gets enacted. It’ll be determined by what happens once it is enacted.

Like Bill Kristol, 99.9% of the time it's best to do opposite what Brooks is advising. But more so, with Republicans refusing to negotiate in good faith concerning health care reform, their stiff-armed resistance serves as an opportunity for the Democrats. Use this issue to highlight the stark us-versus-them dynamic that has unfortunately taken hold over the last several weeks, to make it plainly evident for all to see via a go-it-alone course of action in crafting a reform bill. This way the Democrats will get all the credit.

Recall the numerous Republicans that resisted the passing of the stimulus money...? Recall again the numerous Republicans that eventually took credit for the stimulus money making its way through their respective states...? Deep down, they indeed fear that passage of health care reform without their involvement will leave them out in the cold when inevitably such reform is well-received, and in a year or two or three opposing Democrats can score huge political points by making it clear Republican X or Y voted against any beneficial change.

Continued resistance by Republicans should be treated and embraced by Dems in same spirit as Clint Eastwood's line, "Go ahead, make my day."

Surowiecki also writes about how many are advising Obama to behave more like FDR and simply ignore the GOP when it comes to health care reform. On this front I urge everyone to listen to the first segment of Thom Hartmann's Sept. 3rd radio show, where he specifically discusses this point and plays a tape of FDR making bold, emphatic statements.

I'm sympathetic towards this view, even though some may ask, "Where will this defiance get Obama in the long run?" I ask, what has his desire to work with Republicans gotten him up till now? Not much, and I would submit it's made him a weaker and less admirable president to a good number of the people who voted for him, in large part explaining the wane in his poll numbers. If he were to suddenly stand up to the GOP with take-charge backbone and stern language, I bet you'd see his poll numbers spike up dramatically.

By the same token, if the Dems go the recon route, meaning give the big FU to Republicans, then the public option should be included. To leave it out and still say the heck with the GOP is a transparent nod to the health care lobby.

And I thought with Obama's bottoms-up, grassroots win last November that he was less susceptible to being bought and sold by corporate interests -- can we see some evidence of that, please?!

I've said it before, I'll say it again, David Brooks is truly a moron.

In his column yesterday, he laments, "If the Democrats don’t like the U.S. policy on Iraq over the next six months, they have themselves partly to blame. There were millions of disaffected Republicans and independents ready to coalesce around some alternative way forward, but the Democrats never came up with anything remotely serious."

What a bucket of horse dung. Apart from some kind of measured withdrawal, which many if not most Dems have proposed and supported, what "alternative way" is there? What miracle plan exists that the Dems somehow overlooked or just didn't think of? Why doesn't Brooks suggest a few?

This Republican president and his lackeys -- which includes the GOP-controlled Congress that did nothing but serve as a rubber-stamping, fawning echo chamber for Bush's every whim -- put this country into one of the worst foreign policy debacles in memory, screwing it up at every turn, firing those who correctly spoke out with prescient warnings and promoting those who said what the powers-that-be wanted to hear. To paraphrase Colin Powell, they broke it and now they (we) own it.

But Brooks has the gall to criticize the Dems for not completing the Hail Mary pass into the endzone to win the game, to not suddenly grab the wheel and hopelessly steer the Titanic clear from harms way. How ludicrous.

And why the Dems? Why doesn't Brooks criticize Republicans for not coming up with an "alternative way"? What, are they all mindless drones, joined at the hip, forced to go along with whatever GW decides? Needless to say, it's their party that was in complete control and presided over our government when this disaster unfolded, shouldn't they at least feel the need to offer alternatives? At least a few Republicans have not agreed with Bush, so where's the miracle plan from them?

But because the Dems have not pulled a magical solution out of their bag of tricks, one that will rectify the many wrongs with the Iraq situation, then according to Brooks they have no right to criticize U.S. policy on Iraq. And yet Brooks apparently has the right to criticize them.

Yup, he's a blithering dolt who unfortunately makes one long for the days of Safire's column (gads).

I've written several times before about the dazzling intellect of columnist David Brooks. He makes Jonah Goldberg read like Descartes.

Greg Sargent recently chimed in on the subject, pointing out the shortcomings in a Brooks column. Sargent summarized:

The whole column is a massive intellectual failure. There's no originality of thought, no effort to marshal facts, no original reporting, nothing. In short, Brooks has added absolutely zippo of value to the larger conversation.

Brooks has penned many a column like this one; for him to base a column on rigorous research and facts is rare indeed.

As Sargent states elsewhere, shame on his editors to allow such light fodder to make it to print. Sadly, because of the Times stature, Brooks' evidence-free opinions likely pass for truth in rightwing circles. I mean my gosh, it's the NY Times, it must be more plausible than Fox News! Yet, all too often Brooks peddles the same kind of lazy crap that his less-overtly-sophisticated brethren (Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc.) make a nice living manufacturing.

To that end, his assumed credibility makes him that much more a dangerous voice for the right.

In the past, I've commented on the columns of David Brooks, in nearly each case concluding that Brooks is a moron. As with Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and the rest of the gang, they are so ridiculously idiotic that to spend time writing about them is all too often a simple waste of time, thus reason why I nary write about Brooks. His columns are typically nonsensical and sophomoric.

That said his latest entry concerning the Libby commutation is, as Andrew Sullivan tagged it, an embarrassment. David Corn goes one step further and offers an almost line-by-line refutation of Brooks' column.

What's truly embarrassing is the NY Times continues to employ this guy. Can't they find anyone better to portray the right-wingers?

I've written several times about the banal idiocy of David Brooks. It's not difficult, and here Greg Mitchell of E&P takes a crack at it:

[W]hat is truly bankrupt about his [Israel/Lebanon] stance is his admission that the current U.S. policy has little chance for success....Because, he admits, America's standing and influence has been fatally crippled by its Iraq debacle -- which Brooks strongly backed and still supports....In other words, Brooks in the end admits that all of his fulminating about a solution to the conflict is crippled by a U.S. war in Iraq -- which he always thought, and still thinks, was a swell idea, launched and managed by an administration he still showers with "enormous credit."

Greg, don't feel bad, I can never get through a Brooks column without wanting to take a sledgehammer to my head.

As with many of the last hold-outs on the lunatic right, still pathetically defending what's obviously now indefensible, they're more than willing to shill and pander to this administration in exchange for swift disposal of all credibility.

Brooks is a flat-out joke.

These days, when you read something critical about flawed, lazy right-wing thinking, the targeted subject seems to almost always be David Brooks.

A fairly recent example was in The New Republic. Franklin Foer cites a Brooks' column where he claims the Dems had access to the same intel leading up to Iraq as did GW. Foer responds,

When the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace published a definitive study of the administration’s presentation of the WMD intelligence last year, it found that “officials systematically misrepresented the threat.” While Democrats may have believed that Saddam posed a long-term threat, they didn’t exaggerate evidence and stifle government experts to justify an imminent invasion. As Kenneth Pollack—one of the Democrats cited by Brooks—wrote last year in the Atlantic, “Only the Administration has access to all the information available to various agencies of the US government--and withholding or downplaying some of that information for its own purposes is a betrayal of that responsibility.”

Hmm, it appears Brooks got it wrong -- again. Gads, and he's supposed to be one of the few less-blowhardy spouting heads from the right.

Want another example? Click here.

Ah well, at least Brooks might be aware of his shortcomings, with him quoted as saying, "I've been exemplifying our ignorance on a daily basis ever since."

I held my nose and read the recent David Brooks column in the NY Times. Always a frustrating endeavor. It would work better if I hit myself over the head with a hammer before reading.

His "weighty" subject this time: parents who opt to have lots of kids. He treats such folks as if they're American heroes, to be heralded and applauded for multiplying at least more so than the typical blue state couple. He makes it sound as if those who've elected to have fewer than three kids are not as noble, or even righteous, than these so-called "natalists." As I've said before, it all simply comes across as an embarrassment for the Times, namely proving the wrong move was made when hiring Brooks. To say he's managed to dumb-down the op/ed page of this paper is to not venture too far out on a limb.

He spends paragraph after paragraph attempting to guess at who these natalists are, stating things that by all accounts are conjecture but are presented as near-fact. Example: "when people get money, one of the first things they do is use it to try to protect their children from bad influences." Huh? Says who? How does he arrive at this assertion? Did he conduct a study of all those people who lacked money who then won the Lotto and discovered that X% spent X amount on internet firewalls, etc., as their first purchase in an effort to shield their hapless offspring? You can tell that he's waxing poetic off of what amounts to far-less-than-conclusive facts.

He says things like "The people who are having big families are explicitly rejecting materialistic incentives and hyperindividualism." Perhaps, but again where's the gray? You can't make such a blanket statement -- it just sounds dumb. I know (first hand) that the Catholic Church strongly encourages procreating. During my time spent in Pre-Cana, the #1 message driven home through the multi-hour ordeal is to have many children. It's conveyed as an extremely holy act to do so. Therefore, the possibility exists that many of these parents creating multi-kid families are doing so to comply with church guidance, to properly perform their holy duty, to do what God wishes, etc. -- and nothing more. In other words, Brooks references the higher likelihood for spirituality in these people but then drops the ball when in fact it could also explain the high number of kids, as he opts instead to emphasize such virtues as rejecting greed and narcissism. Again, it's not black or white and while some do fall under this category, many fall under the wanting-to-please-God/church category.

To top it all off, TAPPED points out that Brooks cites an author, Steve Sailer, who has been universally deemed racist:

Who are some of Sailer's allies and what role has he served in his chosen intellectual community? According to the SPLC, Sailer has organized an invitation-only online discussion group called the Human Biodiversity Institute:
<...>

According to a list posted on HBI's Web site until last summer, this "elite" includes: · Jean-Phillippe Rushton, a prominent researcher on black genetic inferiority who is president of a pro-eugenics hate group, the Pioneer Fund; · Charles Murray, co-author of The Bell Curve, which purported to show black and Latino intellectual inferiority; · Kevin MacDonald, a professor at California State University at Long Beach who has written several books about supposed Jewish strategies to subvert "Euro-American" culture; and · Gregory Cochrane, a physicist who has suggested the existence of a genetic "gay germ."

Obviously, for shame Mr. Brooks, but even more so, for shame NY Times.

An excellent response by Kevin Drum to another super-light David Brooks column, proving once again that Brooks is a blithering idiot who seemingly spends little if any time conducting research before typing out his column in time to receive a paycheck. He's an embarrassment to the NY Times and he should be an embarrassment to all serious, credible right-wing thinkers. For related retorts to Brooks' column, click here and here.

That pillar of wide-eyed intelligence, David Brooks, recently put out another gem of a column, titled "The Age of Skepticism."

He writes, "There has been a sharp drop in Americans' faith in their institutions. Trust in government has fallen back to about half of where it was in 2001." Hmm, do you think GW's lies, Karl Rove, DeLay, Abramoff, Frist, etc. have anything to do with this drop in faith? You'd never know it from Brooks' column.

Another quote, "the Democrats may win elections in 2006 or 2008, but that doesn't mean they will have the public's confidence or a mandate for change." You just can't make this stuff up. This moron did write this -- amazing. So let me understand, GW "wins" in 2000 and barely wins in 2004 but of course there existed mandate for change and political capital to be spent in both instances -- but if the Dems were to finally win one, it means notta with regards to mandate change. Oh, I see.

Look, not once does Brooks nail the recent trial & tribulations & failures of the GOP for 51% or more of the blame for this "cycle of skepticism... tinged with cynicism." He chooses instead to lump both parties together and lamely finger-wag at both -- shame on you all.

As if the Dems have any power whatsoever to direct this country (hah!). They are and have been as powerless an opposition party as any in recent memory. By definition, more of the blame must be attributed to this version of the GOP, a bereft bunch of special interest pleasing whores that don't really lead as much as they seek to blame others for their own incompetence.

It's bad enough David Brooks' columns are wafer-thin, hastily-written exercises in superficial clap-trap, but for him to have to steal or borrow lame ideas for his lame column from other lame thinkers is inexcusable.

Read this (re a Michael Medved column) and then take a gander at Brooks' column yesterday. Pathetic.

With his debut column, Bill Kristol decided, for whatever reason, to plant a big wet one on Mike Huckabee's cheek. Compared to the folks Kristol normally approves of, Huckabee is to the left of George McGovern, so one has to wonder if the Times gig has perhaps forced Kristol into believing he needs to mellow a bit given the readership.

That said he starts the column off by thanking Obama for "sparing us a third Clinton term." Yeah, I have to admit those two Clinton terms in the '90s were just god-awful compared to these last two by GW -- Kristol is off to a predictable (nonsensical) start. He later has the gall to cite a quote from lunatic-fringe blogger Michelle Malkin, something even David Brooks would never do. And then Kristol makes the ridiculous point that because Huckabee plays bass guitar he's not a "crazy Christian." Wow, who knew? Quite the litmus test.

Brooks should be happy. His columns will only look better.

David Brooks gets it wrong, again. In his latest column, he writes, "There are many cultural ways to strengthen marriage, but financially, the government could extend the earned income tax credit to single males." OK, except that the EITC already applies to single males.

As I wrote a few days ago, "Brooks is a blithering idiot who seemingly spends little if any time conducting research before typing out his column in time to receive a paycheck."

When does the NY Times finally jettison this lazy right-wing tool?

I've written before about how deficient David Brooks is as a columnist (his latest column is about (surprise!) how we need to give Iraq time to mature into a magnificent democratic state -- which happen to be the latest GOP talking points: be patient, Rome wasn't built in a day, Truman was very much disliked when leaving office, etc.).

But perhaps an even more deficient columnist is John Fund at the WSJ, who recently wrote about how Mexico can teach us to run clean elections. Wow, I was shocked at the title, expecting Fund to just avoid that subject altogether as most right-wingers do. Before reading the column, at the very least I expected him to mention blackbox, electronic voting machines, with all of their many problems, and the need for a paper trail.

Alas, not one word mentioned. Nope, instead Fund focuses on the need for a photo voter ID, mainly because he feels too many people vote several times on election day.

The implication there of course is against the Dems, but does Fund offer any proof that this is a widespread problem, much less that it occurs frequently? Nope. Like Brooks, more concocted notions from thin air to support a flimsy column.

I believe it's safe to say that blackbox, paper-less electronic vote machines are a MUCH greater threat to our country, and impede clean elections, more so than supposed multi-voters.

I thought this was very odd, Tom DeLay stating he received a supportive visit from Dennis Kucinich??

In the NY Times:

Republican strategist, Ed Rollins, said it was a mistake for the president and Senate leaders to focus attention on a marriage ban now, in what could look like a panicked reaction to shrinking public support...."If anything, he is reminding people of what they don't like about the Republican Party."

In David Brooks' recent column:

One of the paradoxes of this war is that when U.S. forces commit atrocities, we regard it as a defeat for us because we have betrayed our ideals. When insurgents commit atrocities, it is also a defeat for us because of our ineffectiveness in the face of the enemy. Either way, morale suffers and the fighting spirit withers away.

What an idiot. Not a paradox but rather just a sad state of affairs. When U.S. forces commit atrocities, are we supposed to applaud? Or excuse it and look the other way? Brooks represents one of the right's bright bulbs??

Greg Sargent notices even the right-wing are capable of some level-headed reasoning -- before quickly lapsing back into vicious, hypocritical hate-speak. Oh, and LGF, is this bit of news not troubling? Was it decided better politically to have this very bad man around (as poster boy to incite fear)? And Guy James makes some good points: if we knew where he was, why not take him alive (like we did Saddam)? Couldn't he have offered valuable info? And if his house was hit with two 500 pound bombs (as reported), that entire area would've been completely blown to bits -- and yet the picture of his dead body shows not much physical damage?? [You may snicker, but Jay Leno joked about this oddity, and frankly, given the staggering number of lies coming from BushCo, this kind of skepticism should be expected]

How do you know NY Times columnist David Brooks leans right-wing? Because he distorts. Read Josh Marshall's commentary.

(Couldn’t the Times have done better than hiring Brooks in what perhaps was an effort to throw red meat to the Dittohead crowd?)

A few others have written about LA Times columnist David Gelernter. Let's just say he makes David Brooks appear to be blessed with lucid reason. Gelernter is the poster boy for the right-wing lunatic fringe. With his column last week, Michael Kinsley (his boss) must've really been chuckling.

He starts out bemoaning the many troubles with public schools (despite other studies saying quite the opposite), and yet we finally arrive at the core truth that irks him so: public schools are liberal bastions. Of course! It was just a matter of time until I got to the oft-mentioned wingnut gripe about higher education in general: they're all pinko, commie, leftie, socialist breeding grounds. Sigh.

Better to send your kids to those academic stalwarts Liberty U. or Bob Jones U., two schools that oddly enough never appear on any "Best of" lists. Oh, right, that's because the people behind such lists are leftist, commie, pinko....