'General' David Brooks Calls Retreat After 3 Days on Political Battlefield

NewsBusters ^ | March 6, 2009 | P.J. Gladnick

[PJ-Comix]

"General" David Brooks, the very compliant house conservative of the New York Times, after just three days of bravely volunteering to lead a mighty "moderate" army against the "ideological outrages" of the Barack Obama administration, has now called a hasty retreat with a column that borders on outright apology for daring to oppose the very liberal budget. First let us take trip down memory lane to three days in the past to take a look the battle plan presented by General Brooks following his astounding revelation that most of the non-house conservatives discovered long, long ago:

[PJ-Comix]

General Brooks has a chart and you don't. Jealous? Read entire article for details.

[PJ-Comix]

PING!

[GQuagmire]

"On Tuesday, I wrote that the Obama budget is a liberal, big government document that should make moderates nervous. The column generated a large positive response from moderate Obama supporters who are anxious about where the administration is headed. It was not so popular inside the White House. Within a day, I had conversations with four senior members of the administration and in the interest of fairness, I thought I’d share their arguments with you today."


Waaaaaahhhhh.. I don't want to be on the enemies list with Limbaugh,Santelli etc. Waaaaaaaahh!!

[jimbo123]

A bloodletting is on the horizon for the NY Times. There will be staff cuts of 25%-30% by May and dissenters like Brooks will be the first to get the axe by the gay mafia running the Slimes.

[Jagman]

This was Brooks during the campaign:

"It is like you’re camping, and you wake up one morning, and there is a mountain. And then the next morning, there is a mountain, and there’s the next morning, there’s a mountain. Obama is just the mountain. He is just there. He is always the same, he doesn't hurt himself. McCain can sometimes lob a cannonball at the mountain, but the mountain doesn't move, and the mountain doesn't care. And so I think his steadiness, his temperament has been the dramatic theme of this campaign, dramatic in being undramatic. And it was on display tonight. And the good part of the mountain is that he is reassuring and reliable."

Yeah, mountains can be cool, except when they fall on you, which is what just happened to Brooks!

[LeavingNewYork]

Brooks is irrelevant. He is a good barometer for ferreting out RINOs.

[dennisw]

This guy is like a chatty little school girl I suppose New Yorkers like his inane material

[vg0va3]

That is great. If someone will just sit down and explain their illogical agenda in a simple “pragmatic” tone, Mr. Brooks will forsake his own ideas.

He doesn't care about substance. Only his desire to be above the fray created by the common man. So much for a spine.

[supremedoctrine]

That quote from Brooks is symbolic of what passes for political analysis these days. Absolutely pathetic.
And evidence of a new variation of the man crush: “the mountain-man crush”.

[Tom_Busch]

Loathesome little weasel.

[mkjessup]

Brooks is nothing but a token alleged 'conservative' whose purpose is to lend legitimacy to the New York Slimes, put him in a skirt and he could be Debra Saunders of the soon to be extinct San Francrisco Chronicle, who dutifully served as their token conservative for many years.

The only reason any REAL conservative would have for reading the NYT is to know what America's enemies are up to.

[angkor]

Those who read the Brooks column and articles of a few days ago knew where this was headed.

Brooks - forever the tool of the NY Slimes and of PBS - predictably has pleaded mea culpa for his fleeting, halfhearted, and pathetic attempt to go off the reservation.

But he knows who writes his $6,000/week paycheck and so it was predictable that he'd come back to firm Democrat ground at the earliest opportunity.

Here's a great blog read about the increasingly pathetic Brooks:

"It is possible to argue that Brooks never should have been hired for that job in the first place. He is the Chauncey Gardner of American journalism, a man elevated by circumstance to a position beyond his aptitude or capacity."

[angkor]

“It is like you’re camping, and you wake up one morning, and there is a mountain. And then the next morning, there is a mountain, and there’s the next morning, there’s a mountain.”

Is that real?

It seems vaguely autistic.

(with all due deference to the disease)

[gridlock]

Gawd! This is just embarrassing!

[HoosierHawk]

In the first place, they do not see themselves as a group of liberal crusaders.

Gullible little one, isn't he?

[TomGuy]

Brooks is irrelevant. He is a good barometer for ferreting out RINOs.

He's a 'moderate, a moderate-conservative'. He said so, himself.

[Isn't that sort of like compassionate conservative? And we know how what turned out to be.]

[wita]

Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was.

The false religion of Moderate, when seen in a political sense, is nonsense. This, “Barack Obama is not who we thought he was”, should be the death sentence for this: “moderate conservative”.

[AndyJackson]

Oh HS. Go read what Brooks actually wrote rather than what some [so-called conservative] idiot says he says. Brooks started off a year ago saying that Republicans had run out of ideas and that ideas matter. Well you know what. He was dead nuts on, and Republicans are gasping and struggling to find some ideas somebody will listen to.

You are shooting the messenger. Typical. Next so-called conservatives will turn the bullets on themselves and we can get on with trying to figure out what to do about the future rather than the past under a president now dead with an enemy that self-destructed.

[dinoparty]

Brooks is the kind of guy you meet at a party, and he can’t help but drop names of famous people he knows. He’s more concerned about appearing important than getting it right.

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

The White House folks didn’t say this, but I got the impression they’d be willing to raise taxes on the bottom 95 percent of earners as part of an overall package.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!