Skip to comments.[NYT's David] Brooks Struggles to Figure Out What Went Wrong (w/ "moderate centrist" Obama admin)
Posted on 04/24/2010 3:28:11 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
David Brooks is on a search to find out how it was that we elected such a moderate president and wound up with the worst of big government liberalism and a polarized electorate. He seems stumped as he explores these questions in what can only be described as evasive phrasing:
"The country had just elected a man who vowed to move past the old polarities, who valued discussion and who clearly had some sympathy with both the Burkean and Hamiltonian impulses. He staffed his administration with brilliant pragmatists whose views overlapped with mine, who differed only in that they have more faith in technocratic planning.
Yet things have not worked out for those of us in the broad middle. Politics is more polarized than ever. The two parties have drifted further to the extremes. The center is drained and depressed.
History happened. The administration came into power at a time of economic crisis. This led it, in the first bloom of self-confidence, to attempt many big projects all at once. Each of these projects may have been defensible in isolation, but in combination they created the impression of a federal onslaught."
History happened? Oh, lets see if we cant be more precise than that. As government grew [by itself? did someone grow it?], the antigovernment right mobilized. This produced the Tea Party Movement a characteristically raw but authentically American revolt led by members of the yeoman enterprising class. History happened and government grew. (Like magic!) And now Brooks is disappointed.
Brooks writes that the Democratic party did this and that, that opposition grew, and that we wound up in the big- vs. little-government debate. Whats missing from this autopilot version of politics? Hmm could it be Obama, the moderate fellow, who did the government-growing?
I have a rule of thumb: when a writer, especially a good one, excessively uses evasive or convoluted rhetoric, he is hiding something. Lets try this: Obama, a very liberal politician, was smart enough to know he couldnt win the presidency as a hard leftist. He posed as a moderate. New York Times columnists sung his praises. Pundits assured us that he was beyond ideology, a sort of philosopher-king with very neat pants. He got into office. He governed from the far Left. The president signed bill after bill, spending money we didnt have and running up the debt. Obama insisted on a mammoth health-care bill the country hated. He egged Congress on to pass it. Meanwhile, the country recoiled. They hired a moderate on advice of pundits and media mavens and got a far-Left liberal, a ton of debt, an expanded federal government, and a slew of new taxes.
The bottom line: history doesnt just happen. Presidents make choices. Pundits make miscalculations. Voters exact revenge. Its not that complicated if you are honest about who did what to whom.
As government grew [by itself? did someone grow it?], the antigovernment right mobilized. This produced the Tea Party Movement a characteristically raw but authentically American revolt led by members of the yeoman enterprising class.
Hey DUFUS (David Brooks), BO and his captive media told you what they wanted you to hear. They lied, manipulated, cheated, played you for a fool.
David’s Dilemma: How do I keep getting invited to the right cocktail parties?
David Brooks has comdemned himself to be forever stuck on stupid.
Everyone else, well, we have moved along.
Usual liberal teeth-gnashing when things do not go their way. Will never blame themselves.
Hey Brooks, it’s a lot worse than you realize. We are in the midst of a worldwide communist coup, the likes of which Lenin could only dream of. If the United States goes down, and it’s looking dicey, it’s a new dark age for the entire globe.
Very well stated! Although Brooks would still be in denial if faced with your assessment.
“but in combination they created the impression of a federal onslaught.””
Impression? What a complete and utter fool.
Is David Brooks REALLY that stupid, or does he just play a
stupid reporter for the LSM?
David and millions of others who voted for the ‘magic negro’ are suffering from buyer’s remorse. The Kenyan was a radical socialist thug in Chicago, in the US Senate, and as a presidential candidate. There was no reason to think he would be any different as president.
The 2008 election was a perverted form of reverse racism whose consequences may take a generation or two to unwind.
What a dope
Our national nightmare is:
I think after 9 years with Frank Marshall Davis, the guy with the 601 page FBI file, that Obummer was a full fledged red diaper baby even in Hawaii, and more so at Occidental.
Ask Dr John Drew, PhD, who knew him well .....
(Even Obama’s grandpa had a FBI file !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
We now know the full details of Barrys Occidental years.
He was an avowed and committed Marxist.
He looked forward to the revolution when the Marxists would overthrow our government.
His love for Marxism was unusually strong .
He was in passionate agreement with the most radical Marxist Leninist professors.
The full interview is devastating.
Too bad Fox News ignored Dr Drew in 2008 when he contacted them.
He wants his own army:
The First Time I Heard of Barack Obama
By Tom Fife
indylindy: “David Brooks has condemned himself to be forever stuck on stupid.”
I seriously have a hard time understanding people like David Brooks. You could have picked a FReeper at random prior to the 2008 election, and they would have told you EXACTLY how Obama was going to behave. It was no secret whatsoever.
How can someone like David Brooks be so incredibly naive (or is it ignorant)? He and a lot of the other “Obama is a moderate centrist” pundits aren’t unintelligent. I simply don’t understand how they can be so incredibly blind.
One, (other than his friends and family) who cares? And two, what difference would it make in your treatment of the fellow's written opinions?
Whether he's stupid or a liar doesn't change the credit his drivel merits.
Amen. Great post. Mushy moderates need to get the heck out of the way and let us fught this battle against the communist hoardes like reid pelosi obama and their followers.
Btw isn’t this the same fool who sat w obama on the coach an talked about the creases in his pants?
What a pathetic society we have become w the likes of brookes et al.
Sarah Palin: “Institutionalizing Crony Capitalism”
Sarah Palin’s Notes.
Thu at 7:28pm
Obama had the most liberal voting record in the Senate. Actions speak louder than words.
A link in this piece takes the reader to an earlier Brooks column where he wrote this:
“But theyre always nice, Brooks said, adding, Its never, Youre a complete asshole.My line is, the Clinton people would tell you youre a complete and total asshole. The Obama people say, We love you. Youre a great guy. Its sad youre a complete and total asshole. Theyre always very mature about it.
Brooks sounds like he accepts their description of him. So, who are we to argue?
“The country had just elected a man who vowed to move past the old polarities, who valued discussion and who clearly had some sympathy with both the Burkean and Hamiltonian impulses. He staffed his administration with brilliant pragmatists whose views overlapped with mine, who differed only in that they have more faith in technocratic planning.”
I can really help Mr. Brooks with his problem. Mr. Brooks, one does have to look at a candidate’s PAST if one wants to see what the future will be with him. WE HAD THAT PRESIDENT you dream of - it was Bush-43 - Bush invited Kennedy and Clinton and everyone else that hated him into the White House to work with him. Bush was a genuinne NICE GUY, who got along GREAT with Democrats - in TEXAS. But he got along great with them (just ask the Democrats here). Bush was about as post-partisan as one could get. Of course in DC the Democrats are a different bunch and more interested in jailing you for not agreeing with them, rather than working together...so Bush never had a chance.
Obama, on the other hand, HAS ZERO RECORD of working with Republicans and he DESPISES them. No one should be surprised how this presidency’s going - if one simply looked at his past.
Please, someone send that to Chris Buckley!! LOL Hilarious!!
Listen about Obama:
You’ll be stunned and amazed.
Communism in America by a foreign born Marxist -— would could ever imagine such a thing happening???
With a mentor, at 10 years old, who had a 600 page FBI file, how could it not happen???
And now we find Grandpa Stanley had a FBI file too?
What does that mean? They had a file on him cuz he was selling furniture????????? Ya think???
Pop met Mom in RUSSIAN class !!! Son gave his two AA daughters RUSSIAN names (don’t tell me one is Hawaiian -— I looked into it two years ago and all the references, I mean all, said Malia was a shortened Russian name -— now NONE of them say so. Scrubbed! Amazing!!! Know a single Hawaiian with this name? One??? and Natasha - even Rocky and Bullwinkle know what that is. Know any AA with children named Natasha??? Even one???????))
Grandfather and Father and StepFather ALL Marxists: (riccy44 postings at American Thinker)
Statements by Dr Drew and Tom Fife.
Can you now believe what has come out in the last 2 years, all of it stepped on by the TV and Newspapers ???
I hate to say it but Pravda is now doing a better job than we are of honestly reporting the stories as they come out, and telling us to “watch out”!!!
As a poster just stated the world risks a new dark age.
He staffed his administration with brilliant pragmatists whose views overlapped with mine
he staffed his administration with thugs and thieves
just like he himself is.
And those punks Ayers and Dohrn, his BFF
take a look for yourself:
By virtue of his standing as a pundit for the holiest of holies, The New York Times, Brooks was charged as part of his profession to be aware of all this. Anyone who rises to the belfry of that exalted, elitist tower is charged with knowledge of how communists historically have worked and with knowledge of their disdain for honor. There is no honor to them because they reject the system which runs on honor. Just as there is no Constitution for Barack Obama because he believes that the Constitution has produced an inequitable system. To produce equity, he believes, one must junk the system and to junk the system one must junk the Constitution and all of the expectations and assumptions honorable men infer from that document, the rule of law, the Judeo-Christian culture, and simple decency.
To someone like Barak Obama who was so committed to the radicalism of Saul Alinsky that he would rise to the level within an affiliated organization of tutoring others and then would rise even higher to train those who would train others, there is no decency beyond the "rules" of the radicalism themselves. To believe otherwise is so naïve that it could be embraced only by the anointed Rino of the New York Times.
Mr. Brooks, if you want to understand Barack Obama, either read Saul Alinsky or contemplate Aesop's parable of the scorpion and the frog. David Brooks, you are the frog.
[I mean all, said Malia was a shortened Russian name - now NONE of them say so. Scrubbed! Amazing!!! Know a single Hawaiian with this name? One???]
Not to be too cheeky with that question, since the topic is legitimate but there was a Hawaiian-born woman’s professioanl wrestler named Malia Hosaka!
I’ve always thought the birth certificate issue was more because of an embarrassing revelation, not that he wasn’t born there.
Something like: Father Unknown
And the little twit calls Palin stupid?
.......The Dims are too stupid.....
The dims are a coalition of stupid, lazy, and perpetually scared and those who control them.
Of course, I meant to say “the ends justify the means” for Ozero. Still on my first cup of java.
Brooks has yet to figure out that his american idol is nothing more than a common LIAR whose mission all along was to bring this country down.
‘Bout Sums It Up.
But do Not Be Bitter Folks.
We had a 200 yr. Run...
The Last 50 yr. has Been the Most Prosperous, Powerful,Generous and Free Nation this Planet WILL ever Know,when It is Gone.....
Well David, you stupid idiot...Obama was a community organizer and never held any type of productive endeavor in his whole life. What would you expect from a person that built their life upon lies and deception?
Nothing went wrong. It was wrong from the start but you liberal Americana haters took wrong for right.
Now, you wonder????????????
Could be that Brooks was aware all along of Obama’s far left intentions.
Could be that Brooks has been as dishonest as Obama.
Reminds me of the parable of the surprised woman who was bitten by the snake she sheltered from the storm...
“Why are you shocked? You knew I was a snake when you took me in!”,said the serpent.
David Brooks is a loon among loonies.
David, get a clue!
The pants belonged to someone else!
“There is no honor to them because they reject the system which runs on honor.”
I think I agree with you—the system which runs on honor is a system of honor which is legitimate, or duly earned.
The communist begins each day honoring himself and other communists, although it is an honor stolen, or pretended.
And those SAME moderates had better hope the electoral route succeeds (and by "succeed", I mean majorities in both houses of Congress committed to extirpating Leftism from our society, not just getting a few jobs for Leftists wearing Republican costumes).
If voting fails to restore the Republic, Act II will be very unpleasant.
When the Left moved to consolidate its rule in Indonesia, the rivers ran red with communist blood for days - and Indonesia doesn't have the Ohio-Missouri-Mississippi system.
“NYT’s David] Brooks Struggles to Figure Out What Went Wrong (w/ “moderate centrist” Obama admin)”
Simple!! Brooks and a bunch of other @$$h$les drank the Obama Kool-Aid.
You're wrong. They understand very well.
"Think of it always, speak of it never" - that's their operating plan to communize America. And it's working.
It's the Republicans who were - and who remain - too stupid to understand.
At New Republic they’re still calling Brooks “prominent conservative.”
All I was going to say if it's raining David, it's time to come inside......but I think you said it better!
Palin is, to them, way out there. It has nothing to do with truth, such a raw fundamentalist concept, so naive and retro. She hunts and kills things for goodness sakes, she actually worked on a smelly fishing boat, can you believe that? So outré. And had a retarded baby on purpose, tsk tsk tsk.
They just don't understand her. She scares them, she has absolutes. Obama didn't, because he doesn't. It's all style over substance, and not just any style, but their style. It trumps all for Brooks, and the many people just like him, and they're now worried about feeling foolish because of it. So, another round of carefully modulated and oh-so-elevated navel gazing. Oh those rubes, they made a mess of things and spoiled the great hope of one of our own, how could this happen? It can't possibly be that we were wrong, no, it must be something else. And on, and on.
I also have a rule of thumb:
when a writer, especially a good one, excessively uses evasive or convoluted rhetoric, he is hiding something.
Lets try this:
a very liberal politician an avowed communist , was smart [diabolical] enough to know he couldnt win the presidency as a hard leftist commu-fascist.
posed masqueraded as a moderate. New York Times columnists [prevaricated and] sung his praises. Pundits assured us that he was beyond ideology, a sort of philosopher-king with very neat pants.
He got into office [using deceit, a fabricated life, voter fraud and intimidation]. He governed from the far Left [... Moscow]. The president [- not until he provides ID -] signed bill after bill, spending money we didnt have and
running up the debt intentionally bankrupting the country.
Obama insisted on a mammoth health-care bill the country hated. He egged Congress on to pass it. Meanwhile, the country recoiled. [hmmmm, really? Within two weeks of the coronation, we were at the Capitol protesting while others called, e-mailed and faxed our complete and utter contempt at the idea of the Porkulus bill.]
They hired a
moderate socialist on advice of [lying, deceiving] pundits and media mavens and got a far-Left liberal full-blown islamo-fascist communist , a ton of debt, an expanded federal government, and a slew of new taxes.
Much better with my corrections.
Obama ... mmmmm, mmmmm, mmmmm
DLC= Dirtbag Lying Communists.
“I simply dont understand how they can be so incredibly blind.”
One of my favorite singers and one of my favorite people on this Earth explained it this way.
“There is none so blind as he who will not see.”
Everything Is Beautiful by Ray Stevens
It is called willful blindness or willful ignorance, the refusal to see the truth. One of the most difficult things a human can ever do is admit that he has started down the wrong path and reverse his own thinking. I think that is what Carlos Casteneda meant when he said that Don Juan told him that by the time a man realized he was on the wrong path his path was ready to kill him. Those who do successfully right their own wrong thinking are the greatest warriors on Earth against their former ways. Ronald Reagan is said to have begun as a socialist.
Much better writers than I have explained it, it seems that some would literally prefer to die than acknowledge that the ideas they hold so dear make no sense in reality. I think I have approached that point at times in the past but I try to remain aware now that I must trust my own judgment but at the same time never be unwilling to consider other views.
But, I have a feeling, with people like David Brooks, that will be a mighty struggle, because like most liberals and media persons, they have tremendously large egos, and, at heart, are lazy. Easier to blame "someone else" for their intellectual failings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.