Skip to comments.David Brooks: The Real Romney (NYTIMES House "conservative" shows his stripes)
Posted on 08/28/2012 6:24:54 AM PDT by Alter Kaker
The purpose of the Republican convention is to introduce America to the real Mitt Romney. Fortunately, I have spent hours researching this subject. I can provide you with the definitive biography and a unique look into the Byronic soul of the Republican nominee:
Mitt Romney was born on March 12, 1947, in Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Virginia and several other swing states. He emerged, hair first, believing in America, and especially its national parks. He was given the name Mitt, after the Roman god of mutual funds, and launched into the world with the lofty expectation that he would someday become the Arrow shirt man.
Romney was a precocious and gifted child. He uttered his first words (I like to fire people) at age 14 months, made his first gaffe at 15 months and purchased his first nursery school at 24 months. The school, highly leveraged, went under, but Romney made 24 million Jujubes on the deal.
Mitt grew up in a modest family. His father had an auto body shop called the American Motors Corporation, and his mother owned a small piece of land, Brazil. He had several boyhood friends, many of whom owned Nascar franchises, and excelled at school, where his fourth-grade project, Inspiring Actuaries I Have Known, was widely admired. After his mission, he attended Harvard, studying business, law, classics and philosophy, though intellectually his first love was always tax avoidance. After Harvard, he took his jawline to Bain Consulting, a firm with very smart people with excessive personal hygiene. While at Bain, he helped rescue many outstanding companies, like Pan Am, Eastern Airlines, Atari and DeLorean.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
So when is Brooks endorsing the crease in Obama’s trousers again?
He sounds like Maureen Dowd, but she does snark better.
Head slap. Yep, this is who the NYT holds up a the “conservative” viewpoint.
Sounds like Brooksie hasn’t given up on 0bama yet.
That seems to be the problem with people.. they fall head over heels in love with Obama, then find ... no matter what... they just can’t quit him.
It’s that emotional bond thing, I guess.
Oh I guess Brooks thinks this is funny, ha ha ha.
What a moron.
He’s turned to zero long time ago.
Mitt needs to add a crease to his pants so Brooks will like him.
Obviously, a tongue in cheek attempt at satire, it misses the mark.
I crack up when I see people like Brooks and Scarborough try and introduce themselves as conservatives.
David is fishing for a job at MSNBC.
David Brooks is a stain in the shorts of a true conservative.
I really dislike Romney, but this piece is awful.
any wonder this paper is almost Bankrupt
This trash is supposed to be what NYT readers think is intellectual humor?
It is such a parody, that I was half-expecting Brooks at the end to break through into some reality but he didn’t. His essay is just fantastic nastiness imagining itself to be clever.
Is it really funny to disparage someone because of what he wears, or because he happens to have nice hair? Or make fun of a person merely because he is rather normative in his behavior?
I found the comments following the column also very illuminating: most of the readers thought the column was great! We are in different worlds, because I can’t see that there is anything admirable or illuminating about this drivel, and yet Times readers seem to relish it, and it resonates with their “thinking.” And, I guess, that does (after all) tell me something!
There are a lot of people out there who look human to me, but are so different from me that they might be members of a different species.
That is the most childish thing I’ve ever read. The twerp should be embarrassed.
“Hes turned to zero long time ago.”
He’s always been a zero.
I went and read Dowd’s screed the other day. The comments are completely from a different world, and they cut it off on her column without approval and it appears they only allow liberal comments to make it through. I read through them all and maybe there were a few light approaches at different views but they were so mild it was hard to tell.
Different worlds no doubt, and sometimes I feel the same; that there is a whole different species amongst us. And the new Prez there says there is no bias. Pfft.
He plays a republican at the NYT like Jeff Daniels plays a republican on Newsroom.
What’s the point?
I think Brooks has a little man crush going on.
When you think it’s about love, it’s generally really about the money.
Mitt would make a good Arrow shirt guy.
Do the Dowds and Brookses not understand that were a mere model for the "Arrow" shirt company running against the current golfing attire candidate that the Bill of Rights provisions which protect their industry's freedoms would be more secure?
Unless, of course, he would prefer employment in a new and official American version of "Pravda"? Ooops, that's where he works now, isn't it?
What a waste of time and ink!
David Brooks has had a man-crush on Zero since the days Barry was running in 2008. PBS still claims he is the conservative alternative to Mark Shields. The Shields and Brooks segment of the PBS News Hour is a joke.
Brooks consistently goes to the left of Shields. It is funny to see Shields’ expression. He knows he is supposed to be to the left of Brooks but sometimes it is just not possible.
Brooks is a complete phony and in love with Obama and the liberal’s intellectual viewpoints. Complete fraud.
Under David’s theory, which is apparently that only persons born into families of modest means should run for President, Carter and Nixon would both do well while JFK and FDR would be disqualified.
Brooks makes Megan McCain and David Frum look like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh.
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.