There is that, but mainly people on this board don't read the articles, just the headlines.
These days, it's hard to tell satire from the propaganda the American media presents as news.
I read as much as was posted above, but didn't find it interesting enough or all that different than what AP would write to go to the blog to take in all the humor.
The msm here is more than humorous enough, so much so that satire is unnecessary and almost unrecognizable by comparison.
Now I don't know if you're in earnest or kidding. Follow the link in the Telegraph article to the bona fide Brooks column in the Times. Stanley wrote his own column about Obama in the spirit of Brooks's column about Romney.
Most of it is actually pretty funny
Which one? Brooks's column seems like one bad joke repeated over and over again, and it's not exactly fair to Romney. I don't know if Stanley's column is funny in itself, but reading it after Brooks's it just seems like more of the same thing.
Brooks fell in love with Obama because he knew who Reinhold Niebuhr was and could talk about that 20th century theologian. I'm thinking, if you went to Harvard and taught in a major law school, you should probably know something about Niebuhr and be able to talk about him for a minute. If you didn't and couldn't you should ask for all your tuition money back. It's part of the bare minimum of knowledge you should have with theat background.