To: publius1
If David Brooks didn’t know what Obama stood for all his political life, then he (Brooks) is too stupid to have a regular column in a major publication. There is no other possible explanation.
17 posted on
03/03/2009 5:09:23 AM PST by
abb
("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
To: abb
If David Brooks didn’t know what Obama stood for all his political life, then he (Brooks) is too stupid to have a regular column in a major publication. There is no other possible explanation.Yes!
44 posted on
03/03/2009 5:24:31 AM PST by
syriacus
( STOP Obama-made FISCAL STORMING!!!)
To: abb
48 posted on
03/03/2009 5:26:25 AM PST by
Obadiah
(Party - my house - on December 22, 2012!)
To: abb
--
then he (Brooks) is too stupid to have a regular column in a major publication. --
Hehe -- there is no such thing as "too stupid to have a regular column in a major publication," except for the expectation to generally use correct grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc. The substantive requirement is simple -- sell copy. Lie if that's what sells.
64 posted on
03/03/2009 5:37:01 AM PST by
Cboldt
To: abb
[If David Brooks didn’t know what Obama stood for all his political life, then he (Brooks) is too stupid to have a regular column in a major publication.]
Fortunately, the NYT is well on it’s way to being a minor publication.
129 posted on
03/03/2009 6:00:18 PM PST by
FastCoyote
(I am intolerant of the intolerable.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson