Letters to the Editor
-
Omitting the end of his column is disingenuous
Here's the end of Brooks' column, which Salon left out:
But the fact that they can share this dream still means something. After the magic fades and reality sets in, they still know something about his soul, and he knows something about theirs. They figure that any new president is going to face gigantic obstacles. At least this candidate seems likely to want to head in the right direction. Obama’s hype comes from exaggerating his powers and his virtues, not faking them.
Those afflicted with O.C.S. are no longer as moved by his perorations. The fever passes. But some invisible connection seems to persist.
The whole point of the column is found in these last two paragraphs, wouldn't you say? Seems like Salon was either shortsighted or purposely obtuse not to quote his summation.
-
Bobo!!
How's that war going?
What next? Some High-Broderism about "not changing horses in midstream" (citation needed...)?
-
McCain
Re: "Her whole ready to lead from day 1 is laughable when compared to McCain's experience. He has her beat all across the board."
Yeah, but McCain has bad ideas and is wrong on the issues. Plus the base of his own party hates him. Nobody wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years! His experince is the wrong kind.
-
Who Cares what Brooks has to say?
What a snide and condescending tool. David Brooks does not nor will he ever speak for the electorate. Sneer all you want David, that won't stop the voters from having their say and supporting whoever the heck they want.
-
Hillary is Toast...
Someone tell David Brooks and Notoriously Repetitive W.E.S.
-
@Cab305
" Her whole ready to lead from day 1 is laughable when compared to McCain's experience. He has her beat all across the board."
Do you mean the experience of bombing civilians in a bombing campaign that took the lives of 50,000 vietnamese civilians? That experience, in bombing the hell out of a country and not even winning? That experience?
-
he said, "The HOPE POPE" hehe
With David Brooks, I always consider the source. (I'm still waiting for Bush's approval rating to swing back up into the 5os) But I fear he has a point on this one...
-
Right headed
The great thing about Brooks is the bland confidence with which he spins his narrative confections. This is an art he shares with Cheney, Bush, and Kristol, among no doubt many of the same ilk.
Ilk? There's no analog on the left. Is it a style that has spread among furtive imitators, or an authentic personality type?
-
Surprised he included Chapel Hill
If anything, Chapel Hill is mostly subdued having supported Edwards quite strongly and, on the whole, doesn't appear that most people here have re-focused on either Obama or Clinton. Many of us have had about enough of each of them and particularly of their loudest and most clueless followers.
-
@ omooex
"That experience, in bombing the hell out of a country and not even winning? That experience?"
Sounds vaguely familiar... "Bombing the hell out of a country and not even winning..."
At least McCain has the fortitude to say he was right (as wrong as that is), rather than some mealymouthed nonsense about being tricked or some ghoulish political calculus. Yeah, experience that counts (lots of dead Iraqis. Or doesn't).
-
Strangely Enough
Other People Who Also thought they were right:
Adolf Hitler
Josef Stalin
Idi Amin
Glad to see you've found such a efficient way of choosing your candidate; leaves out all the thinking stuff.
-
It's obvious, the GOP are scared
Stupid, stupid, stupid...I will waste no more time on this silly column...
-
nothin' sadder
than a think-tank conservative trying to be funny.
Poor, poor BoBo
-
Not compared to
Not compared to the let down this nation had from G W Bush. In 2000 even I was willing to give him a chance, and he couldn't be much worse than his father. So, seven years later even my Republican friends are sorely diappointed.
Surely if people pin all their individual hopes and dreams on Obama, they will be disappointed, but we know what he stands for a what he will do. Obama himself tells people they have to bring about the change, if they have an issue that is not on his priority list they have to take responsibility and do something about it.
-
Alright. So I laughed.
Am I the only person who found it mindly amusing? At least the guy has a sense of humor, which is more then can be said for most pundits. Just words, people. Just words. ;)
BTW. I'm an Obama supporter.
I do think Koppelman's lack of comment and omission of the last two paragraphs interesting though. Why bother, Alex? Why not just give your job to Brooks?
-
It's easy to be a cynic.
I quit reading David Brooks when in a column on national healthcare he started by quoting from The Heritage Foundation. I even went to the trouble of sending him an e-mail telling him I'd start reading his columns again when he could provide me with one instance where the fountain of misinformation actually got something right. I have yet to hear back from him.
-
Why the change of mind, David?
So, a few short weeks ago, Brooks can't say enough nice things about Obama. Now all of a sudden, he's (rather ineffectually) attacking him with his trademark sophomoric pop psychology. Why the change David? Could it be that Obama now looks like the nominee? Could it be that Brooks has realised Obama might be President? The NYT Op-ed Page - such a big perch, such little canaries.
-
Sorry David ...
But I'll feel much more let down if Hillary gets the nomination ... maybe I'm just smarter than smarmy NY Times pundits who want to subltely push their chosen candidate & agenda (e.g. Hillary) on us. As much as you want to try to enforce this image about Obama supporters, most of us are not stupid enough to think that the man will have no faults as a president. However, at the very least, I just think that he will add some respectability to the dem party which has been sadly missing with the Clinton entourage.
-
Who is this NYTimes guy?
He sounds like some fossilized old codger that should retire to grumpy old man land.
-
he should pack up his bags with...
Andy Rooney
-
David Brooks Has Already Begun the Republican Attack
Good work, David! We appreciate your understanding that (1) Obama is the frontrunner and (2) He must be discredited at all costs.
Your candidate on the other hand is John McCain. McCain wants us in Iraq until either Hell freezes over or we have entered same.
Yes, McCain wants those tax cuts primarily for the very rich to be made permanent. He admits to being "weak" on economics. Therefore we can expect the national debt now at $9.2 Trillion to increase if he is elected in order to pay for those very rich-folk tax cuts.
McCain will continue to build that US embassy in Baghdad that is 3 times the area of our Pentagon! It is the largest in the world by far, costs the most to build by far, and will be the most expensive to maintain by far.
Obama on the other hand says, "No permanent bases in Iraq." He is correct and all the world believes him to be correct. But not you Mr. Brooks and not your candidate, Mr McCain.
Barack Obama will win 45 states in November and you, Mr. Brooks, will no longer be attending parties for cronies at the White House. Some of those cronies will make it to the Big House because Barack Obama is President and the congress is filled with Independents and Democrats.