Hmmm, tough one, there is his incredible ability to turn out bad columns on a regular basis. His willingness to bend over backwards to be the Republican the Left likes A.K.A. the Useful Idiot. Then there is his habit of bashing Conservatives that actually stand for something while Brooks stands for nothing. Smitty has a post up mocking Brooks, and there is one sentence from Brooks latest NY Times snoozer that struck a nerve.
Two things are constant, and there are three things rivaling the sunrise for invariance: death, taxes, and the codpiece-like dumbness of David Brooks:
Over the past month, the Republican Party has changed far more than I expected. First, the people at the ideological extremes of the party have begun to self-ghettoize. The Tea Party movement attracted many people who are drawn to black and white certainties and lock-step unity. People like that have a tendency to migrate from mainstream politics, which is inevitably messy and impure, to ever more marginal oases of purity.
Jim DeMint, for example, is leaving the Senate to go lead the Heritage Foundation. He is leaving the center of the action, where immigration, tax and other reforms will be crafted, for a political advocacy organization known more for ideological purity and fund-raising prowess than for creativity, curiosity or intellectual innovation.
Note that last highlighted portion. Especially the criticism of the Heritage Foundation. Brooks is mocking a group that actually HAS an ideological compass? Brooks, who has no ideological balls whatsoever? What we have is a little man with a little brain, a man who has done nothing of real note, a man who stands for whatever he thinks will ingratiate him to Liberals. And this man is mocking men and women who actually believe in fighting for their principles (which Brooks dismisses as ideological purity)? Damn that makes me angry! What bugs me most here is that it was ideological purity that gave birth to this nation. Our Founders were not like Brooks, they knew right from wrong, they knew what they stood for, and they risked their very lives to give birth to this nation. Of course, David Brooks would never take a stand, lest he not get invited to Beltway cocktail parties. Call me an ideological purist, but I resent men of honor being dismissed by walk-behinders like Brooks!
Imagine if there was a drinking game where you took a shot every time David Brooks said, or wrote something inane. I guess we would all be passed out a lot! Via Newsbusters
DAVID BROOKS, NEW YORK TIMES: Yeah, first I would say the conventional wisdom among Republican donors and Washington officialdom is that Marco Rubio isn’t ready to be vice president…
Marco Rubio is not ready to be VP? Possibly, but Brooks is certainly a guy who is not ready to be a nationally syndicated columnist, so let’s reserve any judgement on Rubio’s readiness shall we? Brooks continues
BROOKS: …emotionally. And so I think Rob Portman, senator from Ohio, he’s–Ohio sort of matters, he might help. But basically the, the goal for a challenger in an, in an incumbent election is, are those guys decent enough?
BROOKS: Now a Romney/Portman race would be like a bunch of boring white guys. So it wouldn’t be like scintillating, but it would be, oh, they’re decent enough.
Oh no! not White guys! Sorry, I do not think that would matter much. Sure, it would hurt Romney with race-obsessed voters who are already in the tank for Obama, but with most people, the big issue starts with an “E” and ends in “conomy”. David Brooks ought to try thinking. It beats saying what you think you are supposed to say!
That he is, well, not nearly as bright, or insightful as he thinks he is? Usually some blogger or another is fisking Brooks. Now, though, he seems to be engaging in self-fisking
Aside from perhaps admiring the crease in Obama’s pants, nearly three years to the date after that party at Will’s house, Brooks admits he had the president completely wrong.
On Thursday’s “The Laura Ingraham Show,” Brooks said he still admired Obama, but conceded the president was more liberal than he originally thought.
“Yeah, I still like him — admire him personally,” Brooks said. “He’s certainly more liberal than I thought he was. And he’s more liberal than he thinks he is. He thinks he is just slightly center-left. But when you got down to his instincts, they’re pretty left. And his problem is he can’t really act on them because it would be political disaster. And so that means, I think he is doing very little — proposing very little.”
The first step to recovery is noting that you have a problem. Brooks may have just taken that first step. Wait, who am I kidding, Brooks will be back to writing inanities soon enough.