Does being stoned lead to writing awful columns?

Hmmm, I do not know, I guess it might depend on how much you smoked in high school and college, but Stacy McCain sees a possible connection between toking it up, and becoming David Brooks!

David Brooks confessed in a New York Times column that he was a high-school stoner, by way of arguing against the legalization of marijuana. One of his erstwhile dope buddies replied with a column recalling how they got away with it in Radnor, Illinois:

[H]ere all along I thought he quit because of that time we got pulled over by the Radnor cops in senior year right after we’d clambaked his Mom’s Vista Cruiser, and first thing the cop does after the smoke clears is look him right in his red, red eyes, and said, “I don’t suppose it would go over so good if I went over to 632 Haverford Road and told Mr and Mrs Brooks their boy was out here with his clique smoking pot.” I was so impressed with the way Dave pulled himself together then. He didn’t beg for mercy or fight with the cop. Somehow he knew exactly how to go all bar mitzvah boy, how to talk to authority, how to flatter and impress and toady, even stoned to the gills, like his inner Eddie Haskell was deeper down than the pot could get. And it worked. The cop let us go, told us we were lucky he knew Dave and that we were white kids from Radnor, and later on, at the pizza house taking care of our munchies, chattering and cackling over our good luck and trying to figure out how Dave and the cop knew each other, busting on him for being a narc, Dave was quiet and pale and barely touched his hoagie, and I think that was the last time he smoked pot, at least with us.

Brooks’s ex-buddy Gary Greenberg is pro-legalization, whereas I think his anecdote proves quite the opposite point: We need a drastic crackdown on teenage dopeheads because if we don’t put these freaks in prison, they might grow up to be David Brooks.

While it is always fun, and darned easy to mock David “Pants Crease” Brooks this does raise a serious question. Should we legalize pot? The Libertarian in me says sure, the less government in our lives the better. The Conservative in me worries that we should never encourage something as stupid, and wasteful of brain cells as pot smoking. Which side of my thinking is right? I think there are good arguments on both sides, I honestly do. I also have known a lot of pot smokers in my life, mostly co-workers that I knew indulged, but did not wish to hang out with, mainly because potheads annoy me while they are stoned. Some of these folks are good people, smart, hard working. Some are Conservatives. And yes some are brain dead Liberals. Some are lazy. But all of those things could be said of people I know that do not indulge as well. And, all of those things could be said of people who drink as well.

In the end, I suppose I am just not keen on government nannies dictating such behaviors. I see the benefits, and drawbacks of curtailing the drug war by legalizing pot. I really do not care if pot is made legal. Generally I am for allowing things that do not harm others. But, to be honest I would never be OK with legalizing cocaine or heroine. Maybe that makes me hypocritical. Or maybe it just means that this issue is not high on my list of prioritized issues. 

Is every Republican Pundit named David an idiot??

I only ask this question because David Frum, whom I despise, and David Brooks are both idiots. Brooks is the media’s favorite Republican, AKA  a useful idiot. He got the role of favored Republican because he goes on TV and says the things about Conservatives that the media wants to hear. Stacy McCain, who holds no respect for Brooks either, takes great pleasure in sharing this video clip of Brooks being verbally horse-whipped for being, well, a idiot!

Appearing on “Meet the Press,” David Brooks declared that intellectual strength commands support for the Gang of Eight bill:

“You know, I’ve seen a lot of intellectually weak cases in this town. I’ve rarely seen as intellectually a weak case is the case against the Senate immigration bill.”

And then Rep. Raul Labrador ripped Brooks to tatters:

OUCH! That will leave a mark

 

The most galling thing about David Brooks?

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!

 

Heartache! David Brooks sees…. WHITE PEOPLE!

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…

GREGORY: Yeah.

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!

Santorum loves him some social engineering

Don Surber nails it!

 

Should Republicans follow Rick Santorum’s lead and offer a tax credit to low-wage young men to make them more “marriageable”?

NO.

This is a particularly bad idea that James Taranto identified as “Sexual Socialism,” but then did not really explain why this is such a terrible idea. His argument is that David Brooks of the New York Times thinks this is a good idea, so it must be a bad one. That’s a convincing argument, but let me take it one step further.

This is a lousy idea because it perverts the tax code once again to do some social engineering.  Instead of simply collecting taxes to support the government, Congress and the president would use if for behavior modification. We already do $1 trillion worth of socialistic behavior modification by offering tax deductions and tax credits for everything from having a child to what sort of dishwasher you buy. At election time, these are referred to both as “tax loopholes” and as help for the middle class. It depends on whose ox the federal government is subsidizing.

Again, Santorum and his “Social Conservatism” prove my theory that you cannot trust a man wearing a sweater vest. Good Grief!

 

Has David Brooks finally realized what the rest of us have long known?

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.

Pawlenty drops out, was Stacy McCain to blame?

Minnesota Governor, Tim Pawlenty at the Govern...

Image via Wikipedia

Well, that did not take long now did it? Stacy McCain, who has been in Iowa in recent days has the news, but did his fear and loathing cause Pawlenty to fade away? Or was it just Pawlenty’s lack of energy? Naw, I am blaming McCain!

I was sitting here at breakfast with Ladd Ehlinger just an hour ago when he said, “Pawlenty’s quitting!”

Tim Pawlenty told supporters on a conference call Sunday morning that he is ending his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination after a disappointing third-place finish at the Iowa straw poll.
Mr. Pawlenty thanked his supporters in an early-morning call, two participants said, but acknowledged that he had decided overnight that his candidacy could not proceed.

That was quick, wasn’t it? I landed in Des Moines on Aug. 3 and, eleven days later, Pawlenty quits the race. Some people will say this is merely a coincidence.

Perhaps it was the neo-Confederate sex panic.” Perhaps it was those rumors that Pawlenty was behind those vicious smears against Michelle Bachmann. And, of course, perhaps the sudden implosion of the T-Paw candidacy had nothing to do with anything I did.

No doubt that the dust up with Bachman hurt Pawlenty, and I will always be suspicious of that “infamous blogger” who likes to yell “Roll Tide”, but McCain points out to the most likely culprit behind Pawlenty’s departure. The David Brooks curse!

And, before you dismiss the legitimacy of the Brooks Curse, pay attention to who else Brooks dawned over in that clip. Huntsman, who got fewer votes in the straw poll than the local crossing guard and Mitt. Sure Mitt is the national front-runner, for now, but with Bachman winning the straw poll and Perry getting in the race……….. HMMMMMMMMMMMM

David Brooks a Conservative?

Hardly, as anyone who actually reads his columns will attest. In this video, from The Daily Caller Charles Krauthammer says what we all know

I never got the chance to delve into Brook’s latest column, where he, again, attempts to curry favor with the Left by licking their boots and at the same time criticizes Republicans for having balls.

A normal Republican Party would seize the opportunity to put a long-term limit on the growth of government. It would seize the opportunity to put the country on a sound fiscal footing. It would seize the opportunity to do these things without putting any real crimp in economic growth.

The party is not being asked to raise marginal tax rates in a way that might pervert incentives. On the contrary, Republicans are merely being asked to close loopholes and eliminate tax expenditures that are themselves distortionary.

This, as I say, is the mother of all no-brainers.

The thing that escapes Brooks is that raising taxes, and yes, David, yes, closing loopholes amounts to raising taxes. Hint to Mr. Brooks, if someone pays MORE taxes, then their taxes were raised. And increasing taxes right now is an awful idea. Now, I am all for simplifying the tax codes, get rid of the vast majority of those “loopholes”. As long as we reduce the rates of taxes at the same time. Our tax laws should be simple, the rates should be low. The time for reforming the tax laws is past due, and hopefully, the Republicans can start dealing with that soon

But we can have no confidence that the Republicans will seize this opportunity. That’s because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.

Mr Brooks, these republicans you speak of in your elitist tone are standing on principles. Perhaps you are too “practical” to understand principles?

The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch in order to cut government by a foot, they will say no. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch to cut government by a yard, they will still say no.

Once more Mr. Brooks, if you think the deal the Democrats are offering is so sweet, then you are indeed a useful idiot, which of course, is why Leftists like Harry Reid and Chris Matthews are singing your praises.

The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities. A thousand impartial experts may tell them that a default on the debt would have calamitous effects, far worse than raising tax revenues a bit. But the members of this movement refuse to believe it.

Oh no, the Republicans, or perhaps Mr. Brooks thinks of them as the “Abnormal Party” are ignoring the “wisdom” of the scholars and intellectuals! How will our Republic ever survive such a calamity? I mean why would we want to ignore the advice of scholars and intellectuals. Well, other than these same scholars and intellectuals have, in many cases shown themselves to be educated well beyond their hat size.

You see Mr. Brooks, the issue with our deficit is not revenues. It is SPENDING! Under President Bush, taxes were cut, revenues increased, yet the politicians in Congress raised their spending even more. Mr. Brooks, the government takes in more than they should now, they spend billions upon billions on things the government has no  business being involved in. THAT IS THE PROBLEM!  If you REALLY want to take abnormal people to task Mr. Brooks, try aiming your scorn at the politicians who want to constantly raise taxes, rather than even thinking of reigning in their spending orgy!

Some things are unavoidable

One of the most unavoidable facts of life is that when David Brooks tries to display the intellectual depth of his mental ocean, he proves that he really has an old kiddie pool, with a couple of holes in it, for a mind instead.

See! The Smithsonian and PBS, thew same thing! NPR and a national park? Peas in a pod! Good grief David, I hope you did not pull a hamstring making that absurd stretch! Now, David is correct about our national culture, and the importance of assimilating newcomers to that culture. But, NPR, and PBS as essential tools in that quest? Good grief!

Termperament?

The folks still enamored with Obama will pretty much find anything to worship him won’t they? Jill sees it that way.

Mark Steyn makes mincemeat of . . . well, I’ll let him say it:

I don’t mind the union bruisers, Marxist social engineers and lockstep zombies of the Democrat identity-group plantations voting for Obama: They knew what they wanted, and they got it. But I find it harder to understand the preening metrosexual nincompoop ObamaCons besotted with fantasies about his “temperament” (mentioning no names). His “temperament” would seem to be one of his more obvious failings.

Indeed. Obama’s fifth-rate temperament and the notorious misreading of it by Christopher Buckley and company have been a bit of an obsession here.

Jill also points to a classic moment of David Brooks being, well David Brooks, which is to say, educated beyond his hat size

The word of the day is “temperament.” On PBS, last night after the final presidential debate, David Brooks was celebrating Barack Obama’s reassuring temperament. He told Charlie Rose that Barack Obama is like a mountain. When you go to bed–he’s there. You wake up–he’s there. You go to bed the next night–he’s there. Wake up–he’s there. It’s true: Obama does bear a striking characterological resemblance to a shapeless heap of non-living matter.

Moreover, he’s accomplished about as much as a massive hump of rock. I think if you look at his Senate record you’ll find that when a vote is called–he’s there. When another vote is called–he’s there. He is, to pick up on a campaign staple, eminently “present.” Mount Obama.

Jill also looks back at what she wrote more than a year ago about the Obama sycophants Christopher Buckley being a prime example

Former fan Christopher Buckley isn’t feeling the thrill anymore, either. The first-class temperament and impressive writing talents never panned out; the former was a fantasy and the latter, most likely, a fraud. Barack Obama turned out to be precisely what the rubes thought he was — a Chicago-style power-amassing politician with a head full of slogans, a socialist heart, and no relevant job experience. Toss in an astonishing degree of narcissism and behold what the Obama voters have wrought.

Mr. Buckley probably cringes at the sound of their names, but Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber read Obama like a book. They were exactly right and Buckley was as wrong as he could be. Writing some mediocre satire will not make things right. It’s just . . . annoying.

Ah, the sheer joy of watching the “elites” who looked down their noses at all those Tea Party members, and bloggers who just were not bright enough to grasp the Obama Euphoria realize that they were wrong and we were right. And the real kick to their over-educated egos? The fact that they were wrong because they FELT rather than thought! Ah, how ironic, the great thinkers, out thought by the common Americans! face it, anyone who actually studied Obama, understood, rather quickly, his radicalism, his affection for Marxist ideology, and his complete lack of appreciation for America and her exceptionalism.

Oh no, not those wacky, crazy, largely non-existent Moderates again!

The media LOVES then some Moderates. Moderates, of course, are folks who possess neither the brain nor the spine to really stand for anything, Stacy McCain notes the latest “Moderates rising” non-sense from the media.

Few things are more predictable than this: Whenever Republicans are on the upswing — whenever conservatives are on fire with enthusiasm, proclaiming their core principles and clearly on the winning side of important issues — the mainstream media will devote enormous coverage to an alleged groundswell of discontented moderates whose demands for “bipartisanship” and “civility” are accompanied by condemnation of “divisiveness” and complaints that “extremists” are ignoring the vast majority of independent “centrist” voters.

Let the reader note that we never heard any such complaints about “divisiveness” and “extremism” after Obama was elected and Democrats were ramming their partisan agenda through Congress.

How very true it sort of like the “Republican party is not a BIG TENT PARTY” BS the Meghan McCain wing of the party spews. And now, from that wing of the party comes the latest in stupidity!

All of this is to explain what notorious candy-ass Allahpundit calls the RINO/DINO Alliance, an alleged “movement” with a manifesto co-authored by David Frum:

On Dec. 13, more than 1,000 citizens from the 50 states will convene in New York to change the odds. They are founding a movement – No Labels. Among them will be Democrats, Republicans and independents who are proud of their political affiliations and have no intention of abandoning them. A single concern brings them together: the hyper-polarization of our politics that thwarts an adult conversation about our common future. A single goal unites them: to expand the space within which citizens and elected officials can conduct that conversation without fear of social or political retribution.

Oh no, not a DINO/RINO hookup, what sort of bastard child would a coupling of those two bring forth? One with no principles, no spine, no fortitude, and no clue. Im\n other words a beast quite similar to one David Brooks! Stacy explains

The purpose of No Labels, of course, is to give the most irredeemably stupid “independent” voters an excuse to keep voting for Democrats. The mere fact that “No Labels” gets an 808-word free advertisement on the op-ed page of the Washington Post should tell you all you need to know about this alleged movement: It’s a ginned-up Establishment scam with no real activist constituency. Erick Erickson summarizes yesterday’s No Label summit:

Only in a place like New York, where a man can set off a bomb in Times Square and have the mayor blame opponents of Obamacare, could an unserious circle of smug, self-righteous political exiles get together and demand that they be treated seriously — so long as we give them no labels.

Stacy also gives us a peek at whom is involved in the No Labels Principles orgy of moral cowardice!

All you need to do to understand what No Labels is about is to look at the list of speakers for yesterday’s big coming-out party. An organization whose manifesto was co-authored by David Frum, and which manages to get both David Brooks and David Gergen at its inaugural event — well, suffice it to say this probably isn’t the kind of “Army of Davids” Professor Reynolds had in mind.This isn’t a “movement.” That would require not only an identifiable activist constituency but also some clear sense of where it is they intend to “move.”

No, this is inertia. This is status quo-ism, a panic reaction to a populist insurgency, a desperate bid for relevance by an establishmentarian elite flying a false flag of bipartisanship, since their bogus “movement” is actually bipartisan in name only:

[T]he only Republicans present at Columbia University’s modern, square Alfred Lerner Hall seemed to be those who had recently lost primary races, such as South Carolina Rep. Bob Inglis and Delaware Rep. Mike Castle, or former Republicans like Florida Gov. Charlie Crist and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. No other senior elected Republican officials were in attendance, though a range of Democrats were present, some of them seeming a bit mystified by the bipartisan cast of the event . . .

MUCH, much more at the link. Stacy McCain dissects this “movement” and finds, well, head over and find out what abomination lies behind this scam that only a used car salesman or a televangelist could love!

Oh yes, that BIG TENT Democratic Party….

We always hear the media, and Democrats, and certain Republicans (David Brooks, Meghan McCain both come to mind), talk about the need for the GOP to be a BIG TENT PARTY! Well, it has always been my contention that the GOP is a much “bigger” tent than the Democrats do, and the post-election meltdown of the Democrats seems to prove me correct, as this story shows, the Democrats are now demanding unconditional loyalty to the Obamassiah!

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) warned Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) of “disloyalty” to President Obama if she should seek to distance herself from the White House in her re-election campaign.

Cleaver, who’s seen as the likely next leader of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), cautioned the centrist senator of distancing herself from Obama, the way many endangered incumbents had done in the closing weeks of the 2012 election.

“Any attempt to extricate herself from him will be an act of disloyalty,” Cleaver told McClatchy in a piece profiling McCaskill’s re-election campaign. “She will not do that at all.”

Well, there is some tolerance for diversity for you! Typical of Liberal behavior, that veiled threat drips of the “you best know your place” attitude that permeates the Democratic Party!

Boy, if fisking David Brooks was an Olympic sport…………..

Then bloggers like Lance Burri would win gold medals

Please note that, by “incredible load of whiny, petulant crap,” I’m referring to Brooks’ column, not to Brooks himself. Were I referring to Brooks himself, I would use the phrase “whiny, petulant pantload of shudderingly metrosexual distress.”

Great description of Brooks, but, alas, there are no Olympic events involving smacking down Brooks, so, Lance will have to be satisfied with winning both my Blog Quote of the DAy, and my Blog of the Day Awards!

 

Oh no! Infamous blogger beating up on famed douchebag again

A battle between Stacy McCain and David Brooks is like a fight between a brown bear and a dead salmon

The World’s Worst Newspaper Columnist descends from Olympus to favor unworthy mortals with his esoteric wisdom:

Human beings, the philosophers tell us, are social animals. We emerge into the world ready to connect with mom and dad. We go through life jibbering and jabbering with each other, grouping and regrouping. When you get a crowd of people in a room, the problem is not getting them to talk to each other; the problem is getting them to shut up. . . .

After hundreds of words of such blather — “Nazi and Jew, Hutu and Tutsi, Sunni and Shiite,” and a dollop of Trollope — he finally gets around to making his point:

Once partisan reconciliation is used for this bill, it will be used for everything, now and forever. The Senate will be the House.

Kazart! He’s talking about the health-care bill! The man went seven paragraphs before bothering to mention Congress and didn’t mention “health care” until the 11th paragraph! No one is interviewed, no one (except Trollope) is quoted, and there isn’t even a pretense that anything we might call reporting or research was involved in this column.

On second thought, maybe the dead salmon comparison is a tad unfair, the dead salmon could at least give the bear indigestion. Of course, reading Brooks babblings can cause mental indigestion so……….

Lance Burri: David Brooks IS an idiot!

Lance takes David apart, and it is fun to watch

Thus, Brooks proves it possible to both defend the “educated class” and embarrass yourself with dogmatic blindness at the same time. Not that we didn’t know that already.

See, the “tea party movement” is for constitutional limits on governmental powers – rather like the Founding Fathers were. Damn that Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, those right-wing anti-intellectuals!

The “tea party movement” is for personal liberty. For personal responsibility. For recognizing achievement, and allowing achievement to be rewarded with its own fruits. For the rule of law. For responsible management.

One could also say, I suppose, that the “tea party movement” is against limitless “stimulus” spending; against coercive and confiscatory growth in government and government’s power to tax; against limitless expansion of government power over individuals; against the sheer sense of collectivism that pervades our Democrat-led government.

But that’s just the flip side of the same coin. They’re for the principles that made the United States of America the United States of America; against the principles that had Soviet citizens standing in line for three hours to buy a pair of undersized shoes.

Is that the anti-educated-classism Brooks is talking about? And if so, just what is his own education worth?

Brooks has a problem that many “elites” have, they love to boast of their “educatedness”, and yes, education is great. The problem for Brooks is that he has been educated beyond his hat size. He has no wisdom, no common sense.

 

Paco piles on the Bash Brooks Bandwagon

Brooks is a talented writer, but a very limited thinker, whose class prejudices have led him to adopt the safe but ultimately unproductive role of courtier to the liberal oligarchy. Good thing for him us Cro-Magnon teabaggers don’t know what “oligarchy” means; otherwise we might whoop up on him with our primitive, hand-lettered signs.

BINGO!

Michelle Malkin jumps on board too

New York Times columnist David Brooks will never let an opportunity pass to remind you that he is an intellectual and you are a grimy member of the unwashed masses. His column today pays a back-handed tribute to the success of the Tea Party movement…while bemoaning the decline of influence among the “educated class” (e.g., David Brooks and Friends).

You know, I would love to watch Brooks debate Michelle, Paco, Lance, myself, or many other common folks. Again, I respect education, but, as I already said, education without wisdom, and c0mmon sense is a waste of time

A story of love, seduction and Obamagasms!

Sister Toldjah has the scoop! David Brooks is smitten! 

TNR has a revealing and highly nauseating – piece on the “courtship” of David Brooks by Barack Obama. The story pretty much confirms what I and many others have been saying about David Brooks for a while now in that he’s allowed himself to be shamelessly used and abused by Beltway Democrats for at least the last several years, and none of them have used him more to their advantage than Barack Obama, David Axelrod (whose relationship with Brooks goes back decades) and others in The One’s administration. Here’s a snippet:

In the spring of 2005, New York Times columnist David Brooks arrived at then-Senator Barack Obama’s office for a chat. Brooks, a conservative writer who joined the Times in 2003 from The Weekly Standard, had never met Obama before. But, as they chewed over the finer points of Edmund Burke, it didn’t take long for the two men to click. “I don’t want to sound like I’m bragging,” Brooks recently told me, “but usually when I talk to senators, while they may know a policy area better than me, they generally don’t know political philosophy better than me. I got the sense he knew both better than me.”

That first encounter is still vivid in Brooks’s mind. “I remember distinctly an image of–we were sitting on his couches, and I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant,” Brooks says, “and I’m thinking, a) he’s going to be president and b) he’ll be a very good president.” In the fall of 2006, two days after Obama’s The Audacity of Hope hit bookstores, Brooks published a glowing Times column. The headline was “Run, Barack, Run.”

The quote of the day!

Via Sister Toldjah who shares my distaste for Conservatives RINOS named David

David Brooks and David Frum. David and David. I hate to say it but some days it’s like reading Dumb and Dumber.

H/T Stacy McCain who shares my judgement of Sister Toldjah’s greatness! You know, that Other McCain guy is OK, especially when he agrees with me.