04
Mar
2009
Posted by Robert in Barack Obama
The New York Times’ affirmative action-hire and self-described “moderate conservative,” David Brooks, authored a stunning piece of journalistic ignorance yesterday. In it, he posits that President Obama is (gasp!) a liberal!
“Those of us who consider ourselves moderates,” wrote Brooks, “are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was. His words are responsible; his character is inspiring. But his actions betray a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice.”
My question to Brooks is, Where have you been the past two years? Now, several weeks into Obama’s Presidency, you’re asking whether Obama is a bold leftist? Did you not pay one ounce of attention to his background, associations, and rhetoric during the campaign?
Brooks then goes on to whine and whimper about how moderates like him find themselves “facing a void” because “[o]n the right, there are the Rush Limbaugh brigades,” and “[t]he only thing more scary than Obama’s experiment is the thought that it might fail and the political power will swing over to a Republican Party that is currently unfit to wield it.” He ultimately condemns “the endless war of the extremes.”
I’ve never liked Brooks because he doesn’t seem to have any principles. One day, he’s a conservative; the next day, a liberal.
He argued forcefully for military intervention in Iraq and then, once the war started, tempered his support. He has argued that there exists a third, moderate party in America, calling it the “McCain-Lieberman Party.” (Not really: America is far more conservative than you think.)
He obviously was a McCain supporter, but he also denounced Sarah Palin as a “cancer to the Republican Party.” (David, if not for Palin, McCain would have lost by more than 6 or 7 million votes; she saved his ass.)
He supports gay marriage and is somewhat of a feminist.
Finally, he has argued that the Republican Party must distance itself from the limited government principles of Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater. (Amazingly, he pushed this idea in early 2007 despite an array of defeats for Republicans in the 2006 mid-term elections–a punishment of sorts for having abandoned such conservative principles for big-government spending programs.)
I don’t think Brooks has any idea where he stands on anything. He clearly has no clue why Republicans keep losing elections. He’s supposed to be this heady intellectual, but he can’t even recognize the facts right under his nose.
Obama is a socialist, and that was as clear as day from the beginning of the campaign. People like Brooks floated the idea that Obama was going to be a “centrist.” Now, after having seen the socialist takeover of our country, Brooks and these blue-blood pseudo-conservatives are aghast at the degree of “change” that’s really taking place.
My advice to Brooks: Open your eyes. The extreme liberalism in the northeast is clouding your judgment.
If you like this post, please consider subscribing to my full RSS feed. You can also subscribe by e-mail and have a copy of each new post automatically delivered to your inbox.
4 Responses
David Brooks: Obama Is A . . . . Liberal?? | No Brainer Profits
March 4th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
1[...] Read the original: David Brooks: Obama Is A . . . . Liberal?? [...]
Political Animal
March 5th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
2“The New York Times’ affirmative action-hire and self-described “moderate conservative,” David Brooks, authored a stunning piece of journalistic ignorance yesterday. In it, he posits that President Obama is (gasp!) a liberal!”
Great stuff!
Political Animal
http://politicalanimal.today.com/
Jack
March 12th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
3As usual, conservative pundits ignore the difference between “socialist” and “social democrat,” not because you don’t know the difference, but because you fear that your audience doesn’t have the attention span to read through a definition of it on their own. Not that the left is any more intellectually virtuous. For those of us that eschew your narrow little left/right, liberal/conservative dichotomy, your attack on Brooks (who I’ve attacked as well) is tantamount to proving him RIGHT. Those of you who think you’re on the right should ASK someone who was on the fence why it was they didn’t vote for McCain.
As it happens, such a person exists.
I never got all weepy when I heard Obama speak. Sure he’s a gifted orator, but so was Kennedy; for all the romanticism, Camelot was mostly smoke and mirrors . I’ve admired McCain for a long time and planned to vote for him. I thought I’d follow the issues, just for kicks.
I hated both of their health care proposals, but all things being equal, McCain was the least likely to keep that particular campaign promise, keeping health care exactly as it is right now (which is how I want it). I don’t want my employer, who makes well over $250,000 a year and treats me good because of it, to get pinched on taxes. And with Russia and China getting belligerent, I don’t want us in either war, since our troops need to be prepared if either one goes looking for a scrap with us (which, you may recall, China just did). Essentially they canceled each other out on every other issue, including they economy, giving McCain a slight edge.
Then he picked a former beauty queen who couldn’t say the word “nuclear, ” had left the city of Wasilla millions in debt, and said “thanks” (but omitted the famed, “but no thanks,” from her original dialogue with Washington) to enough pork to keep McCain squealing his entire career (look it up–he squealed on her, too). It was then that I decided that if the Republican nominee wanted to “shore up the base,” that was fine with me. I could have just as easily voted third party (which I usually do), but something about having someone that stupid literally “a breath away” from the nuclear football, made me vote for the bleeding heart.
As with the “Reagan Democrats,” we political agnostics are the only bricks up for grabs for the Republicans. If you want to rebuild the Republican Party, you might want to look for a leader that non-Republicans aren’t laughing at. Limbaugh is a bloated, drug-addled buffoon, more a symbol of Republican excess than of conservative ideals. Conversely, I don’t always like David Brooks, but I respect him, and as long as people like Michael Steele are forced to kiss Pope Rush’s ring, swing voters like me who don’t identify with either party won’t take the GOP seriously.
Robert
March 13th, 2009 at 6:38 am
4Jack, you cannot square what you wrote with the following incontrovertible fact: when the Republican Party puts out a real conservative with no moderate views, it wins every time (e.g., Reagan, Bush I in 1988, Bush II before he went socialist). When the Republican Party puts out a moderate candidate, it loses every time (e.g., Bush I in 1992 after he raised taxes, Dole, McCain). There are far more people on the right than in the middle. And even those who say they’re in the middle or “independent” or “moderate” or whatever instinctively live their lives as conservatives and with traditional conservative values.
Rush is one of the few people who articulates the conservative principles that WIN elections, and few, if any, of the Republican Party’s “leaders” in Washington are articulating and advancing those ideas. Those are universal ideas that won Reagan two landslides in the 1980s. If the Republicans want to win back seats next year and win back the presidency in 2012, they better return to those principles.
By the way, your attack on Rush as a “bloated, drug-addled buffoon” is tantamount to saying that “Rush is a poo-poo head.” That’s the extent of the analysis I get from you on Rush? I’d expect more from someone who set forth the analysis above and not the idiotic name-calling liberals love to engage in.
RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI
Leave a reply
previous post: Rush Limbaugh’s Epic Speech At CPAC
next post: Capitalism Cannot Survive Without Risk
to top of page...