Blog on the Run: Reloaded

Wednesday, July 13, 2011 8:27 pm

One would think …

Filed under: Aiee! Teh stoopid! It burns!,I want my money back. — Lex @ 8:27 pm

… that any person able to win a coveted slot in The New York Times’s regular op-ed stable with license to opine on the economy would have a certain basic knowledge of economics and, in particular, would have done enough reporting to understand the causes and solutions of today’s economic problems, particularly inasmuch as we experienced something similar decades ago and know what worked and what didn’t back then. Indeed, one would think that a pundit in such an exalted position would be both able and willing to do the minimal reporting necessary to relate accurately the salient facts relevant to the situation about which he opines.

One would think that.

And, in the case of David Brooks, one would be completely, totally, unutterably, head-explodingly, brains-all-over-the-walledly wrong.

And this is the guy people point to when they claim that conservative pundits can be reasonable (whereas the real Republicans call him a RINO).

Jesus wept.


  1. So do I hear you corectly ? You don’t agree with

    Charles Davenport on David Brooks

    In part:
    Brooks writes that Barack Obama needs to reach a deal with Republicans on the debt ceiling “so he can campaign in 2012 as a moderate.” But one would have to be ignorant of both Obama’s record and the fundamentals of political philosophy in order to believe the president is a “moderate.” Obama’s ultra left-wing, statist ideology–and its catastrophic failure–is obvious to everyone who has any business within 100 yards of a voting booth.

    The Republican Party is not “a normal party,” Brooks argues, because it appears willing to reject spending cuts if they are accompanied by “revenue increases.” It may surprise Mr. Brooks, a highly-educated man, to discover that even we, the doltish, toothless hillbillies who comprise the Tea Party movement, are aware that the term “revenue increase,” which he utilizes repeatedly, is merely a synonym for “tax increase.” In fact, contrary to Brooks’ assertion, the GOP has a long history of capitulating and abandoning principle. We can only hope that, this time around, conservatives will be as stubborn and belligerent in opposition to “revenue increases” as Mr. Brooks claims they are.

    “The members of this movement,” Brooks writes, “do not accept the logic of compromise,” and they “do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities.” If “compromise” includes accepting the demands of collectivist, nanny-state liberals while defiling the principles of limited government and self-reliance, then yes, conscientious conservatives should reject compromise.

    One glance at the economy raises grave concerns about the competence of the “scholars and intellectual authorities” Mr. Obama has placed in charge. We accept the legitimacy of scholars who speak and write in defense of the ancient, tried-and-true principles at the foundation of our republic, including limited government (as expressed in the 10th Amendment) and free enterprise. The Obama administration is not only hostile to these principles, but continues to defend—in “fanatical” fashion—principles that have demonstrably failed.

    Because of his squishy, moderate, self-aggrandizing positions, constitutional conservatives have never considered Mr. Brooks an ally. (By definition, a moderate believes deeply in nothing.) His columns are “conservative” only in comparison to the left-wing militancy that prevails at The New York Times. With his column on “fanatics,” Mr. Brooks has aligned himself with our adversaries: the arrogant, inside-the-beltway, tax-hiking, big government-loving Ruling Class. The scholar and intellectual authority at the heart of the Tea Party movement—James “Little Jimmy” Madison–would reject in no uncertain terms the “compromise” Mr. Brooks toots his own horn for embracing.

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Wednesday, July 13, 2011 9:23 pm @ 9:23 pm

  2. Fred, when Davenport isn’t being delusional, he’s just lying.

    Obama has no intention of “campaigning in 2012 as a moderate,” not least because there are no moderates. The country is as polarized as it has been since Roosevelt’s time, and Davenport and his ilk aren’t going to vote for Obama no matter what he does. Obama wants to campaign in 2012 as the guy who created the Grand Bargain that got deficits under control. He’s not playing to moderates; he’s playing to the history books. (Never mind that the policy he is seeking will be disastrous in the short term with respect to employment.)

    His positing of Obama’s “ultra left-wing, statist ideology” ignores the fact that Obama’s, you know, actions have benefited large corporations (particularly financial institutions), not the vast majority of Americans; that aside from a TSA-driven bump initiated by Bush, civilian federal employment is about as low as it has been since the Kennedy administration; and that 74% OF REPUBLICANS favor tax increases along with spending cuts to bring deficits under control.

    Davenport thinks Brooks is a fake. I think he’s too stupid to be smart enough to be a fake. There’s a difference.

    Comment by Lex — Thursday, July 14, 2011 8:59 am @ 8:59 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: