Comments on: Shorter David Brooks / It’s always bad news…

By: Ron

Ron — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 07:41:12 +0000

Davey says: But no Democratic president can afford to offend independent voters with runaway spending.

Longer Davey: I see no runaway spending, hear no runaway spending, see no runaway spending….until its a democrat. Or until the ship is sinking so far that, totally surrowned by logic, I jump the ship to keep from being consumed.

By: jonerik

jonerik — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 06:17:13 +0000

David Brooks sez: “But governing means choosing, and reality will be unkind.”
I wonder when he figured that out?

By: slippytoad

slippytoad — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 03:08:17 +0000

Batocchio said,

February 14, 2008 at 1:27

Wow, that’s the stupidest Brooks column I’ve read in a while.

While he’s at it, a pony for everybody! Yaaay!

Would that be since the last Brooks column you’ve read.

The man is universally, unceasingly, irrepressibly, bull-headedly the numbest numbskull dumbass mumblefuck head-smacking STOOPID jackass who’s ever been allowed out of his bib and dribble cup and into the halls of a newspaper publishing outfit.

Except maybe Bill Kristol. It could be a close contest.

By: billy pilgrim

billy pilgrim — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:04:27 +0000

Well, as long as it’s not GOOD news for the Republicans….

By: borehole

borehole — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 19:54:10 +0000

Farnsworth lookin’ motherfucker.

Bad news, everyone!

By: free patriot

free patriot — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 19:04:39 +0000

hey brooksie

please don’t throw us into that briar patch

two can play this game,dickhead

By: sagra

sagra — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:54:11 +0000

It’ll be difficult to start first aid on our country’s many wounds while the Republicans are still vigorously stabbing it in the neck.

By: OneMan

OneMan — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:56:28 +0000

This thread may well be dead but: What does Brooks propose as an alternative? Perhaps his next article will address the complete unanimity in the GOP that would result from their candidate getting elected.

If McCain gets elected, do all these problems magically go away? Do the (bowel-)Movement Conservatives unite behind their leader? Do the deficits, the war and our economic weakness vanish in a puff of smoke?

Maybe we’ll solve global warming via flying unicorns and love!

By: RandomObserver

RandomObserver — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:04:38 +0000

In related news, Giants winning the SuperBowl was a terrible blow to the Giants.

By: Paddy Mac

Paddy Mac — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 05:50:48 +0000

And for “improve,” I am willing to accept “stop making things worse.”

In 2000, Gov. Bush decried “the soft bigotry of low expectations.” (Ah, the good old days, when he could put two polysyllabic words into a single sentence…)

By: lobbey

lobbey — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 05:48:25 +0000

“thing”…….. obviously….

By: lobbey

lobbey — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 05:47:48 +0000

Chris St. James, try comma’s, its the new thin with the kids.

By: Tara the anti-social social worker

Tara the anti-social social worker — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 03:53:45 +0000

This is all excellent news for rudy Giulliani. It always is.

By: robert green

robert green — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 03:26:30 +0000

it is an intellectually incoherent position to on the one hand point out that the dems are a bunch of spineless shitheads, as was done on this site today, but to then condemn david brooks for pointing out that a dem winning would be bad.

i mean, which is it? we do in fact need better dems, and it could be argued that clinton would be bad for the dems, who would remain wishy-washy centrists with her in power, never actually advocating for anything that mattered.

i know that brooks himself didn’t make that argument, but still.

By: JohnnyRingo

JohnnyRingo — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 02:08:12 +0000

“I’m NOT calling Obama the devil. That’s not even in the book. It’s not in the book. Have you READ the book? Maybe you should read the book.”

And then he blames George Carlin.

By: mikey

mikey — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 01:36:10 +0000

Man, I dunno. I guess. Maybe.

I remember some full-on DASHING Majors. I mean razor creases, square jaws, broad shoulders, blue eyes and a sense of calmness that could take a fucking bunker all by itself.

But colonels? Nah. Uh uh. No way.

All wrinkly, jowly, confused and hesitant looking, totally out of place in the field. Usually with a brand new .45 in a brand new shoulder holster that you just knew they’d never fired.

Nothing photogenic about that. Promise ya…

mikey

By: atheist

atheist — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 01:19:47 +0000

David Brooks is an awesome bullshit artist- he has the chops, the attitude, the look, and the skillz. It’s really a toss-up between him and Maureen Dowd, for who is the premier bullshit artist of their generation.

By: El Cid

El Cid — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 01:12:02 +0000

outraged and highly photogenic colonels screaming betrayal

Because the ugly ones agreed with the Democrats? What?

By: sivapith

sivapith — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 00:57:42 +0000

My favorite bit was this:

There would be irate opposition from important sections of the military, who would feel that the U.S. was squandering the gains of the previous year. A Democratic president with few military credentials would confront outraged and highly photogenic colonels screaming betrayal.

That’s some nice wanking right there.

By: g

Thu, 14 Feb 2008 00:09:51 +0000

Gary and Chris are in the same spelling class at school.