David Brooks doesn’t get paid a salary, right?

Seriously. This is the best (?) part of his latest column:

It is only now that the dinner party lion emerges to stake his claim to greatness. While others quiver with pre-election anxiety, their mood rising and collapsing with the merest flicker of the polls, he alone radiates certainty. He alone can read the internals, cross-tabs and trends, can parse Gallup and Zogby and emerge with clear answers. He alone can captivate a gathering, while men hang eagerly on his words and women undress him with their eyes.

The astounding thing is that this comes near the end of Brooks’ column:

Then, having filled the air with 45 minutes of bogus pontification and pretentious gibberish, he should sagely declare that this election is just too close to call and that it would be irresponsible to make a prediction.

Which really should read: “Then, having filled the page with 800 words of bogus pontification and pretentious gibberish…” It would be funny if Brooks weren’t such a hopeless and untalented hack. Sadly, he is, and as a result, sadly, it isn’t.

(Inspired by the shorter version of the column posted at busy, busy, busy.)


Comments: 3


Yeah, I was totally confused what he was talking about when I read that nonsense.
Maybe he’s relating a personal story about knives being thrown at him?
I’m not sure…


Brooks doesn’t need money. His compensation being allowed to masturbate his ego in front of the world. You know, I think that description would fit quite a few other columnists and pundits.


He played pundit on NPR today and revealed that there are “regions” in the US, that the coastal regions seemed to favor Kerry and the South Bush, but there is this new region he calls the “upper MidWest” which is undecided. He can’t seem to understand “undecided”, not fitting into the only two possible slots available.

What a schmuck, and he gets paid for being this stupid on air.


(comments are closed)