Buck-toothed moron. His party is morally and intellectually bankrupt and he projects that onto the dems.

As long as the current crop of corporate media whores reign, Brooks is absolutely correct: whatever happens, it will absolutely be portrayed as bad news for the Democrats.

These kinds of have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too vows were merely laughable last year when the federal deficit was running at a manageable $163 billion a year. But the economic slowdown, the hangover from the Bush years and the growing bite of entitlements mean that the federal deficit will almost certainly top $400 billion by 2009. The accumulated national debt will be in shouting distance of the $10 trillion mark. With that much red ink, the primary-season spending plans are simply ridiculous.

True it’s bad news for democrats, but what’s really important is that Bush and the Republican Congress aren’t responsible at all for the $10 trillion dollar debt.

Some people will be amazed at how the moment a Democratic candidate is elected President, it will turn out that there were never, ever, ever any Republicans in charge of anything which ever turned out bad.

Brooks really ought to update his headshot. I’ve been linking to this one for years:

http://www.johnrozum.com/images/egghead-jr.jpg

El Cid said,

February 14, 2008 at 0:11

Some people will be amazed at how the moment a Democratic candidate is elected President, it will turn out that there were never, ever, ever any Republicans in charge of anything which ever turned out bad.

We’ve always been at war with Eurasia.

There’s a tiny, perhaps inadvertent kernel of truth in this Shorter Brooks. Namely, that the financial system is so thoroughly fucked up that whoever becomes President next is going to have to deal with a tsunami of poo, the slightest whiff of which will be enough to send the Republican élite into peristaltic ecstasy.

To continue with the fecal metaphor: if the stock market’s colostomy bag bursts on 1/21/09, it will of course be President Obama’s fault — never mind the eight years of shit that went into it, none of which is the Democrats’ doing. (Or should I say doo-dooing.)

Or the president can go before the nation and calmly and logically go over his/her the plan for drawing down troops, explaining the plan, its cost, and its consequences. In other words, treat the nation like grown-ups and damand that they act like grown-ups.

Then the new administration can very quietly remind the networks who hands out the goodies, and who restricts access. Obama already had Fox in a tizzy by punishing them for their actions. The right-wing noise machine has revealed a giant schism. If McCain fails, the blame can be pinned on Rush et al, who didn’t support the Republican nominee, thereby decreasing his influence, as well as that of the other freaks of nature.

“treat the nation like grown-ups and damand that they act like grown-ups.”

Carter tried that.
Look what happened.

Yeah, unfortunately, everything he says is true. Although if he were really sure it were true, he wouldn’t be saying it, would he?

Makes you wonder…

Hey, I didn’t say it would work!

But based on what I’ve read about peak oil, credit derivitives, and Iran, we might not have a choice.

The David Brooks Method: Make stuff up, repeat until true.

Once again…

According to Bobo Brooks, Michael Baroney, and the rest of their ilk, the Foley scandal supposed to bad news for the Democrats, as it meant the following:

– That their focusing on it meant THEY HAD NO AGENDA!, and the nation would see right through that
– That the Democrats somehow had a hand in it, because they knew about it but kept it secret (Bobo and Baroney could never cite reasons for this, of course)
– That they were HYPOCRITES! because TEH KLINTONS!, and the nation would see right through that
– That Americans would backlash, noting how TOTES GREAT the economy was (heh indoozle!) and how swimmingly the war in Iraq was going
– And on and on.

Yes, bad news indeed. Bad news for the Dems, bad news for the Dems, bad news for the Dems. And then nary a peep out of these clowns when the Democrats rolled on Election Night ’06. Same as it ever was, same as it ever was.

The fact is, DUmmie Funnies is a hilarious blog. The fact is, it’s way funnier than this place with you people.

Brooks is absoultely right. The democrats will bankrupt this Nation with their out controlled spending and their retreat from Iraq would be disastourous to America’s international reputation as it would make our military look weak despite the tremendous successes we’ve had since the surge began, Not to mention the humanitarian disastor and the fall of Iraq into the fold of the islamofascists and the regional instability that will follow including the increased power of Iran as they would probably end up occupying Iraq if American forces withdrew and would control the world’s second largest supply of oil. A democratic Presidency would be a disastor for America in the economic, military and moral fronts.

My biggest fear? That whichever dem wins the whitehouse will start in with that happy bygones and forgiveness and bipartisan horseshit instead of doing what needs doing – naming names and assigning blame. Yes, they’ll catch hell for doing it from the 30% dead enders, but it may be the only way to appropriately distance themselves from the 20 years of proving Reagan right when he said the nine most terrifying words were “I’m from the government and I’m here to help” – nice job, republicans, you’ve made Ronnie’s dream come true – and getting on with business.

A democratic Presidency would be a disastor for America in the economic, military and moral fronts.

Which I guess is why we currently live under a totalitarian dictatorship. Save America from democracy!

The fact is, DUmmie Funnies is a hilarious blog.

now that is funny! well done, sir.

A democratic Presidency would be a disastor for America in the economic, military and moral fronts

Ohh, I had a c9 Disastor Masters of the Universe figure in the original package for years before I had to sell it on eBay!

Y’know what? I don’t give a rat’s patootie if winning the White House turns out to be bad for the Democrats. Fuck them. All I care about is whether it will improve things for the country. And for “improve,” I am willing to accept “stop making things worse.”

the best part about the column is that he makes absolutely no connection between the deficits and the Iraq War.

Hmmm, I enjoyed reading Bobo this time:
http://www.43rdstateblues.com/?q=node/3907

Which brings us to second looming Democratic divide: domestic spending. Both campaigns now promise fiscal discipline, as well as ambitious new programs. These kinds of have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too vows were merely laughable last year when the federal deficit was running at a manageable $163 billion a year.

Ya know, the “manageable” $163 billion deficit is only a manageable $163 billion if you don’t include the sucking chest wound known as the Iraq war, you fucking tool. Add that in, and that “manageable” $163 billion explodes to over $400 billion.

Which could easily be reversed by a) getting out of Iraq and b) taxing the shit out of the people who haven’t been paying taxes for the past 7 years. You know, the elites, or as your hero Bush refers to them “my base”.

You know, the Democratically-led Congress right now polls fairly unpopularly (mostly because they’ve given into Bush Jr., but put that aside for the moment).

Yet this unpopularity is still better for Democrats than being out of power in the Congress from 1994 to 2006.

St James, didn’t I tell you to scram or I’d heft my 34 year -old bulk out of my computer chair and give your 16 year old ass the tanning it deserves?

See? I can be a tough guy too.

Oh, sorry.

St James, didn’t I tell you to scram or I’d polish my full suit of plate mail, rev the engine on my M-1A1 Main Battle Tank, then get my 155 mm howitzer out and cap yo ass, son?

After 8 years of the Bush disaster, I’m more than willing to take a chance at Dems winning being bad for Dems. Anything that gets Pukes out of office for a generation or two works for me.

Watching the Dead Tree media pitch hissy fits about it while their market shares continue to tank, as everyone is tuning them out…that would just be lagniappe.

Off topic- Someone from S,N! do the daily libfasc blog update already. Doughy has a post up in which a reader calls Obama the anti-christ.
I’m not kidding.
Link

It’s all true. Lots of extremely bad things are going to happen as the decline of a once-great power really starts to pick up steam in the next 5-10 years. And once again, it will be the dems at the helm to catch the brunt of the blame.

But ultimately, it doesn’t matter. Unlike the Repubs, the Dems just really suck at being the opposition party. Rather than fighting like a savage, cornered beast with their hair on fire as the Repubs have done, they try to get along. They try to find avenues for compromise. And they get their lunch handed to them, taken away, eaten, puked up and handed to them again. And again. And again.

Nope. Maybe Barack can bring something different, a kind of cool-headed drive-the-boat power that brings people along behind, but I think he’ll more likely be in a defensive crouch the whole time, fending off the most savage attacks from the politicians, the water carriers, the press and the elite. Many of the old time Dems may well resent him and work to foil his agenda. And crises, as they occur, just seem in a post 9/11-iraq world to be bigger, bloodier, more violent and just so much harder to contain…

mikey

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

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

Doughy has a post up in which a reader calls Obama the anti-christ.
I’m not kidding.

Oh, how I wish you had been.

To continue with the fecal metaphor: if the stock market’s colostomy bag bursts on 1/21/09, it will of course be President Obama’s fault — never mind the eight years of shit that went into it, none of which is the Democrats’ doing.

None of which?

The fact is, the fact is. Think about it. It will blow your mind.

The Democrats may well win the White House this year, and if they do it will be bad news for the Democrats.

Republicans winning the White House this year would be bad news for America.

Expect more of this is the sort of jolly japing from Karl Rove’s Butt Babies. It’s all about scoring points in some bizarre game that only the other neo-pervs understand and enjoy.

“Just to be clear, I certainly don’t think Obama is the Devil.”

Ladies and gentleman,
The Official Launch of the JebBush2012 campaign!

So according to Brooks the two biggest perils to the Democratic Party are success and continued existence.

not that pablo said, February 14, 2008 at 1:55

So according to Brooks the two biggest perils to the Democratic Party are success and continued existence.

In the brilliant Brooks’ view, the Democrats would be in their best position if they were to take over in a massive landslide against a popular and successful Republican regime which had done all sorts of great things for the nation and the world.

Because, you know, that’s why the Republicans took over government forever immediately after FDR.

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

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.

outraged and highly photogenic colonels screaming betrayal

Because the ugly ones agreed with the Democrats? What?

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.

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

“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.

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.

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

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

“thing”…….. obviously….

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…)

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

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!

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.

hey brooksie

please don’t throw us into that briar patch

two can play this game,dickhead

Farnsworth lookin’ motherfucker.

Bad news, everyone!

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

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.

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

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.