Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — 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. As Clive Crook, an Obama admirer, wrote in The Financial Times, the Obama budget “contains no trace of compromise. It makes no gesture, however small, however costless to its larger agenda, of a bipartisan approach to the great questions it addresses. It is a liberal’s dream of a new New Deal.”
Moderates now find themselves betwixt and between. On the left, there is a president who appears to be, as Crook says, “a conviction politician, a bold progressive liberal.” On the right, there are the Rush Limbaugh brigades. The 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.
Surely Dave, you can't be so naive or outright stupid to believe that O was ever anything but a tried and true liberal?
I mean look at those associations, Wright, Pflger, ACORN, etc. What about that stand on Iraq?
What's hilarious is that Brooks was one of those upper crust, conservative elites who mocked Sarah Palin. The funniest part of all is that as parochial as Palin may have appeared, she at least had enough smarts for seeing O for what he is/was/will ever be. A LIBERAL.
David Brooks needs to be bitch slapped back into reality.
More.....
6 comments:
David Brooks misread Obama and he is also misreading Rush and the talk radio audience (to which I belong). We believe in limited government. This is not an outdated policy. It is a timeless principle on which the country was founded.
Brooks is not a conservative that believes in limited government. He is a liberal that believes that government should not be unlimited. And he thinks that makes him a conservative.
To principled conservatives, Brooks is simply a legitimization of liberalism. He's the McCain of journalism. He's exactly what the NYT wants: someone posing as a "thoughtful" conservative that can be used to make true conservatives seem like they are far right.
But the belief in limited government is not far right or left. It is simply what is is on it's face: Belief in limited government. Letting Brooks pass as a conservative and painting a picture of limited government as far right is reason enough to ignore everything he writes. For this reason Brooks is far more of a danger to conservatism than Maureen Dowd. (And the NYT knows it.)
David Brooks misread Obama and he is also misreading Rush and the talk radio audience (to which I belong). We believe in limited government. This is not an outdated policy. It is a timeless principle on which the country was founded.
Brooks is not a conservative that believes in limited government. He is a liberal that believes that government should not be unlimited. And he thinks that makes him a conservative.
To principled conservatives, Brooks is simply a legitimization of liberalism. He's the McCain of journalism. He's exactly what the NYT wants: someone posing as a "thoughtful" conservative that can be used to make true conservatives seem like they are far right.
But the belief in limited government is not far right or left. It is simply what is is on it's face: Belief in limited government. Letting Brooks pass as a conservative and painting a picture of limited government as far right is reason enough to ignore everything he writes. For this reason Brooks is far more of a danger to conservatism than Maureen Dowd. (And the NYT knows it.)
When is the Republican Party going to start realizing that the Conservatives were/are the ones who were correct not to mention prescient about everything that has happened. At some point, one would think that you would start listening to the ones who were always right instead of the ones that were always wrong.
Perhaps Brooks should take an Arugula enema to clear the crap form his brain.
It always cracks me up that The News Hour pairs him up with Mark Shields to discuss politics.
You have a socialist and a liberal. I guess that makes the show balanced for a PBS broadcast.
As far as I'm concerned, if you believe that it is OK to take one dollar from one person to give to another, you are a socialist.
David Brooks is just another shade of that beast.
I did not leave the republican party. The republican party left me.
Post a Comment