David Brooks is still in love with the crease in Obama’s pants
David Brooks is the supposedly-conservative guy who writes for the NY Times and originally fell in love with Obama’s pants leg. You may remember:
“I remember distinctly an image of “we were sitting on his couches, and I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant,” Brooks says, “and I’m thinking, a) he’s going to be president and b) he’ll be a very good president.” In the fall of 2006, two days after Obama’s The Audacity of Hope hit bookstores, Brooks published a glowing Times column. The headline was “Run, Barack, Run.”¦
That’s one of the most astounding examples of superficial thinking I’ve ever seen from a person who seems to want to be taken seriously as pundit and thinker. It struck me today when I read the following that Brooks has never retreated from that position (or at least the gist of it) even after these seven long years:
On Tuesday, establishment Republican favorite columnist David Brooks of The New York Times wrote a column called “I Miss Barack Obama.” In it, he pilloried Senators Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and lamented that Obama “radiates an ethos of integrity, humanity, good manners and elegance that I’m beginning to miss.”
Just astounding.
[ADDENDUM: And then there’s this: David Brooks ♥ Obama and Niebuhr.]
“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Mr. Brooks”. -J.M. Keynes
Brooks is an embarrassment and the NYT is a joke.
Brooks has no idea how corrupt the Obama Administration has been because he reads the NYT.
Obama’s greatest legacy is destruction of the Rule of Law. If it meant anything anymore Lois Lerner and Hillary Clinton would be in jail today.
You have to wonder whether the CDC should be looking for the brain-eating bacteria that are circulating at the NYT building.
He very publicly, from the start, took a slobberingly appreciative position regarding Obama. It was a self-interested step to set himself up as the Loyal Gentleman Opposition. Now he has to defend that position. Accordingly, there are a lot of facts that need to be ignored and, fortunately, most NYT readers are doing the same thing.
Has anyone seen anything from Brooks over the last seven years to indicate in any way, shape or form, that he is a conservative? Why is anyone on the right still paying attention to this imbecile?
His wiki page says he was divorced in 2014. Guess his poor wife finally relized that David wanted to have Barack’s baby.
KLSmith,
Zing! That sent a tingle up the crease in my pants. 🙂
Brooks plays the NYT conservative role for cash and the thrill of being invited to cocktail parties where the in crowd goes.
Does anyone here actually think that the NYT would have on staff, a genuine conservative columnist? Since Brooks disingenuous presents himself as one, it’s not much of a stretch for him to give Obama a verbal BJ…
Instapundit had a longer quote from this Brooks article, in which the docile, ever-faithful, no-threat-to-the-Plantation “Uncle Dave” (he jes’ love Massa ‘Bama!) talks about “true” conservatism, and includes, as one of its characteristics, “respect for hierarchy.” Yes, I can see why the New Tories and the Gentry Liberals would LOVE conservatives to be respectful to hierarchy. “God bless you, guv’nor, for raising my taxes! Please do it again, sir! And can I shine those boots for you while your at it, master?”
The superficiality of Brooks’ observations aside, I see here the same error made by literally millions of voters. People seem to want to believe that government is a cooperative venture; go along, get along and get things done.
In fact, the founding fathers set up government to be adversarial; i.e., self-correcting. Gr
The superficiality of Brooks’ observations aside, I see here the same error made by literally millions of voters. People seem to want to believe that government is a cooperative venture; go along, get along and get things done.
In fact, the founding fathers set up government to be adversarial; i.e., self-correcting. Gridlock should be the norm with only agreed upon legislation (i.e., minimal legislation) making it past the gantlet of checks and balances.
Fort my part, everytime I see politicians agreeing, I know they’ve found yet another way to get their hand inside my wallet.
T:
“In fact, the founding fathers set up government to be adversarial; i.e., self-correcting.”
In foreign affairs, though, the President is distinctively entrusted and empowered to be effective.
In that regard, David Brooks laments the retreat of the American-led world order crumbling from the opportunistic power grabs across the board by rogue actors in competitive reaction to the weak-horse leadership of the shrinking American hegemon:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/29/opinion/when-wolves-attack.html?smid=pl-share&_r=0
Yet Brooks conspicuously does not connect cause – ie, President Obama’s deliberate reduction of the leader of the free world – to the effect he laments.
These glabrous cheeked crotch-sniffing tail-wagging establishment types, long to linger in the country club locker room, are a wonder to behold. What is no wonder is that they are labelled by some especially rude types, as suckservatives or whatever the term.
What kind of man gets this giddy over a politician? David Brooks, Pipe clenched in teeth “Hey guy” Chris Buckley, Chris Matthews.
They even look kind of alike.
parker; DNW:
That was a GREAT one.
“A tingle up the crease of my pants.” I must remember that whenever I’m feeling blue about all of this.
Seriously, though, these guys’ admiration for Obama seems to center in something connected with legs. For Brooks it was the pants crease; for Chris Matthews the thrill up his leg. What is it with Obama and legs? And who on earth even notices a man’s pants crease?
I wrote a rather lengthy post in April of 2010 about what I really think was going on with Brooks and Obama: they bonded over Niebuhr. Looking back at that post now, I have to say I think it holds up very well.
DNW:
“What is no wonder is that they are labelled by some especially rude types, as suckservatives or whatever the term.”
Cuckservative.
It’s an other’ing label.
The rudeness is tactical. Alt-Right activists are mimicking the Left activist strategy that’s proven against the Right, against which mainstream conservatives even now appear unwilling (or willingly helpless) to compete with.
The Left-mimicking alt-Right activists mean to displace the relabeled “cuckservative” mainstream conservatives of the Right so that the alt-Right becomes the Right and takes over the “conservative” appellation like leftists took over the “liberal” appellation.
neo,
The legs lead to a particular part of human anatomy. 😉
parker:
The feet, of course.
No one mostly. I’ve had a number of women make pleasant remarks on my slacks in the past: “Those are nice slacks, they seem to fit well”
I managed to stammer out the old line , “Why yes these are Bugle Boy Jeans” on one occasion.
Then you get: “Have you lost some weight?”
“Been hunting”
Guys? Not so much, thank goodness.
Some years back encountered a couple of fellows who seemed to fix on shoes … mine at the time.
“Those are Johnson and Murphy’s you’re wearing …” (back when they were US product)
I won’t bother to repeat what I was later told about them since they never made any overt passes.
To paraphrase a truth abou addiction to meth and heroin: “Once the Obama needle goes in, it never comes out.”
Eric, we do need a term to describe the revulsion we feel for these guys.
All of these people who are in love with Obama have never looked at the man, only what he says. I saw who the man was that time in his speech when he flipped Hillary off. He paused while doing it as the crowd laughed and chuckled. He knew exactly what he was doing and knew the crowd knew what he did as well. Later saying he was just scratching his face, he laughed again. That is the character of the man, no matter what he says. Total disrespect for his opponents and their views. Anyone who knows this and still says what a great man and leader Obama is doesn’t have my respect nor deserves it.
“Establishment Republican favorite columnist” Yikes! I would say David has a serious “man crush” thing going on. Neo, couldn’t you lead into the next piece on David with a musical snippet from say, Ella, as follows:
I’ll sing to Him
Each spring to Him
And worship the trousers that cling to Him
No one in the real world of working voting people cares or even knows of David Brooks. Of that we can take some small solace. He writes in an echo chamber to the far left and middle left, pretending to be conservative. He is the epitome of the house n…
I have to wonder if Brooks is really still blinded for admiration for Obama, or if this his attempt at laying down the narrative of a scandal-free Obama presidency. I’m sure the NYT/PBS bubble repels most negative information about Obama, but even the NYT has reported on some Obama’s mistakes and weaknesses.
Think this is more about Brooks still wanting (and wanting us) to believe Obama is perfect, while backstabbing conservatives. He’s wishcasting.
Brooks is an oddball big-picture guy. I have never in my life thought of him as a conservative voice.
When someone can radiate integrity, there’s really no need to have it.
You can’t say sycophantic without sick.
It makes sense if he has only read the NYT for the last 7 years. No corruption, economy booming, foreign policy success after success. It’s the Baghdad Bob of newspapers and Brooks is in the Kool Aid pool.
This goes for the both of them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW9-FOLG-iA
Reformed Trombonist:
“When someone can radiate integrity, there’s really no need to have it.”
Yeah, but here’s the thing for me—I’ve never understood how so many people can even perceive Obama as radiating integrity. In his 2004 speech, maybe. But by the time he was elected it was clear that was an attribute he lacked.
So now we know what would have been a great career move years ago to be a columnist in the major Northeast corridor outlets.
1. Establish credentials as a conservative.
2. Defect to liberalism but claim not to.
3. Keep some token conservative beliefs.
4. Eat out every night at the best parties.
Assistant Village Idiot — don’t forget the all-important cadging free drinks at every possible moment part.
neo-neocon Says:
“And who on earth even notices a man’s pants crease?”
Homosexuals. Brooks and Obama, nancy boys, the both of them.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-12/americas-corrupt-media-%E2%80%93-how-reporters-took-direct-orders-hillarys-staff
Check THIS link out.
How HRC’s media team is the puppet master of the NY Times — and much else.
Pingback:Chicago Boyz » Blog Archive » The General, the Devil, and the Election
I realise I’m a little late to the party, but I just had to comment nonetheless: the reason David Brooks likes Barack Obama is because he’s the closest thing there’s been to a President David Brooks.