David Brooks should never, ever, consent to be questioned by Ezra Klein again. Holy mother of Jesus did he make a jackass out of himself. And Ezra is so polite and well-mannered; it could have gone much worse if he’d wanted to take a tone with Bobo.
I mean, Ezra invited Brooks to respond on the record to the observation that he had just published the most deceitful horseshit in the paper of record, and Brooks (after agreeing to post a correction) proceeded to peddle more confused and misleading horseshit.
The best part? It’s hard to choose. Was it when Brooks said Obama should be more like Robert Rubin and Ezra pointed out that Obama was asking for less revenue than Rubin? Was it when Ezra mentioned that the Simpson-Bowles plan had more defense cuts and higher taxes than what Obama is asking for, and Brooks said that he’s no longer a fan of Simpson-Bowles? Was it the part where Brooks tried to explain what a good deal would look like, gave up, and referred us all to a column written by Yuval Levin?
What a bunch of gobbledygook Brooks spewed in that brief interview!
What a clown he is.
And yet Brooks is considered a Serious Thinker. smh
Charles P. Pierce’s takedown on Brooks’ latest equine manure is also priceless:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/david-brooks-sequestration-022213
Was it when Brooks said Obama should be more like Robert Rubin and Ezra pointed out that Obama was asking for less revenue than Rubin?
“Bobo” obviously knows that Obama is tight with Rubin, too tight, but ignores that. He also claimed we still have a bloated public sector.
And Ezra is so polite and well-mannered; it could have gone much worse if he’d wanted to take a tone with Bobo.
It’s not even a matter of taking a tone, it’s a matter of “Bobo” was spewing so much garbage, it’s hard to keep up. Isn’t “Bobo” supposed to be teaching a course at Yale this semester on humility, or something?
You betcha:
http://students.yale.edu/oci/resultDetail.jsp?course=23724&term=201301
The truth of the matter is that it costs $3.5T to finance the US government and that we face no particular national security threats worldwide (unless you count North Korea and its non-functional missile program or Chinese hacking or some crap). Which means that a) it costs $3.5T in revenues to balance the budget and b) defense spending historically is cut by 25-30% after wars end in the last 70 years.
All of the math is working against the conservative/Republican position here. And with it, most of the politics.
I’m just glad that there are others who read and listen to David Brooks so I don’t have to.
He honestly thinks that his attention span of a gnat translates into an explanation strength.
Splat!
Polite and well mannered? I’d just call it being part of the pundit system.
Your choices are good, Boo, but my most favorite darkly humorous portion is at the end, where Bobo uses the sterling reputation (!) of the IMF to join that fine body in pushing policies which would starve our grannies and many, many infants as well:
“And I guess my response would be, as the [International Monetary Fund] and others have said, if you don’t lay the groundwork for a long-term debt solution now, it gets immeasurably harder every year you wait. I agree there are three big issues — equity, growth and debt — and it’s hard to address all three at the same time. But that’s what we need to do.”
Of course, attempting to reduce debt with more drastic governmental austerity reduces growth and is most likely to lead to a death spiral, and equity holdings by the megarich are extraordinarily healthy and don’t need addressing, unless you’re an insanely greedy sociopath. Finally, the only people who feel that we “need to” address all three of these issues NOWNOWNOWNOWNOW are the aforementioned sociopaths, who include Brooks in their immoral club.
I would certainly like to gain access to a club. And end Brooks’ career by bashing his brains in with it. He is a maggot of a man.
Somehow, they don’t make the case of it being “immeasurably” harder farther and further down the road about an issue that cannot be reversed on the only planet that we have, that continues to stare us in the face but VSP treat as an environmental niche:
Permafrost Melting Rate Could Be Faster And Worse Than We Thought, New Study Finds
It’s nice to see Brooks actually get pinned to the wall with his horseshit, but it’s high past time that people stop giving him any credit as someone who’s making arguments in good faith. He’s not, never has been, and never will be. I think even driftglass gives him too much credit in saying he’s a fake Centrist, although the anti-Bobo screeds are truly epic in every other respect.
At the end of the day, pretty much without fail, Brooks will land where the GOP wants him to land on any given issue. He’ll obfuscate and throw some lucid-seeming prose against the wall to make it seem like he’s being reasonable. But he’s just a cog in the wurlitzer, just like all the rest of the braindead mouthbreathers on the right. He’ll say just enough blindingly obvious stuff as to stay in good standing with the Village circle jerk brigade (bagging on Palin for being a moron, calling out the most reckless shit the Teabaggers throw out there, once in a while saying Obama’s not totally wrong about something etc.), but he’s just as much a cheerleader for right wing batshittery as anyone else.
To me he’s the biggest snake of all, and in a sane world would have been banished from the public sphere for being a total fraud years ago. But, here we are.
Exactly.
Just see Driftglass on David Brooks.
His latest is basically an opus.
Was that as good for you as it was for me? 😉
Awesome.
The guiding lights of conservatism Brooks and George Will have proven to be full of themselves and not really interested in much else but themselves. They both joined the tea party in ranting against the President instead of trying to build something that might resemble conservative. The GOP today is simply not anything but mean spirited and greedy; to call anyone in that party “conservative” means that the word has a connotation that does not imply anything to do with fiscal responsibility.
So long as the NYT continues to employ Brooks and “The mustache of understanding” I won’t be able to take “The Paper of Record” moniker seriously. Sure they have Krugman to refute the nonsense and bullshit, but that merely underscores the disgrace of Pinch having these clowns on the editorial page to begin with. No wonder Frank Rich left.