Casual Observation

12 Comments

1. 

   seabe on March 19, 2016 at 9:05 am

   Root for injuries.

2. 

   mino on March 19, 2016 at 9:07 am

   Well, duh. A rube is breaking the china.  DB is a total class animal.

   • 

     mino on March 19, 2016 at 9:08 am

     And how does that possibly disadvantage his career?  He is an echo of all the fainters.

     • 

       Shaun Appleby on March 19, 2016 at 5:00 pm

       In the immortal words of driftglass:

       Ah, but David, when was your job ever to “report accurately on this country”?  You’re not a journalist.  You tell lies for a living.  You’re lies are not as hot and violent as Trump’s, but you and he are basically in the same racket.  You make a princely living trafficking in fairy tales about “real America” that comfort and flatter the thousands of Beltway insiders and cosseted plutocrat rubes you hustle every week, and Trump is paving a path to the White House by telling millions of low-information rubes the flattering, reassuring lies that they want to hear.

       Same scam, different chumps, except Trump’s chumps are exhilarated, rage-drunk and armed with mighty weapons which you helped to forge, while your chumps are freaking out and terrified because the Plutocrat Potemkin vision of America you sold them is being overrun by hordes of rage-drunk, invincibly-armored visigoths you told them did not exist.

       Amen.

       • 

         mino on March 19, 2016 at 5:13 pm

         LOL  

3. 

   Geov Parrish on March 19, 2016 at 9:38 am

   He can take a stand against Trump, as opposed to all those other issues, because the perpetrators of those other issues all regularly visited his vast spaces for entertaining. Trump, of course, has his own spaces for entertaining. And he’s better at it.

   A certain species of DC parasite finds their tribal identity precisely in their bipartisan contempt for the rubes. Brooks was and is still in the running to replace Sally Quinn as their patron saint.

4. 

   esquimaux on March 19, 2016 at 12:00 pm

   David Brooks has no conscience, nor brain, nor guts. He is simply a mouthpiece for what his employers want said.

   • 

     Marie3 on March 19, 2016 at 12:43 pm

     Or he has the conscience, brain, and guts of his employers and that’s why they hired him.

5. 

   Parallax on March 19, 2016 at 3:57 pm

   I read the article with a sense of disdain. After all, who is David Brooks to speak of “moral failure.” He speaks of such things when it suits him. He overlooks it when it’s to his advantage or of those he seeks to fluff. This man whose spent a career on knee pads has long ago surrendered the authority to speak on such things.

   That said, I agree with pretty much all observations set forth in his editorial. He reminds us that men like Trump rise up but always, ultimately fall. He’s right on target with this observation: “[T]he proper thing to do in the face of demagogy is to go the other way — to make an extra effort to put on decency, graciousness, patience and humility, to seek a purity of heart that is stable and everlasting.”

   And with this one too: “[T]here are certain standards more important than one year’s election. There are certain codes that if you betray them, you suffer something much worse than a political defeat.”

   When Brooks finally gets off his loathsome spotted behind and make an effort to speak with moral authority, he does it well. Now if only he could learn to walk his talk and use the power of his column for good not just when it suits him, there might be hope for him as a valued member of the human species. I’m not holding my breath.

   • 

     priscianus jr on March 19, 2016 at 11:27 pm

     Agreed. My reaction when I read it was this: It’s actually a good piece. I could count on the fingers of one hand, and still have some left over, the number of Brooks pieces I’ve actually been able to read all the way through, let alone find them good.

     So in all likelihood there is something wrong with it. And within two seconds I had it: Nowhere does he give any indication of awareness that Trump is the logical conclusion toward which the GOP has been moving for quite some time.

     In fairness to Brooks, observing the principles of unity, coherence, emphasis in a short op-ed piece, maybe he did not need to open that can of words. Maybe he is aware. But knowing Brooks, I doubt it.

6. 

   yastreblyansky on March 19, 2016 at 9:51 pm

   The stand he’s taking against Trump shouldn’t be unique to Trump.

   Almost as if he weren’t reacting to his conscience at all but rather to the infamous March 6 tweet,

   David Brooks, of the New York Times, is closing in on being the dumbest of them all. He doesn’t have a clue.

   Could it be Brooksy’s feelings were hurt?

   • 

     centerfielddj on March 20, 2016 at 12:09 am

     Same reason Erick Erickson has sunk his feeble teeth deeply into the Stop Trump movement; his little fee-fees got hurt when Trump insulted him repeatedly.

     Mister “goat fucking child molester” can’t plausibly claim moral superiority over anyone, ever.