The worthless douchebag is back to slagging “populists” again:
[V]oters aren’t as stupid as the populists imagine.
People who think voters are stupid? Those are elitists like you, Brooks, you despicable swine. As author of “National Greatness” and the gutless vermin who called Sarah Palin a “fatal cancer to the Republican Party,” you are quite clearly the problem and not the solution.
Grab a nice hot cup of STFU, Brooks. Nothing is more amazing than the fact Pinch Sulzberger wastes the money it takes to employ America’s worst op-ed columnist. And that’s really saying something, when you realize that Pinch also employs Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich.
The only purpose you serve is as a bipartisan rallying point. If liberals and conservatives agree on nothing else, all least we can all agree on this: David Brooks is a worthless douchebag.
For those amongst us who spent the ’90s with our noses in chemistry books, is this the 1997 piece to which you refer?
For those amongst us who spent the ’90s with our noses in chemistry books, is this the 1997 piece to which you refer?
For those amongst us who spent the ’90s with our noses in chemistry books, is this the 1997 piece to which you refer?
[I]s this the 1997 piece to which you refer?
No, Roxeanne, the Wall Street Journal item you link was published six months after Brooks’ original “National Greatness” essay, which was what I meant to reference. It’s a mark against Kristol that he co-authored the later WSJ article with Brooks, but Kristol hasn’t followed Brooks down the path of unprincipled elitism. Kristol defends Sarah Palin, for example.
There is a tendency among some people to lump all neoconservatives together, but that’s unfair and inaccurate. Kristol is far more sympathetic to the Religious Right than most of those who are usually labeled neocons. At the height of the Iraq debate 2002-03, there was a general solidarity of support for Bush that gave the appearance of neoconservative conformity. As the Bush administration recedes into the past, however, and the focus turns to domestic policy and election-focused political strategy, important differences emerge.
Whatever Kristol’s faults (and I have criticized him often) he has better political instincts than most of those among whom he is usually categorized. And if that seems like faint praise, it’s because I think neoconservatism (a broad and much-disputed label) is at fault for much of what’s gone wrong with the GOP in the past 15 years. Grover Norquist’s “Leave Us Alone Coalition” — i.e., limited-government conservatism — is much more in line with what I thought I was getting when I first voted Republican in 1994.
Of course, my paleocon buddies consider me an apostate for having anything to do with the neocons, but I don’t believe you can build a coalition by the process of subtraction. For upwards of 25 years, the neocons pursued vendettas against paleos — from M.E. Bradford to Pat Buchanan to Peter Brimelow — to the great detriment of the larger conservative movement. For the paleos to adopt a “counter-purge” policy, anathematizing all neocons, would only be wise if two wrongs made a right.
The only purges now ought to be against those who advocate more purges, and Brooks has been a divisive force in that direction ever since I’ve been aware of him. His snooty put-downs of “populists” are really just a matter of Brooks arrogating to himself the authority of an arbiter, deciding who is or is not acceptable as a conservative.
Fuck David Brooks and fuck the horse he rode in on. The day Sulzberger finally fires that miserable crapweasel — a day too long delayed — I’ll buy a one-year subscription to the New York Times as a matter of principle.
[I]s this the 1997 piece to which you refer?
No, Roxeanne, the Wall Street Journal item you link was published six months after Brooks’ original “National Greatness” essay, which was what I meant to reference. It’s a mark against Kristol that he co-authored the later WSJ article with Brooks, but Kristol hasn’t followed Brooks down the path of unprincipled elitism. Kristol defends Sarah Palin, for example.
There is a tendency among some people to lump all neoconservatives together, but that’s unfair and inaccurate. Kristol is far more sympathetic to the Religious Right than most of those who are usually labeled neocons. At the height of the Iraq debate 2002-03, there was a general solidarity of support for Bush that gave the appearance of neoconservative conformity. As the Bush administration recedes into the past, however, and the focus turns to domestic policy and election-focused political strategy, important differences emerge.
Whatever Kristol’s faults (and I have criticized him often) he has better political instincts than most of those among whom he is usually categorized. And if that seems like faint praise, it’s because I think neoconservatism (a broad and much-disputed label) is at fault for much of what’s gone wrong with the GOP in the past 15 years. Grover Norquist’s “Leave Us Alone Coalition” — i.e., limited-government conservatism — is much more in line with what I thought I was getting when I first voted Republican in 1994.
Of course, my paleocon buddies consider me an apostate for having anything to do with the neocons, but I don’t believe you can build a coalition by the process of subtraction. For upwards of 25 years, the neocons pursued vendettas against paleos — from M.E. Bradford to Pat Buchanan to Peter Brimelow — to the great detriment of the larger conservative movement. For the paleos to adopt a “counter-purge” policy, anathematizing all neocons, would only be wise if two wrongs made a right.
The only purges now ought to be against those who advocate more purges, and Brooks has been a divisive force in that direction ever since I’ve been aware of him. His snooty put-downs of “populists” are really just a matter of Brooks arrogating to himself the authority of an arbiter, deciding who is or is not acceptable as a conservative.
Fuck David Brooks and fuck the horse he rode in on. The day Sulzberger finally fires that miserable crapweasel — a day too long delayed — I’ll buy a one-year subscription to the New York Times as a matter of principle.
[I]s this the 1997 piece to which you refer?
No, Roxeanne, the Wall Street Journal item you link was published six months after Brooks’ original “National Greatness” essay, which was what I meant to reference. It’s a mark against Kristol that he co-authored the later WSJ article with Brooks, but Kristol hasn’t followed Brooks down the path of unprincipled elitism. Kristol defends Sarah Palin, for example.
There is a tendency among some people to lump all neoconservatives together, but that’s unfair and inaccurate. Kristol is far more sympathetic to the Religious Right than most of those who are usually labeled neocons. At the height of the Iraq debate 2002-03, there was a general solidarity of support for Bush that gave the appearance of neoconservative conformity. As the Bush administration recedes into the past, however, and the focus turns to domestic policy and election-focused political strategy, important differences emerge.
Whatever Kristol’s faults (and I have criticized him often) he has better political instincts than most of those among whom he is usually categorized. And if that seems like faint praise, it’s because I think neoconservatism (a broad and much-disputed label) is at fault for much of what’s gone wrong with the GOP in the past 15 years. Grover Norquist’s “Leave Us Alone Coalition” — i.e., limited-government conservatism — is much more in line with what I thought I was getting when I first voted Republican in 1994.
Of course, my paleocon buddies consider me an apostate for having anything to do with the neocons, but I don’t believe you can build a coalition by the process of subtraction. For upwards of 25 years, the neocons pursued vendettas against paleos — from M.E. Bradford to Pat Buchanan to Peter Brimelow — to the great detriment of the larger conservative movement. For the paleos to adopt a “counter-purge” policy, anathematizing all neocons, would only be wise if two wrongs made a right.
The only purges now ought to be against those who advocate more purges, and Brooks has been a divisive force in that direction ever since I’ve been aware of him. His snooty put-downs of “populists” are really just a matter of Brooks arrogating to himself the authority of an arbiter, deciding who is or is not acceptable as a conservative.
Fuck David Brooks and fuck the horse he rode in on. The day Sulzberger finally fires that miserable crapweasel — a day too long delayed — I’ll buy a one-year subscription to the New York Times as a matter of principle.
[I]s this the 1997 piece to which you refer?
No, Roxeanne, the Wall Street Journal item you link was published six months after Brooks’ original “National Greatness” essay, which was what I meant to reference. It’s a mark against Kristol that he co-authored the later WSJ article with Brooks, but Kristol hasn’t followed Brooks down the path of unprincipled elitism. Kristol defends Sarah Palin, for example.
There is a tendency among some people to lump all neoconservatives together, but that’s unfair and inaccurate. Kristol is far more sympathetic to the Religious Right than most of those who are usually labeled neocons. At the height of the Iraq debate 2002-03, there was a general solidarity of support for Bush that gave the appearance of neoconservative conformity. As the Bush administration recedes into the past, however, and the focus turns to domestic policy and election-focused political strategy, important differences emerge.
Whatever Kristol’s faults (and I have criticized him often) he has better political instincts than most of those among whom he is usually categorized. And if that seems like faint praise, it’s because I think neoconservatism (a broad and much-disputed label) is at fault for much of what’s gone wrong with the GOP in the past 15 years. Grover Norquist’s “Leave Us Alone Coalition” — i.e., limited-government conservatism — is much more in line with what I thought I was getting when I first voted Republican in 1994.
Of course, my paleocon buddies consider me an apostate for having anything to do with the neocons, but I don’t believe you can build a coalition by the process of subtraction. For upwards of 25 years, the neocons pursued vendettas against paleos — from M.E. Bradford to Pat Buchanan to Peter Brimelow — to the great detriment of the larger conservative movement. For the paleos to adopt a “counter-purge” policy, anathematizing all neocons, would only be wise if two wrongs made a right.
The only purges now ought to be against those who advocate more purges, and Brooks has been a divisive force in that direction ever since I’ve been aware of him. His snooty put-downs of “populists” are really just a matter of Brooks arrogating to himself the authority of an arbiter, deciding who is or is not acceptable as a conservative.
Fuck David Brooks and fuck the horse he rode in on. The day Sulzberger finally fires that miserable crapweasel — a day too long delayed — I’ll buy a one-year subscription to the New York Times as a matter of principle.
Okay, but let’s not pretend that the paleoconservatives haven’t already adopted a “purge the neocons” philosophy, so if Brooks has to go, then so do they.
Okay, but let’s not pretend that the paleoconservatives haven’t already adopted a “purge the neocons” philosophy, so if Brooks has to go, then so do they.
Okay, but let’s not pretend that the paleoconservatives haven’t already adopted a “purge the neocons” philosophy, so if Brooks has to go, then so do they.
Okay, but let’s not pretend that the paleoconservatives haven’t already adopted a “purge the neocons” philosophy, so if Brooks has to go, then so do they.
Thank you for the link, Stacy. That has to be the strangest version of American exceptionalism that I’ve ever suffered through reading.
Keeping the snark down to a minimum: I really want to smack Brooks over the head with a copy of The Federalist 51.
Thank you for the link, Stacy. That has to be the strangest version of American exceptionalism that I’ve ever suffered through reading.
Keeping the snark down to a minimum: I really want to smack Brooks over the head with a copy of The Federalist 51.
Thank you for the link, Stacy. That has to be the strangest version of American exceptionalism that I’ve ever suffered through reading.
Keeping the snark down to a minimum: I really want to smack Brooks over the head with a copy of The Federalist 51.
Thank you for the link, Stacy. That has to be the strangest version of American exceptionalism that I’ve ever suffered through reading.
Keeping the snark down to a minimum: I really want to smack Brooks over the head with a copy of The Federalist 51.
thatsright–your posts are made of awesome.
RSM–correct-a-mundo as usual.
David Brooks, loose the prissy attitude. You are not a conservative. You are at best a moderate democrat liberal. There is a big difference.
Phillip P, eventually one of the kids will break you open and candy will tumble out. Probably Chinese candy with lead in it, but candy nevertheless.
thatsright–your posts are made of awesome.
RSM–correct-a-mundo as usual.
David Brooks, loose the prissy attitude. You are not a conservative. You are at best a moderate democrat liberal. There is a big difference.
Phillip P, eventually one of the kids will break you open and candy will tumble out. Probably Chinese candy with lead in it, but candy nevertheless.
thatsright–your posts are made of awesome.
RSM–correct-a-mundo as usual.
David Brooks, loose the prissy attitude. You are not a conservative. You are at best a moderate democrat liberal. There is a big difference.
Phillip P, eventually one of the kids will break you open and candy will tumble out. Probably Chinese candy with lead in it, but candy nevertheless.
thatsright–your posts are made of awesome.
RSM–correct-a-mundo as usual.
David Brooks, loose the prissy attitude. You are not a conservative. You are at best a moderate democrat liberal. There is a big difference.
Phillip P, eventually one of the kids will break you open and candy will tumble out. Probably Chinese candy with lead in it, but candy nevertheless.
Cheers Joe!
Cheers Joe!
Cheers Joe!
Cheers Joe!
[…] a low-budget WalMart operating model. I’d say Sulzberger should fire Dowd, but I’m hoping the ax falls on David Brooks first. var addthis_pub='smitty1e';var addthis_language='en';var addthis_options='twitter, digg, email, […]
Quoted from You and Roxeanne and Linked to at: I Love How You Fisk Me
Quoted from You and Roxeanne and Linked to at: I Love How You Fisk Me
Quoted from You and Roxeanne and Linked to at: I Love How You Fisk Me
Quoted from You and Roxeanne and Linked to at: I Love How You Fisk Me
[…] Ooo-kay. He wrote that about Stacy McCain, who was celebrating David Brooks Fisking Day. […]
[…] It’s David Brooks Fisking Day! The worthless douchebag is back to slagging “populists” again: […]