The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

David Brooks: ‘You Know Who Has Some Sharp Pants Creases? Mitt Romney!’

Posted on | October 4, 2011 | 33 Comments

The NYT’s token Republican columnist loves him some Mittens:

Over the past several months, Mitt Romney has been an excellent presidential candidate. He has performed superbly in the debates. He has outorganized his rivals. He has relentlessly stayed on his core theme of putting Americans back to work. He has taken Rick Perry apart with a cold ruthlessness that is a wonder to behold.

The emphasized sentence — even more than any other sentence in any David Brooks column — is clearly wrong. It was Michelle Bachmann (on the Gardasil issue during the Sept. 12 Tampa debate) and Rick Santorum (on immigration in the Sept. 22 Orlando debate) who did the most in terms of “cold ruthlessness” against Perry.

It is nevertheless true that, especially on immigration, Perry made the fatal mistake of letting Romney out-flank him on the right. As I said, “Dude. When your ‘conservative’ candidate makes Mitt Romney look like Sheriff Joe Arpaio, it’s over.”

If you are strong-minded enough to resist the temptation to believe well-written persuasive wrongheadedness, you have my permission to read the rest of Brooks’s column, But don’t dare come back into the comments telling me what brilliant arguments he’s made. That’s what makes Brooks so evil: He makes brilliant arguments for wrongness and, unless you have a strong mind, he might even persuade you that he isn’t evil.


33 Responses to “David Brooks: ‘You Know Who Has Some Sharp Pants Creases? Mitt Romney!’”

  1. Joe
    October 4th, 2011 @ 6:22 pm

    I heard David Brooks gushing over Romney on NPR on Saturday. 

    Ironically, I was buying silver bullion at the time! 

  2. t-dahlgren
    October 4th, 2011 @ 6:23 pm

    In the past I’ve argued that Brooks is not necessarily an abject idiot so much as plain wrong.

    I’m beginning to question that judgement.  What is Brooks hoping to accomplish here? Doesn’t Brooks recognize that his endorsement of Romney will do him no favors in the primaries, and is more like a kiss of death to non-beltway types?


  3. Anonymous
    October 4th, 2011 @ 6:28 pm

    You are clearly one who needs no encouragement to resist the evil of Brooksism.

  4. Dell Hill
    October 4th, 2011 @ 6:29 pm

    David Brooks is a Republican?

    Who knew??

  5. Finrod Felagund
    October 4th, 2011 @ 6:30 pm

    Beltway types generally can scarcely acknowledge that there are non-beltway types, much less acknowledge that they have any influence whatsoever.

  6. Adjoran
    October 4th, 2011 @ 6:42 pm

    I had read Brooks from time to time, with a “meh” attitude:  not a terrible writer, made some good points, no deep insights.  Then when he was “chosen” by the NYT I made a point of reading the first few pieces he published.

    A single, overwhelmingly thought began to toll like a bell in my skull with every paragraph, though, ever more loudly until I just couldn’t concentrate on his sentences any longer.

    “They chose THIS GUY to replace Safire?????”

    I’ve never been able to progress much beyond that point, while Brooks has continued to degenerate into the fetid mess we see today.

  7. John Hitchcock
    October 4th, 2011 @ 6:44 pm

    Dude!  One “l”, two “n”s.  Her name is Michele.  I’d hate to have to sic a quote of yours if I don’t have to.

  8. Walt Gilbert
    October 4th, 2011 @ 6:53 pm

    It is kind of sad when we have one “conservative” candidate who makes Mitt look like Sheriff Joe, and another “conservative” candidate who makes Harold Ford look like Alan Keyes.

  9. Joe
    October 4th, 2011 @ 6:56 pm

    BROOKS: A lot of rich guys love the guy. I mean, if you look at the people who are really lobbying for this, it’s a lot of big Wall Street money, I think, is the prime force behind this. And they don’t trust Romney. They think he’s closet moderate. They see Perry underperforming. They haven’t fallen in love with the Hermanator, Herman Cain, even though I think he’s had a phenomenal couple weeks here, in part because he does realize that it’s a – people want something big. And he’s got his 999 plan, which has appealed to something.
    I, myself, am a little down on Christie – not because I don’t like him; because I don’t think he’s right for the times. These are very scary and uncertain times. And I think what the country is looking for is somebody who’s orderly and secure – which Romney, more or less, is. Somebody who’s big and bombastic is not going to actually reassure people – especially if there’s another crisis, which is quite possible.

    Translation:  Mittens make Brookie feel warm and cuddly. 

  10. Joe
    October 4th, 2011 @ 6:59 pm

    Not a terrible writer?  Did you see the reviews for The Social Animal?

    It makes me weep this was Safire’s replacement. 

  11. Joe
    October 4th, 2011 @ 7:00 pm

    Romney is a closet moderate and Christie is not?  No, Romney is not totally in the bag (perhaps) as Chris Christie might be for these guys. 

  12. Joe
    October 4th, 2011 @ 7:29 pm

    As Brookie spins for Mittens, panic starts to decend on White House staffers over a story they really want buried.

    Cain should bring up Fast and Furious and push for a special prosecutor. 

  13. Chris Christie
    October 4th, 2011 @ 7:46 pm

    They tried to make me run for President, I said, “No, no, no”Yes, I am fat but when I come back you’ll know, know, knowI ain’t got the time and if my Ann Coulter thinks I’m fineShe’s tried to make me run for President, I won’t go, go, goI’d rather be at home with AnnPlus I often have to sit on the can’Cause there’s nothing, there’s nothing you can teach meThat I can’t learn from being in JerseyI didn’t get a lot in classBut I know we don’t come in a shot glassThey tried to make me run for President, I said, “No, no, no”Yes, I am fat but when I come back you’ll know know knowI ain’t got the time and if Mike Castle thinks I’m fineKristol tried to make me run, but I won’t go, go, go
    Ingraham said, “Why do you think you here?”I said, “I got no idea”I’m gonna, I’m gonna lose my sugardaddiesSo I always keep a sandwich nearKoch said, “I just think you’re depressedKiss me, yeah baby and go rest”They tried to make me run for President, I said, “No, no, no”Yes, I’ve been black but when I come back you’ll know, know, knowMitt don’t ever wanna drink againI just, ooh, can be his friendI’m not gonna spend ten weeksHave everyone think I’m on the mendAnd it’s not just my prideIt’s just ’til these tears have driedThey tried to make me run for President, I said, “No, no, no”Yes, I am fat but when I come back you’ll know, know, knowI ain’t got the time and if New Jersey thinks I’m fineYou’ve tried to make run for President, I won’t go, go, go

  14. Joe
    October 4th, 2011 @ 7:54 pm

    Herman Cain should make this issue his and pursue Holder like a pit bull for two reasons:  1) It is the right thing to do, and 2) The base will love him for being a fighter! 

  15. jwallin
    October 4th, 2011 @ 7:56 pm

    Brooks works for the NYT (known liberal rag) and allows them to tout him as a conservative.

    Since it’s obvious on the face of it that this is false, Brooks knowingly flies a false flag.

    This is called piracy. Intellectual fraud. Emotional lying.

    David Brooks is a smarmy, two-faced, devious liberal/leftist.

    Goebbels would be so proud of him.

  16. Joe
    October 4th, 2011 @ 8:04 pm

    The Blogfather is getting all fast and furious.  Hey, Althouse might beat Stacy to this story. 

  17. Christy Waters
    October 4th, 2011 @ 8:19 pm

    David Brooks’ opinion of Mr. Plastic Fantastic holds about as much sway as Meghan McCain’s endorsement.

    I wonder if those sharply creased pants were the same ones that Romney was modeling in the department store window.

  18. Joe
    October 4th, 2011 @ 8:34 pm

    You can’t make this stuff up:

    Maybe Biden should take the lead for the WH:  Plausible Deniability!  Plugs just can’t remember any more. 

  19. Anonymous
    October 4th, 2011 @ 9:56 pm

    The emphasized sentence — even more than any other sentence in any David Brooks column — is clearly wrong. It was Michelle Bachmann

    Obviously Brooks was watching a different debate than everyone else. Considering the bulk of his mewlings, I’ve often considered the possibly that Brooks writes mostly about the world in his little head.

    Not that he can necessarily be faulted for that. When a person lacks talent in his chosen field of endeavor he must needs do something to stand out. Many people act the idiot to draw attention… think back to grammar school, and you’ll surely remember the obnoxious class @ss.

    If anything, I think your kindly.

  20. ThePaganTemple
    October 4th, 2011 @ 9:58 pm

    You might not be the true Fatty but you are MacAwesome.

  21. Anonymous
    October 4th, 2011 @ 10:42 pm

    How was RSM to know that Bachmann sold one of the l’s in her first name for campaign cash?

  22. DaveO
    October 4th, 2011 @ 10:56 pm

    Brooks, on behalf of the editors and owners of the NYT, is promoting Romney. That pretty much guarantees Romney is considered beatable the SCOAMF and his allies.

  23. Anonymous
    October 4th, 2011 @ 10:59 pm

    Because Bachmann and Santorum were in the presence of Romney’s steady, competent dullness, that’s why they felt secure enough to attack Perry on Gardasil and immigration, respectively. Thus it was Romney’s cold ruthlessness that manipulated his inferiors into taking out Perry for him. Also, since Romney doesn’t make unforced errors, his opponents get frustrated and then panic; therefore, he causes them to make unforced errors.   
    And that’s why he’s the right guy to navigate through the special interests and build complex coalitions.

  24. Anonymous
    October 4th, 2011 @ 11:29 pm

    Anybody remember the bluesman Albert Collins? Known as the Ice Man, he incorporated the cold/ice theme into several of his album names – like Cold Pickin,’ Frostbite, and Cold Snap.

    Maybe we should do the same with the coldly ruthless Romney. “The Popsicle got a chilly reception in Columbia, SC yesterday . . .”   

  25. DaMav
    October 5th, 2011 @ 12:34 am

    An endorsement from Frum is like a hickey from y0ur sister.

  26. McGehee
    October 5th, 2011 @ 12:39 am

    Embarrassing to have to try to explain?

  27. DaMav
    October 5th, 2011 @ 1:04 am

    I don’t have a sister but I would imagine I’d be runnin through bandaids ‘n claimin giant mosqeeters wuz out by the lake, lol 😉

  28. McGehee
    October 5th, 2011 @ 1:12 am

    I don’t have a sister either. I was merely making effective use of my imagination: imagining how embarrassing a hickey from my brother would have been, and dividing by two.

  29. Anonymous
    October 5th, 2011 @ 1:35 am

    An endorsement from Frum PLUS a hickey from a sister = a Jim Webb campaign.

  30. JeffS
    October 5th, 2011 @ 2:08 am

    We apparently see David Brooks differently.  I think the fool needs a good ass whuppin’. 

    In fact, any self-proclaimed so-called “conservative” working for the New York Times needs a good ass whuppin’.

  31. Anonymous
    October 5th, 2011 @ 3:10 am

    Except we don’t want our President building complex coalitions to navigate special interests. We want him using the massive, steel-clad truncheon of a Congressional GOP majority to beat the special interests down while dismantling the edifice of socialism.

  32. Anonymous
    October 5th, 2011 @ 3:43 am

    Oh, so you do want Braveheart, then?

  33. But Who Will Defend David Brooks? | Concealed Politics
    October 5th, 2011 @ 12:26 am

    […] McCain doesn’t appear to be the guy to defend David Brooks for […]