molson_golden2002 Posted November 22, 2008 Share Posted November 22, 2008 He's pretty impressed with Team Obama so far. And for those of you who know what "The Best and Brightest" refers to, let's hope this works out better this time. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/opinion/21brooks.html?em As a result, the team he has announced so far is more impressive than any other in recent memory. One may not agree with them on everything or even most things, but a few things are indisputably true. First, these are open-minded individuals who are persuadable by evidence. Orszag, who will probably be budget director, is trusted by Republicans and Democrats for his honest presentation of the facts. Second, they are admired professionals. Conservative legal experts have a high regard for the probable attorney general, Eric Holder, despite the business over the Marc Rich pardon. Third, they are not excessively partisan. Obama signaled that he means to live up to his postpartisan rhetoric by letting Joe Lieberman keep his committee chairmanship. Fourth, they are not ideological. The economic advisers, Furman and Goolsbee, are moderate and thoughtful Democrats. Hillary Clinton at State is problematic, mostly because nobody has a role for her husband. But, as she has demonstrated in the Senate, her foreign-policy views are hardheaded and pragmatic. (It would be great to see her set of interests complemented by Samantha Power’s set of interests at the U.N.) Finally, there are many people on this team with practical creativity. Any think tanker can come up with broad doctrines, but it is rare to find people who can give the president a list of concrete steps he can do day by day to advance American interests. Dennis Ross, who advised Obama during the campaign, is the best I’ve ever seen at this, but Rahm Emanuel also has this capacity, as does Craig and legislative liaison Phil Schiliro. Believe me, I’m trying not to join in the vast, heaving O-phoria now sweeping the coastal haute bourgeoisie. But the personnel decisions have been superb. The events of the past two weeks should be reassuring to anybody who feared that Obama would veer to the left or would suffer self-inflicted wounds because of his inexperience. He’s off to a start that nearly justifies the hype. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 He's pretty impressed with Team Obama so far. And for those of you who know what "The Best and Brightest" refers to, let's hope this works out better this time. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/opinion/21brooks.html?em Wow - an Obama cheerleader from the NYT is impressed with the team he is building. I'm stunned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 Wow - an Obama cheerleader from the NYT is impressed with the team he is building. I'm stunned. I see. So a very conservative intellectual spends 20 years badmouthing the left, writing for the Washington Times, National Review, Weekly Standard, Wall Street Journal, then finds one guy on the left that he admires for his smarts and suddenly he's an "Obama cheerleader from the NYT"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 I see. So a very conservative intellectual spends 20 years badmouthing the left, writing for the Washington Times, National Review, Weekly Standard, Wall Street Journal, then finds one guy on the left that he admires for his smarts and suddenly he's an "Obama cheerleader from the NYT"? With all due respect - David Brooks has long been a RINO (often mentioned by his peers). Republican in name only. Might as well call Andrew Sullivan a conservative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 With all due respect - David Brooks has long been a RINO (often mentioned by his peers). Republican in name only. Might as well call Andrew Sullivan a conservative. Only because Republicans call anyone who ever says one thing against the party line a RINO. I have been reading him for years. There is zero question he is a very conservative thinker, and writer, he is simply willing to see there is another side, call a spade a spade, and doesn't always fall lockstep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted November 23, 2008 Author Share Posted November 23, 2008 With all due respect - David Brooks has long been a RINO (often mentioned by his peers). Republican in name only. Might as well call Andrew Sullivan a conservative. It's almost as if someone is intelligent, thinks and has an open mind it means they cannot be a Republican. Who is your favorite Republican "Thinker?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 With all due respect - David Brooks has long been a RINO (often mentioned by his peers). Republican in name only. Might as well call Andrew Sullivan a conservative. Wow - an Obama cheerleader from the NYT is impressed with the team he is building. I'm stunned. Why hasn't Alaska Darin piled on these guys for being "lemmings"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 I see. So a very conservative intellectual spends 20 years badmouthing the left, writing for the Washington Times, National Review, Weekly Standard, Wall Street Journal, then finds one guy on the left that he admires for his smarts and suddenly he's an "Obama cheerleader from the NYT"? No, not suddenly. As others point out, he is a RINO and generally plays the role of the "token conservative" representing what the left wants to believe is the right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted November 23, 2008 Author Share Posted November 23, 2008 No, not suddenly. As others point out, he is a RINO and generally plays the role of the "token conservative" representing what the left wants to believe is the right. What right wing writers do you like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 I see. So a very conservative intellectual spends 20 years badmouthing the left, writing for the Washington Times, National Review, Weekly Standard, Wall Street Journal, then finds one guy on the left that he admires for his smarts and suddenly he's an "Obama cheerleader from the NYT"? Can you cite why you describe him as "a very conservative intellectual?" Here is the wiki bio: Brooks in the political spectrumBrooks, who some consider a conservative, describes himself as being originally a liberal. In 1983, for example, he wrote a parody of conservative pundit William F. Buckley, Jr. : In the afternoons he is in the habit of going into crowded rooms and making everybody else feel inferior. The evenings are reserved for extended bouts of name-dropping. (University of Chicago Maroon, April 5, 1983.) Buckley admired the parody and offered Brooks a job with National Review. A turning point in Brooks's thinking came later that year in a televised debate with Milton Friedman, which, as Brooks describes it, "was essentially me making a point, and he making a two-sentence rebuttal which totally devastated my point."[2] On August 10, 2006, Brooks wrote a column for the New York Times titled "Party No. 3". The column proposed the idea of the McCain-Lieberman Party, or the fictional representation of the moderate majority in America.[3] Many in the "conservative movement" such as Rush Limbaugh denounce him as he frequently runs to the left. He has long been a McCain supporter and has not shown a liking for Governor Sarah Palin, calling her a "cancer" on the Republican Party. [4] Social views Brooks opposes what he sees as self-destructive behavior like teenage sex and divorce; however, he is not a culture warrior in the traditional sense. His view is that "sex is more explicit everywhere barring real life. As the entertainment media have become more sex-saturated, American teenagers have become more sexually abstemious" by "waiting longer to have sex...[and] having fewer partners." He sees the culture war as nearly over, because "today's young people...seem happy with the frankness of the left and the wholesomeness of the right." As a result, he is optimistic about the United States' social stability, which he considers to be "in the middle of an amazing moment of improvement and repair." (New York Times, April 17, 2005, 4-14.) Brooks also broke with many in the conservative movement when, in late 2003, he came out in favor of same-sex marriage in his New York Times column. He equated the idea with traditional conservative values: "We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity.... It's going to be up to conservatives to make the important, moral case for marriage, including gay marriage." (New York Times, November 22, 2003, A-15.) Regarding women's issues, Brooks is a third-wave feminist. He has also positioned himself as an outspoken critic of the Assault Weapons Ban. In a March 2007 article published in the New York Times titled No U-Turns, Brooks explains that the Republican party must distance itself from the minimal-government conservative principles that had arisen during the Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan eras. He claims that these outdated concepts had served their purposes and should no longer be embraced by Republicans in order to win elections. Yeah, real conservative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 What right wing writers do you like? I don't like any of them. I am socially liberal. But I know a media job when I see it, and David Brooks is not a conservative no matter how many Sundy talk shows he gets invited to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted November 23, 2008 Author Share Posted November 23, 2008 I don't like any of them. I am socially liberal. But I know a media job when I see it, and David Brooks is not a conservative no matter how many Sundy talk shows he gets invited to. A media job? What's that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 A media job? What's that? It's what MSNBC gives to Obama and makes Chris Matthews leg tingle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 Only because Republicans call anyone who ever says one thing against the party line a RINO. I have been reading him for years. There is zero question he is a very conservative thinker, and writer, he is simply willing to see there is another side, call a spade a spade, and doesn't always fall lockstep. Exactly. The same folks who use the "Gipper and Tip sharing a drink" good old days stories now slag a guy like Brooks for saying something 'positive' about the opposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted November 24, 2008 Author Share Posted November 24, 2008 Exactly. The same folks who use the "Gipper and Tip sharing a drink" good old days stories now slag a guy like Brooks for saying something 'positive' about the opposition. The right is angry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 Can you cite why you describe him as "a very conservative intellectual?" Here is the wiki bio: Yeah, real conservative. If I'm not mistaken, using a wiki bio is the equivalent of being the first to bring up Hitler in an argument. I have read his columns and seen him talk about 200 times over the years. The guy is a strong conservative voice. He just happens to be smart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 He's pretty impressed with Team Obama so far. And for those of you who know what "The Best and Brightest" refers to, let's hope this works out better this time. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/opinion/21brooks.html?em Obama let Lieberman keep his committee chair? What idiot wrote this bull sh--? They can't even get basic facts of government straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 Obama let Lieberman keep his committee chair? What idiot wrote this bull sh--? They can't even get basic facts of government straight. He pretty much did. Technically, of course not because he didn't vote. But when Obama told Harry Reid he wanted Lieberman to keep the chairmanship, it swung a LOT of votes. The early prognostication was that Lieberman was going to lose the vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 If I'm not mistaken, using a wiki bio is the equivalent of being the first to bring up Hitler in an argument. I have read his columns and seen him talk about 200 times over the years. The guy is a strong conservative voice. He just happens to be smart. Nice - when in doubt, smugly trash wiki. I offered it as a thumbnail bio sketch - it is better than nothing, which is exactly what you have offered up to support your claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 Nice - when in doubt, smugly trash wiki. I offered it as a thumbnail bio sketch - it is better than nothing, which is exactly what you have offered up to support your claims. I'm surprised you didn't link this impressive critique of Brooks' conservative qualifications.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts