Oh, Please

Of course, none of these rational, reasonable, nonthreatening views were expressed by any Republican with a platform over the past 2 years.

Look at Me! Look at Me! Ain't I Smart?

Anyway, the important point is that David Brooks reads a lot and is a really smart guy. Zzzzzz.

Big Announcement

We have a big announcement today: We are now adding Ross Douthat as an honorary fool. In today's column, Douthat asserts that

• Hispanics aren't assimilating into American culture or society or something else undefined, "or worse, [they] are assimilating downward, and that Democrats swoop in like vultures with government support -- those Romney gifts that buy votes

• single women live "insecure and chaotic" lives, and that Democrats swoop in like vultures with government support -- those Romney gifts that buy votes

• the typical "non-churchgoing" American is "often an underemployed working-class man whose secularism is ... a symptom of his disconnection from community in general," which presumably makes him vulnerable to the Democrats, who swoop in like vultures with government support -- those Romney gifts that buy votes

Blame the Infidels

Even assuming those fellatious arguments are true, what are Republicans doing for all those insecure, underemployed, undereducated, disconnected women, minorities and laborers? Apparently not as much as the Democratic vultures who swoop in to help them with that creepy thing called the social safety net. Douthat's solution, of course, is to return to the 1950s and send everyone to church, got molested, hitched, then divorced and alienated from their kids, whom they sent to Vietnam, where it all went to shit.

What an Asshole

"Democrats assume their newly emerged majority is a sign of progress rather than decline." Read: Anyone who doesn't vote Republican is for social degeneracy.

If this keeps up, we'll have to change the brand to BrooksandDouthatAreFools.

Cognitive Dissonance, Cognitive Disorder

Today's column is perhaps the fullest expression of the sloppiness and inconsistency of Brooks's political thinking. He applauds

• "the scale of his ambitions, the scope of his grand plans"
• his call for “an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics"
• "the scale of his ambitions, the scope of his grand plans

He even acknowledges that "[i]n some ways, President Obama has lived up to the promise of that day. In office, he has generally behaved with integrity and in a way befitting a man with his admirable character."

"In moral terms, he hasn’t let us down. If he’s re-elected, his administration would probably remain scandal-free. Given the history of second terms, that is no small thing."

Hold Your Neck. Here Comes the Whiplash

But he's voting for Romney.

Whuzzuh?

Oh, because Obama had to trim his ambitions to meet the treasonous obstinacy of the Republicans, who would rather sink the economy and the country than see the nigger succeed.

Brooks has the chutzpah to accuse Obama of running "one of the most negative campaigns in history, aimed at disqualifying his opponent." Has Brooks not noticed that Romney is a psychopathic liar? Name your issue: auto bailout, RomenyCare, taxes, abortion, coal plants, Medicare, Iran.

It would be impossible to predict what policies you could reasonably expect to get with Romney other than all of them, because he's taken every side on every issue.

But he's your guy?

Have You No Shame? At Long Last, Have You No Shame?

Brooks is as empty and intellectually dishonest as his candidate. And that's saying a lot.

Evidently, it's Obama's own fault that he's judged by a higher standard because "his innate ability justifies that high standard. These are the standards he properly set for himself."

Please, NYTimes, dump this empty suit.