Ron Who?

Ah, the depth and brilliance of our Republican senators is on such wonderful display in this story.

There's Kelly Ayotte, with this penetrating, clear-eyed Yankee insight: “This is obviously an important issue."

And the ever puzzling Climate Hoax Inhofe, seen here fulminating against the parents of Newtown's slaughtered children for having the temerity to participate in the process when, after all, this gun debate thing "has nothing to do with them and they know that."

Kudos to Ron Johnson -- I know: Who? -- for defiantly asserting that he "took an oath to uphold the Constitution." Perhaps one day he'll take an oath to read the thing, too.

And of course, we are elevated by the meditations of that profile in courage Rob Portman, he who changed his position on gay marriage only after his son came out. Senator Portman remains wracked and undecided on this issue that has been debated for, oh, 50 years. Presumably, his vote will depend on whether a family member is shot by a nut with a gun before the roll is called.

Brooks Gives Wall Street a Hand Up

In his column on Obama's second inaugural address, Brooks writes the following absurdity:

"I am not a liberal like Obama, so I was struck by what he left out in his tour through American history. I, too, would celebrate Seneca Falls, Selma and Stonewall, but I’d also mention Wall Street, State Street, Menlo Park and Silicon Valley. I’d emphasize that America has prospered because we have a decentralizing genius."

It's so hard to take David Brooks seriously. Does he really think that Wall Street and Silicon Valley haven't gotten enough attention and public benefit over the past 12 years or, in the case of Wall Street, over the past 200 years? Our economy and public policy are built around Wall Street's needs.

Out of whack

The whole point of Obama's focus on things other than Wall Street, etc., is that public policy has been so disastrously weighted toward Wall Street for so long that we need a determined, sustained effort to recalibrate. Wall Street and Silicon Valley are doing just fine. They don't need marquis treatment in a presidential inaugural address. The rest of society could use a little attention.

Who are you?

It's not clear that David Brooks knows, himself, what he believes. His intellectual conflict is on full display in this column, which is really two columns. The first half is praise for progressivism; the second half is an attack on progressivism.


David, please settle your internal conflicts before dragging readers through your inability to decide who you are and what you believe. Right now, you're everything and nothing.

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.

Boundless Brooks

It's astonishing that David Brooks can take these very critical positions against Mitt Romney -- basically agreeing with Gail Collins and everyone else that there is no discernible Mitt Romney -- and still favor him for election.

There You Go Again

Once again, he proves that his intellectual dishonesty is boundless.

Brooks Renounces Enlightenment, Abandons Skepticism

"If your mother tells you she loves you, check it out."

That's a journalistic chestnut. Brooks needs to be reminded of it in light of today's column, in which he hails the return of "Moderate Mitt." How gullible can he be?

How does Brooks know that Moderate Mitt, and not Severely Conservative Mitt or 47 Percent Mitt or Let 'Em Die in the ER Mitt is the real Romney? Brooks lacks even the patina of journalistic skepticism.

What an abdication.