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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment