The New York Times needs to FIRE David Brooks!

[CTyankee]

He is WAY over the top and at long last he has no shame. Here is the paragraph from his column today that drove me over the edge:

"But the president got sucked in by short-term things — the allure of managing the business cycle so that the economy would boom by re-election time. Instead of taking the midterm defeat as a sign he should move to the center, or confound the political categories, he seems to have hunkered down and become more political. Washington dysfunction now looks worse than ever."

Full OpEd here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/opinion/brooks-the-final-reckoning.html?ref=global-home&_r=0

So now Obama is "fixing" the business cycle? How does he do that?

Oh, and BTW, the LTTE today are ALL about his previous column this week and boy, are they complaining!

Brooks lost his mind a while back. Time for an intervention. Get the man psychiatric help and get him OFF the OpEd page for good!

[pointsoflight]

1. Yet the editorial board complains about Nate Silver looking too partisan.

[CTyankee]

3. Did that statement about "managing the economy" jump out at you

or am I getting paranoid myself?

Am I the only one who thinks that is an insane claim for him to make?

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. Yes, that's statement is insane ...

especially so, when one listens to the gop's other arguments: President Obama is inept/incompetent/shows no leadership. And, government can't create jobs.

So taken together, "President Obama is inept/incompetent/shows no leadership; but he is ept/competent/leadership-able enough to engineer the business cycle to the degree as to be able to time job creation to coincide with the final week(s) of the election"?

Yeah ... Right! Insanity reigns in the gop.

[Sugarcoated]

21. Oh, come on David, you know the President doesn't roll like that

LOL, actually it's the Repukes who timed it perfectly, THERY'RE the ones that stonewalled EVERYTHING while the President kept trying and trying to work with them.

Nice try Brooks

[quinnox]

2. yea, what else is new

Brooks has always been a POS, and a major jerkwad.

[grantcart]

4. and get rid of their great comedic talent, no way.

Brooks has published some blistering attacks on Romney and this is his way of trying to establish some peace with his Republican buddies and remain 'on the right'.

It is really silly babble.

"managing the business cycle would boom" is exactly what 99% of the country would like the President to be doing following Brooks love child Bush crashing it into the rocks.

[CTyankee]

5. Brooks is buying into some major conspiracy theory here, IMO.

That is not a rational statement and nowhere does he offer any proof that it is happening the way he implies...

[Enrique]

6. Obama responded to the midterm defeat by extending the Bush tax cuts

David Brooks lauded him at the time:

Dec 10 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/opinion/10brooks.html?_r=0

The big story of the week is that Obama is returning to first principles, re-establishing himself as a network liberal. This isn’t a move to the center or triangulation. It’s not the Clinton model or the Truman model or any of the other stale categories people are trying to impose on him. It’s standing at one spot in the political universe and trying to build temporarily alliances with people at other spots in the political universe.

You don’t have to abandon your principles to cut a deal. You just have to acknowledge that there are other people in the world and even a president doesn’t get to stamp his foot and have his way.

Cluster liberals in the House and the commentariat are angry. They have no strategy for how Obama could have better played his weak hand — with a coming Republican majority, an expiring tax law and several Democratic senators from red states insisting on extending all the cuts. They just sense the waning of their moment and are howling in protest.

They believe nonliberals are blackmailers or hostage-takers or the concentrated repositories of human evil, so, of course, they see coalition-building as collaboration. They are also convinced that Democrats should never start a negotiation because they will always end up losing in the end. (Perhaps psychologists can explain the interesting combination: intellectual self-confidence alongside a political inferiority complex).

The fact is, Obama and the Democrats have had an excellent week. The White House negotiators did an outstanding job for their side. With little leverage, they got not only the unemployment insurance, but also an Earned Income Tax Credit provision, a college scholarship provision and other Democratic goodies. With little leverage, they got a package that could win grudging praise from big-name liberal groups like the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Center for American Progress.

[CTyankee]

7. that he did, of course. But that isn't exactly "managing the business cycle" in the way that I

interpret Brooks' statement today. He made obama sound Orwellian...

[Enrique]

9. it sounds like nonsense

Obama did his stimulus in 2009, not after the midterms And is David Brooks under the impression that we are experiencing a boom? And if we were, and Obama was responsible, would Brooks think it was a bad thing?

I will admit, I did not read any of the column, should I?

[CTyankee]

15. Well, if you want the full "treatment" yes, you should read it. But check it out as a favor and let

me know if you think I'm just suffering from some heebie-jeebies...

I should probably just chill...

[Enrique]

16. ok I read it and it makes perfect sense

Brooks is assuming Obama is going to win, and he is telling Obama what he needs to do in his second term to please David Brooks. Above all, Simpson-Bowles. I heard a little bit of Bloomberg's endorsement and it sounds like the same thing. Same priority as Brooks, deficit reduction.

[Fawke Em]

30. The 99 percent don't want deficit reduction.

They want Obama to raise taxes on the rich and, if that's not enough, then they want the administration to look at cutting funding to military contractors and reducing other non-essential military costs. The LAST thing the American people want is for any of our representatives to cut our safety nets and/or the other items we've paid into to maintain.

[Hydra]

31. Which is why they're banging the drum so hard

The President keeps harping on this "Grand Bargain" along with the water carriers for the 1% for the sole reason that they NEED to sell the idea with enough of the electorate.

Good ideas don't need selling.

[byeya]

8. Brooks is a human dribble glass

[hwmnbn]

10. For a complete takedown of David Brook's bullshit....

you must read the driftglass blog....

http://www.driftglass.blogspot.com/2012/10/david-brooks-promises-peace-in-our-times.html

[CTyankee]

12. Excellent piece. Also, read the NYT LTTE today for reaction to that earlier Brooks column this week.

Howls and cries. Readers are PISSED at Brooks.

[onenote]

11. The Times should fire an opinion writer because he voices an opinion

I don't agree with his opinion, but I can't imagine him being fired for having it. And the comparison with Nate is off-base -- he's not an op-ed guy. I don't have a problem with Nate's firing back at Scar, by the way.

[CTyankee]

14. Well, I guess the NYT should publish outlandish conspiracy theories in their OpEd selections then.

Maybe they'll get a shitload of protests with this latest manifestation of insanity.

Put Brooks on "medical leave" then...

[Octafish]

20. Cass Sunstein, is that you?

The guy thinks anything critical that's conspiracy theory should be censored, even the Bush administration warmongering and assorted treasons.

[CTyankee]

25. Don't know about Sunstein's ideas, but wild assertions without any accompanying documentation or

proof just doesn't rate as good journalism to me. The NYT has standards, n'est-ce pas?

[Justice]

13. Move to the Center? What party is that what won't compromise?

What Brooks means is Obama should have caved into McConnell and Boehner.

[RevStPatrick]

17. Brooks is a weenie!

I am contractually obligated to say or type the words "Brooks is a weenie!" every time the man's name is mentioned. I have been doing do since the mid-90's, and I frankly don't get to do it often enough these days.

He's one of those guys who will often appear reasonable, and then his brain just goes off the rails into pure weeniedom. Will he mention that "Washington dysfunction now looks worse than ever..." because the Republans decided to do everything and anything possible to make Obama a one-term president?

Of course not. Weenie!!!

[Octafish]

19. Brooks is a Moonie.

Sometimes the Truth is Friggin' Bizarre

True, dat.

Many Moonies are BFEE, through and through.

[Uncle Joe]

22. Brooks is a weenie moonie.

Thanks for the thread, CTyankee.

[NoMoreWarNow]

23. what's wrong with the economy booming anyway?

Sooo idiotic.

Even worse is the statement that Obama didn't try to move to the center. MADDENING!

[cyglet]

24. I'd support this

if I didn't have to hear his ass on NPR, too.

[CTyankee]

26. Once he's medicated it will all stop.

[question everything]

27. Ah, but this is what sells

This is why Fox and MSNBC are so much more popular than CNN. People love controversy, to get into the debates, the fight. Thankfully only via keyboards clicking so far. Palin's map with cross hairs notwithstanding..

For the NYT, Brooks is earning his job.

[hifiguy]

28. David Brooks is an ambulatory turd

and a perfect example of the Peter Principle in action.

He's as worthless, smarmy piece of human sewage.

[Yul A]

29. Brooks to Fox

His stupid "analyses" will be most welcome there.