Bill Keller joins Krugman/Brooks Op-Ed fight {centrists v progressives}

[xchrom]

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/16/bill_keller_joins_krugmanbrooks_op_ed_fight/ {centris


Like a rich WASP family, the New York Times does not, as a rule, air its disagreements in public. The newspaper of record has a (supposedly unwritten) rule barring opinion columnists from criticizing one another by name. It would be unseemly. So you will never see columnist Paul Krugman specifically criticize something written by columnist David Brooks.

But what you will see, regularly, is Paul Krugman criticizing unnamed people who happen to have made the exact same argument as David Brooks. (Or Thomas Friedman.)

Last week, Krugman wrote a column attacking so-called “centrists” who defend the Paul Ryan budget plan and criticize the president for being too “partisan” about it. The column came a few days after Mr. Brooks defended the Paul Ryan budget plan and criticized the president for being too “partisan” about it.

Yesterday, former New York Times editor Bill Keller, who is now an opinion columnist despite his distinct lack of interesting opinions, attempted to defend the honor of centrists in a column in which he once again fundamentally misunderstands the argument against “centrism” as a philosophy: It depends entirely on finding the middle point between two extremes, and in our national politics right now, the middle point between two extremes is almost invariably “the Democratic Party agenda.” An ideological moderate has an ally in Barack Obama. The pathological centrist, on the other hand, dreams of a candidate whose beliefs are directly between Obama and Romney, even though such a candidate would be more conservative than “moderate.”

[Confusious]

1. David Brooks holds onto centrist like it was a prize

If you had a choice between yellow fascists and green fascists, David Brooks would be a Yellowish green fascist.

He's a centrist where ever that happens to be at the moment. No values WHATSOEVER.

[DCKit]

4. Brooks doesn't have an opinion, he simply translates RNC talking points...

straight off the faxes they send him. In his columns, he wraps them with many words. On the talk shows, he recites. If you watch all the Sunday shows (as I often do), it takes no time at all to realize that all the tools are using the same phrases and talking points.

As with the rest of the "Conservative Pundints" (their word, not mine), he's given far too much leeway everywhere he shows his smarmy, smirking mug. Don't think we'll ever see him going up against Rachel Maddow (or Elanor Clift, for that matter). She'd have him balled up and weeping on the floor within minutes. After all, facts have a liberal bias.

I used to be embarrassed for him, but now he just makes me sad. Just not as sad as Charles Krauthammer.

But Props to David and Charles: There's a real art to sounding calm and presenting yourself as "the voice of reason" when you're spouting crazy shit on behalf of your owners.

[Leopolds Ghost]

2. The pathological centrist -- I gotta borrow that quote.

[xchrom]

3. Right? Nt