brooks ny times electablity

[mopinko]

hope this is not a dupe. this whole issue sure does make us look stupid. (cuz when we go down this road, we are stupid)
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/31/opinion/31BROO.html?

[displacedtexan]

1. You're citing David Broder?

enough said.

[hlthe2b]

2. David Broder is a RW hack....

His recent appointment to the NYT, not withstanding...

[mopinko]

4. i cited it because

we have been having that exact debate ad nauseum here. it looked stupid here, it looked stupid there, it looks stupid to the less informed members of the public. the level of discourse needs to be raised. most of the issue threads here seem to sink like so many rocks. (accept if they have something to do with women's rights, in which case it begins to look like freeperville). the level of discourse needs to be raised.

[NWHarkness]

3. David BROOKS

Your link is not to a piece by David Broder, but by David Brooks.

[mopinko]

5. my bad, fixed

[TomNickell]

6. BROOKS! not Broder. n/t

[sallyseven]

7. Brooks is a

conservative writer. So is Broder. Not too differnt. He is on with timmy boy so he has to behave in a repuke manner.

[OneBlueSky]

8. the reason we can talk about electability . . .

is because all of the candidates are pretty much in the same ball park on the major issues . . . all favor some kind of helthcare reform to cover everyone, all favor transitioning Iraq from an all American to a multinational operation, all want to roll back all or part of the Bush tax cuts, etc., etc., etc. . . . what differences they have are of detail, emphasis, and nuance, so for all intents and purposes, whoever is nominated will be pursuing a Democratic agenda that is, in most respects, opposite the Bush agenda . . . with policy differences so minimal, talking about electability makes perfect sense, imo . . .

[Warren Stuart]

9. Actually it's a damning indictment of the system

Or rather how unfair the system is, and the hoops an opposition party has to jump through to get its message across.

Electability was never an issue with Bush, not when his cronies own the media.

Brooks worked for the Weekly Standard, a Murdoch conservative tabloid. The fact that the Times would hire such a hack writer, speaks volumes about their journalistic ethics.

The timing of Brooks hiring was suspicious, he was brought on right after Krugman started to get recognized. It appeared as though he was brought on to counter balace Krugman. However Krugman deals with truth and facts, Brooks deals with lies and spin. This article is no exception.

So who looks stupid now?

[Meritaten1]

10. Disagree- the piece should embarrass Mr. Brooks!

How unfortunate for him to make such absurd arguments and to belittle voters (his readers) so freely.

IMHO, Democrats need to get out of the bad habit of critizing themselves first when Republicans attack. The problem lies with the Republicans, who cannot make logical arguments in support of their exclusionary positions and instead resort to condescending attacks on the motivations and characters of their opponents; or in this case, an attack upon the intelligence and motivations of Democratic primary voters.