Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

My Dearest, Darling, David Brooks ...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
NanceGreggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 02:49 AM
Original message
My Dearest, Darling, David Brooks ...
Edited on Wed Mar-04-09 03:00 AM by NanceGreggs
I am prompted to respond to your most recent column – because I can’t help but wonder where the fuck you’ve been for the past eight years.

“You wouldn’t know it some days, but there are moderates in this country — moderate conservatives, moderate liberals, just plain moderates.”

Yeah, please forgive we liberals for forgetting you were out there – a situation undoubtedly triggered by the fact that you so-called “moderates” were busy plastering “Support the Troops” bumper-stickers on your cars, and affixing flag-pins to your lapels while the Bush administration was being – oh, yeah, what’s the word? – IMMODERATE in every policy and action. Where were you then?

“But the Obama budget is more than just the sum of its parts. There is, entailed in it, a promiscuous unwillingness to set priorities and accept trade-offs. There is evidence of a party swept up in its own revolutionary fervor — caught up in the self-flattering belief that history has called upon it to solve all problems at once.”

Right off the top, forgive me, but the use of the word “promiscuous” coming from anyone on the other side of the aisle (even you moderates) is laughter-inducing. Vitter, Foley, Craig – ring a bell? Oh, that’s right – you were too busy being moderate to have noticed that “promiscuous” thingy going on. And Jeff Gannon – remember him? – funny how you and your ilk didn’t notice him.

As for being “…caught up in the self-flattering belief that history has called upon it to solve all problems at once,” let me set you straight. President Obama hasn’t been called upon by history – he’s been called upon by the American citizenry to, as best he can, undo the absolute fuckin’ mess YOUR pResident created – yes, YOUR president – the one you couldn’t be bothered to criticize or admonish in any way.

“So programs are piled on top of each other and we wind up with a gargantuan $3.6 trillion budget. We end up with deficits that, when considered realistically, are $1 trillion a year and stretch as far as the eye can see.”

Well, David, I can’t help but ask: Where the fuck was your worry about the budget when your Lord and Saviour, G.W. Bush, was plunging the nation into unprecedented debt in order to wage an unnecessary war that lined the pockets of war-profiteers (a lot of whom coincidently turned out to be family members and big-time supporters)? Oh, yeah, that’s right – you were busy being a “moderate” at the time – a.k.a. “silent asshole”.

“The U.S. has never been a society driven by class resentment. Yet the Obama budget is predicated on a class divide. The president issued a read-my-lips pledge that no new burdens will fall on 95 percent of the American people. All the costs will be borne by the rich and all benefits redistributed downward.”

Wow! Imagine that! The people pulling in the mega-bucks are now being called upon to cough a few of them by way of tax dollars that will serve to help their fellow citizens – the whole concept is just so unfair, isn’t it?

“The U.S. has always been a decentralized nation, skeptical of top-down planning. Yet, the current administration concentrates enormous power in Washington, while plan after plan emanates from a small group of understaffed experts.” I feel your pain, David – if only we could go back to the good ol’ days when we were over-staffing “experts” like Heck-of-a-Job-Brownie.

“The U.S. has traditionally had a relatively limited central government. But federal spending as a share of G.D.P. is zooming from its modern norm of 20 percent to an unacknowledged level somewhere far beyond.” No shit, Sherlock. Just ]when did that start happening?

“Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was. His words are responsible; his character is inspiring. But his actions betray a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice. As Clive Crook, an Obama admirer, wrote in The Financial Times, the Obama budget “contains no trace of compromise. It makes no gesture, however small, however costless to its larger agenda, of a bipartisan approach to the great questions it addresses. It is a liberal’s dream of a new New Deal.”

Well, I hate to be the one to break it you, David (I actually delight in doing so, but that’s a whole ‘nother story) – thing is that I, along with the vast majority of Americans, couldn’t care less about whether Obama turned out to be who YOU thought he was. No, really – couldn’t. care. less.

“Moderates now find themselves betwixt and between.”

Why are you uncomfortable with that position? Isn’t that where you “moderates” have been sitting all along – you know, that place on the fence where there’s a picket shoved so obviously up your ass?

“The only thing more scary than Obama’s experiment is the thought that it might fail and the political power will swing over to a Republican Party that is currently unfit to wield it.” Don’t lose any sleep over this concept, David – the chance of political power swinging over the to the Republican party is a dead issue at this point – ain’t gonna happen any time soon. Uh, like not for nuthin’ but the voters have finally noticed who got them into their jobless/homeless/devoid-of-medical-coverage state to begin with – and Obama had nothing to do with it.

“We moderates are going to have to assert ourselves.”

Oh, by all means, you DO that, why don’t you? After eight long fuckin’ years of sitting on the sidelines - with your new-found big mouths apparently wired shut for the duration – it will be a thrill to hear from you now.

“We’re going to have to take a centrist tendency that has been politically feckless and intellectually vapid and turn it into an influential force.” Honestly, I think you nailed it with “politically feckless and intellectually vapid” – I’d call it a day right there now, if I was you.

“But beyond that, moderates will have to sketch out an alternative vision. This is a vision of a nation in which we’re all in it together — in which burdens are shared broadly, rather than simply inflicted upon a small minority. This is a vision of a nation that does not try to build prosperity on a foundation of debt.”

David, I love ya – an alternate vision of “burdens inflicted on a small minority” – that is priceless. We all know who that “small minority” was, now don’t we? Hard-working Americans whose jobs are now being performed in India, right? If only your job – whatever the fuck your job IS – was outsourced, we could all at least say that something good came of the BushCo presidency.

“Moderates are going to have to try to tamp down the polarizing warfare that is sure to flow from Obama’s über-partisan budget. They will have to face fiscal realities honestly and not base revenue projections on rosy scenarios of a shallow recession and robust growth next year.”

I just LOVE it when you “moderates” use satire to make a point – and that WAS satire, wasn’t it? I’m gonna pretend it was.

“They’re going to have to offer an agenda that inspires confidence by its steadiness rather than shaking confidence with its hyperactivity. If they can do that, maybe they can lure this White House back to its best self — and someday offer respite from the endless war of the extremes.”

Endless war of extremes? Try “endless war against people who were never a threat in the first place” – like WMD-less Iraqi citizens.

Jesus Hussein Christ, David – you.are.an.idiot. (Well, we kind of all knew that, but it’s always nice when you open your mouth and confirm the bleedin’ obvious.)

I know what you’re thinking as you read this – all that use of the word “fuck”, it’s just so obscene. Well, here’s the thing – there was nothing more obscene during the BushCo administration than spying on American citizens, torturing “enemy combatants” while talking about Good Christian Values ™, running the Constitution through the shredder along with “secret” WH emails, and turning the Department of Justice into yet another way to “get” those who dissented and needed to be “gotten”.

Fuck you, David Brooks, and everything you didn’t have the balls to stand for – until now.
“Moderate” – a.k.a. pussy-whipped Republican with a yen for excusing their behavior after the fact.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
CaliforniaPeggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 02:58 AM
Response to Original message
1. Outta the park, Nance...outta the park!
Whew.

Great writing!

K&R

:hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 03:03 AM
Response to Original message
2. Ooh! David is soooo busted!
:applause:

Hope you sent him that, cause he certainly needs to read it, so he can realize nobody is buying is bullshit!

Just in case, http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html or dabrooks@nytimes.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NanceGreggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 03:10 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Sent!
And thanks ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mlevans Donating Member (642 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #5
47. The stupid twit will only throw it away.
Edited on Wed Mar-04-09 11:51 AM by mlevans
That having been said, Nance Greggs is a national treasure. And her well-reasoned and well-written "rants" are one of the main reasons I keep frequenting this Web site. Take a bow. No, take two.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #5
67. Great! 'Cause I
was just thinking that this letter of yours to him needs to be glaring him in the face.

I hope he reads it..he seemed to be quite sane last week when he said "Bobby Jindal was an unmitigated disaster" on the Charlie Rose Show.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 03:07 AM
Response to Original message
3. Goddamn, Nance. I need a ciggy after that.
And here I am trying to quit!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NM Independent Donating Member (794 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #3
42. Same here!
FUCK! That felt good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LuckyLib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #3
49. Ditto, and I haven't smoked in 25 years!
:smoke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 03:09 AM
Response to Original message
4. Glad to see you back! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nostradammit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 03:13 AM
Response to Original message
6. I think David Brooks needs to see this -
If you agree with me you can send it to him at:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/davidbrooks/index.html


(the link is just under his photo)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nostradammit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 03:22 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Er... Frenchie Cat beat me to it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lutherj Donating Member (788 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 03:40 AM
Response to Original message
8. Man, it is so satisfying when the hammer hits the nail just exactly on the head!
David Brooks is a fawning goofball idiot, always trying to find a way to make himself look useful. Great piece, Nance!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wetzelbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 04:04 AM
Response to Original message
9. I bet some genius gave you the idea to write about this
I'm just sayin'. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NanceGreggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 04:07 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Funny you should mention ...
... because HE did.

And thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wetzelbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 04:11 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. oh well you know
You're welcome. :)

I'm going to sue you for not giving me credit. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueMTexpat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 04:38 AM
Response to Original message
12. I am adding yet another "Great writing!"
Especially loved this one ...

******
“Moderates now find themselves betwixt and between.”

Why are you uncomfortable with that position? Isn’t that where you “moderates” have been sitting all along – you know, that place on the fence where there’s a picket shoved so obviously up your ass?

******
Take that, Brooks you smarmy SOB ... always wanting to have it both ways! :applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whoopingcrone Donating Member (92 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 06:46 AM
Response to Original message
13. another great poke...
in "their" cataracted glaucomic eyes.
Thanks, Nance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
monmouth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 06:56 AM
Response to Original message
14. Ah Nance, it's been too long since I've had such a great read..K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Berry Cool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 07:02 AM
Response to Original message
15. Touch 'em all, Nance...
It will be a wonder if Brooks can even pick up the pieces of his shattered, pathetic self after you dismantled him so efficiently!

K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bad Thoughts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 07:10 AM
Response to Original message
16. IMMODERATE CONSERVATIVES
I like that better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeeDeeNY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 07:42 AM
Response to Original message
17. Razor sharp!


:toast: :yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 07:53 AM
Response to Original message
18. Way to go, Nance!
We need to get you a TV show.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 07:55 AM
Response to Original message
19. You're Letting Brooks Off Too Easy, Nance
Instead of just a verbal warning, you should throw the book at him. It's too bad stupidity isn't a crime, because we could lock up the 23%ers for their own protection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ErinBerin84 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 07:56 AM
Response to Original message
20. hehe
so he is saying "Obama is not who I thought he was! He put centrists ON NOTICE!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
droidamus2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 08:01 AM
Response to Original message
21. A couple of points
I have heard the 'Obama is trying to do too much at once' line coming from quite a few conservatives these days. What I hear when they say this is that they want Obama to spend all his political capital
on fixing the 'budget problems' they caused and nothing else. I like what President Obama is doing by giving the right wing so many targets that it makes it hard for them to use their echo chamber to focus in on any given policy. So the conservatives are saying 'slow down, do things one at a time' which plays right into their political playbook of attacking each policy as it is brought up and hoping to pile up a series of 'defeats' for the President thus weakening his administration.

On the idea of 'class resentment' I think this is one of the many word play ideas that the conservatives use. Specifically the use of the word 'resentment', yes maybe in some ways the middle to lower classes resent the excesses of the uber-rich (I think deservedly so). On the other hand the rich don't 'resent' the poor for being poor they just look down their patrician noses at them. This ends up making the 'class war' one directional that is middle/lower class attacking the upper class when in all reality the neo-con conservative/upper class movement has been directly attacking the middle and lower class for years. If it's class warfare then both sides are fighting not just one and gee guess who has the most resources and weapons in this fight (hint : it's not the middle or the lower classes).

Finally, the idea of 'Brooks and his people' are the moderates and President Obama is the liberal plays right into the conservatives idea of defining their ideology as the middle (even though it is well to the right) so that even truly moderate positions can be claimed to be liberal. Is President Obama more liberal than most of the Republican party, of course. Is President Obama the raving liberal Brooks tries to make him out to be, I don't think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ErinBerin84 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. it reminds me
of Leslie Stahl's intereview with Rachel Maddow and Stahl trying to say that MSNBC was "all liberals". She tried to say freaking Chris Matthews was a liberal. Rachel was like "Uh, he's definitely NOT. I wouldn't call David Shuster a liberal either."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bette Noir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #21
43. The rich don't resent the poor?
You've never met an oil heir, have you? I have. They resent the hell out of the poor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #21
57. "class resentment" is most definitely a frame. The only question is...
which asshole in which overfunded conservative think tank came up with it first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beltanefauve Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #57
69. "Penalizing success"
seems to be a phrase I've been hearing a lot of lately, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlbertCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #69
78. "Penalizing success"
Yes, because, as we know, all wealthy people got that way thru success, and of course those who are poor, well just don't have what it takes. It's just logical that if one is making a mint, then one should also get special breaks so you can keep more of the already astronomical amount of dough you get anyway. There is no better use for it than hording and spending it to better one's self. I mean, it needn't even go back into the company or the communities that support one's cash cow. That'd be just dumb!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MyOwnPeace Donating Member (108 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 08:04 AM
Response to Original message
22. Better than HIM reading it..................
I wish it could be published as a rebuttal so that those not fortunate enough to be familiar with your work would also have the chance to read it!

Great stuff! :fistbump:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 08:09 AM
Response to Original message
24. This is why Obama said in his Saturday radio address: I'm ready to fight
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama challenged the nation's vested interests to a legislative duel Saturday, saying he will fight to change health care, energy and education in dramatic ways that will upset the status quo.

"The system we have now might work for the powerful and well-connected interests that have run Washington for far too long," Obama said in his weekly radio and video address. "But I don't. I work for the American people."

He said his ambitious budget plan, unveiled Thursday, will help millions of Americans, but only if Congress overcomes resistance from deep-pocket lobbies.

"I know these steps won't sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they're gearing up for a fight," Obama said, using tough-guy language reminiscent of his predecessor, George W. Bush. "My message to them is this: So am I."

Some analysts say Obama's proposals are almost radical. But he said all of them were included in his campaign promises. "It is the change the American people voted for in November," he said.

Nonetheless, he said, well-financed interest groups will fight back furiously.

Insurance companies will dislike having "to bid competitively to continue offering Medicare coverage, but that's how we'll help preserve and protect Medicare and lower health care costs," the president said. "I know that banks and big student lenders won't like the idea that we're ending their huge taxpayer subsidies, but that's how we'll save taxpayers nearly $50 billion and make college more affordable. I know that oil and gas companies won't like us ending nearly $30 billion in tax breaks, but that's how we'll help fund a renewable energy economy."

Passing the budget, even with a Democratic-controlled Congress, "won't be easy," Obama said. "Because it represents real and dramatic change, it also represents a threat to the status quo in Washington."

___

Video of Weekly Radio Address below:

Obama address: http://www.whitehouse.gov
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wizard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 08:13 AM
Response to Original message
25. The liberal use of the word fuck
in writing about those who failed to discuss Bush/Republican failure for eight years is appropriate. He enabled a criminal cartel to use our Constitution for toilet paper, and now he's concerned. He works for a newspaper that promoted an unnecessary war using fabricated unvetted information provided by a criminal administration. Nothing the Bush cartel did was moderate, nothing. It was the most radical, underhanded, abusive government we've ever suffered, and all the while Brooks aided and abetted the sacking of democracy. Let me add: Fuck you David Brooks.
But seriously, I wouldn't fuck David Brooks with Ann Coulter's dick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lunatica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 08:23 AM
Response to Original message
26. I'll give him this much. He's a 'moderate' ass hole compared to Limbaugh
But in blind stupidity they're equals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 08:26 AM
Response to Original message
27. The pen is mightier than the sword..
Your words are sharper than the best blade that one could wield today.

Thank you once again...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cooolandrew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 08:28 AM
Response to Original message
28. They just use emotional trigger words like 'promiscuous' to get the religious right™ into a tizzy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tanyev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 08:28 AM
Response to Original message
29. Bravo!
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dccrossman Donating Member (530 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 08:44 AM
Response to Original message
30. Thank you, thank you
Thank you.

No really. I needed that. David Brooks is such a pompous arrogant ass. This was a joy to read and brought a ray of sunshine into an otherwise bleary Wednesday morning.

Nance, you are a treasure.

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
motocicleta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 09:18 AM
Response to Original message
31. That's gonna leave a mark.
I can't believe the poor sap just used "intellectually vapid" to describe his people. Rare truth-telling, I suppose.

What the fuck is his job, BTW? Mouthpiece of the Intellectually Vapid? Nice going, NYT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dollface Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 09:18 AM
Response to Original message
32. Nance "Deadeye" Greggs nails it again! Great rant and appropriate 4 letter word usage.
"All the costs will be borne by the rich and all benefits redistributed downward.” Its about time seing as how they had the power to and did suck up all the productivity gains of the last 30 years like a giant Hoover.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1776Forever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 09:24 AM
Response to Original message
33. Oh yes, THAT David Brooks>>>>>>>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 09:37 AM
Response to Original message
34. Awesome piece. Brooks is such a smeghead.
He's been back peddling for well over a year now, trying to look like he wasn't one of the lemmings following Bush over the cliff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demokatgurrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 09:37 AM
Response to Original message
35. I do hope you sent this to him. It's brilliant. Moderates-
my rule of thumb is that anyone who calls him/herself a moderate is not one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
36. Brooks is a tool. n/t
:dem:

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
37. Now goddammit, woman, I want you to APOLOGIZE to that nice David Brooks
RIGHT NOW, and while you're at it, send another APOLOGY to Rush Limbaugh.

You've likely hurt both their feelings by stuffing Brooks' idiotic arguments into the intellectual wood shredder.

Republicans are trying to win hearts with face-down-in-the-gutter defamation and character assassination, and here you go -- as usual, I might add -- throwing intellect and clarity into the debate.

Shame on you.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trayfoot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
38. Great answer!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Overseas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
39. Thank you for calling David Brooks out
on his new found so-called moderation.

He was one of the people I really disliked hearing during the Bush Gang's lawless regime. They were perpetrating all manner of crimes while he spoke "moderately" then, too.

I guess for him "moderate" means dressing in a stuffy professorial manner and never shouting. Even as war profiteers cooked up a war, trampled our Bill of Rights and bankrupted our country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alcibiades Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
40. politically feckless and intellectually vapid
Self-description. He's wrong when he calls himself moderate, but dead on when he says he's a "politically feckless and intellectually vapid."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bette Noir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
41. "Transformational liberalism"--
God, I love the sound of that.

As for the immense growth of the federal government, in terms of the GDP, I've seen the numbers crunched. It'll go from 21% to 22.8%. I wouldn't characterize that as "an unacknowledged level somewhere far beyond."

In the meantime, let's raise our glasses to "transformational liberalism." I can't get enough of that. The !@#$%^ may have given us a catchphrase.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ladym55 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
44. David Brooks calling himself a MODERATE???
:rofl:

Oh, puh-LEEZ. He is just one more whiny, rightwing watercarrying tool. Our airwaves and print media are FILLED with such noisemakers. They have no basis in reality, but somehow still get paid (well) to drool for the American public.

This would be the first time in a long time that I actually READ some of David Brooks ... and this would be the way to read him. With someone with a brain taking apart his weak and weeny "arguments."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viva_Daddy Donating Member (142 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #44
50. Wonderful rant, Nance
David Brooks has NEVER been a "moderate"...he just plays one on TV (i.e., PBS).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #44
58. This is the only way I will read him. Thoroughly and liberally parsed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virgdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
45. My dear Nance...
again, you have created a masterpiece that hits the nail on the proverbial head. As a writer myself, I admire your masterful use of language as you excoriate those that are so deserving of having their heads handed to them for slinging bullshit all of these 8 long years.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinnie From Indy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
46. Rock on Nance!
You are my new hero! Here is a hearty "Cheers" to you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LuckyLib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 12:09 PM
Response to Original message
48. "maybe they can lure this White House back to its best self" -- back to its best self?
The WH has been the seat of criminal activity and stupidity for far too long. We now have someone in the Oval Office with smarts AND integrity. Brooks wouldn't know either if they landed on his desk.

Great rant!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nickgutierrez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 12:34 PM
Response to Original message
51. For all the things a right-winger* might come up with to criticize Obama's budget for...
...he went with "unwillingness to set priorities"?

Really? Because it looks to me like health care is a priority. It looks like education is a priority. It looks like jobs, and economic stability are priorities. When Brooks says that the budget lacks priorities, do you think he really means that it lacks his priorities? I think so.

* - Brooks is not a moderate, no matter how many times he says he is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
52. I try not to use the f-word
but at times it is appropriate, as now when the actions of a person are so obscene, only and obscenity will do to describe them. Kudos on a great read.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DFW Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 12:48 PM
Response to Original message
53. Isn't it funny how they think we noticed NOTHING these past 8 years?
Brooks thinks we were dozing or suffered from temporary dyslexia while he was writing
all those sycophantic, fawning editorials in praise of Cheneybush, and calling anyone
who dissented an out-of-touch liberal.

Now, suddenly, he was wrong, we were right, and instead of begging for forgiveness (hey,
Dave, even executioners did that back in the middle ages before they chopped your head
off), he comes back, actually admonishing us to abandon support for Obama's audacity to
act boldly in the face of a dire situation, and rather wish him to act weakly so that--WHAT?
So that he'll look ineffective and vulnerable around, say, oh, 2012?

David Brooks is perfectly within is rights to write like an idiot. He crosses the line when
he assumes the rest of us are idiots as well.

Thank you, Nance, for saying what all of us who read his insulting editorial feel. I'm rather
incredulous that he actually got money for that. I take naps during which I accomplish more
than he did with that nonsense. If your response has not yet been sent to the New York Times,
I'd be happy to forward it on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
infidel dog Donating Member (186 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 01:00 PM
Response to Original message
54. What a brilliant post, Nance. Glad to see you slice that jellyfish to quivering shreds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grace0418 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
55. Thank you for this Nance. Every time I see Brooks on PBS, rocking back and forth
like a hyperactive 5 yr old while he spouts his inane, snarky comments, I just want to strangle him. Your rant was very cathartic to me. Brava!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue37 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
56. My favorite comment about Jeff Gannon (I don't remember who said it) was to note how
Edited on Wed Mar-04-09 01:39 PM by tblue37
extraordinary it was that no one in the MSM was willing to notice, much less comment on,THE NAKED GAY MALE PROSTITUTE who was welcomed and frequently called on in the press room of a White House that was supposedly all anti-gay and all about fundie Republican "family values." (I have paraphrased from memory, but the part about "the naked gay male prostitute in the WH press room" is vebatim.)

I still can't believe this has not been made an issue of. The gay part is irrelevant, of course, except that the Bush administration was so vocally anti-gay that it is an especially odd detail. But Gannon advertised his services with nude pictures on the Net! Yet the friggin' POTUS regularly called on him as though he were a real reporter, and he was obviously made more than welcome in WH, even when press conferences were not in session. What's with that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlingBlade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 02:21 PM
Response to Original message
59. K & R , Heck of a job here Nance
:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
60. NICE RANT!
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FloridaJudy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 02:41 PM
Response to Original message
61. Don't hold back, Nance...
Tell him how you really feel!

:rofl:

Brava! Well done!

:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
62. did you actually send that letter to him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 02:56 PM
Response to Original message
63. p.s. you might want to change the text on your website at "nancerants"
"The articles on this site were first published by Democratic Underground or appeared first on Nance's DU Journal. If you're sick and tired of one-party misrule in America, please consider joining DU. And donate if you can."

I'm pretty sure we have the White House, Senate, and then House right now. So, hopefully this no longer means we have "one-party misrule".

Other than that, your OP was a fun read.

/cheers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
islandmkl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
64. another great rant/response, nance...
don't you wonder who guys like brooks think reads their crap and buys into it?...it seems brooks is pandering to the slightly-less-rabid-rightwingers (his definition of moderate) in an attempt to portray that piece of the right as 'willing to cooperate with Obama'...when ALL HISTORY, recent and past, is proof of only the opposite...

yeah, david, the 'moderates' really have a lot to require of this administration...you all got some catching up to do, and all...

the one thing i like about fence-sitters are that when the firing begins, they are the first to go....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 03:04 PM
Response to Original message
65. Nancy, I believe your post was indeed a moderate response to Brooks pseudo moderistic fig leaf
and I applaud your moder-ism.:applause:

Thanks for the thread.:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 03:11 PM
Response to Original message
66. It looks like David Brooks got a new box of crayons with 20 new colors!
Now with Moderate Gray!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Esra Star Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 04:07 PM
Response to Original message
68. Of course David is flexible, here's a recent photo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomClash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
70. What crap
Not your piece - that was wicked hot way to administer a well-deserved thrashing. But David Brooks as "moderate," as if The Weekly Standard would tolerate a "moderate" editor, is a fuckin' joke.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abq e streeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
71. Nance, you just fuckin' ROCK
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowwood Donating Member (550 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 05:28 PM
Response to Original message
72. Linguistically Challenged
I was taught as a child never to use four-letter words. So I can't do it. But I'm sure glad that you can. Sometimes these words express the only appropriate response to a hypocrite like Brooks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autonomy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 05:57 PM
Response to Original message
73. As a self-identified moderate (liberal leaning)
Edited on Wed Mar-04-09 06:10 PM by Autonomy
I cannot help but wonder why you would choose to tar the majority of Americans with such a broad brush just to rebuke one conservative. Brooks is clearly out of step with the majority of Americans, and is actually a conservative.

I am wondering what *I* ever did to you, NanceGreggs. Was the sign I carried at the anti-war rallies not vulgar enough for you? Has my service as a volunteer in human rights organizations and Democratic candidates for public office been somehow insufficent to afford me a modicum of politeness? Does my moderate, circumspect approach toward life somehow offend you?

I read what you write, NanceGreggs, and despite what everyone else says on DU, I really don't think you're writing about politics, or policy, or anything of the like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
74. All this from the Neo-Cons' Chief Propagandist
David "Teeny Little Girly Hands Brooks" should STFU already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ckimmy57 Donating Member (292 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
75. BAM.....HOMERUN BABY
:bounce: :fistbump: :bounce: :yourock: :bounce: :kick: :bounce: :toast:

Somebody please get this person their own talk show.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lib2DaBone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 06:25 PM
Response to Original message
76. Absolutely.....David Brooks has always been an annoying elite conservative Dumb Fuck..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Career Prole Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 06:33 PM
Response to Original message
77. I'm oh, so happy to add to your
pile of recs!

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemperEadem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
79. this should appear in its entirety on the splash page of DU
call that bitch Brooks out to come get his asswhippin'.

Good job, Nance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemperEadem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 07:19 PM
Response to Original message
80. class
Edited on Wed Mar-04-09 07:19 PM by SemperEadem
“The U.S. has never been a society driven by class resentment.

Yes it has. It always has. It's what caused white southern males to think that they were all akin to dukes and princes and therefore empowered and entitled to enslave a race of people for cheap labor while at the same time denying that they were even human, denying them basic dignity of humanity and writing laws to make sure that it stayed that way.

Brook's problem is that he never paid any attention to it because he was part of the class that was benefitting from the programs of bush's administration. But this society is awash in class and caste issues--it's just never talked about because it's considered 'impolite'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FourScore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 07:34 PM
Response to Original message
81. Nance does it again. k/r.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deacon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 08:04 PM
Response to Original message
82. Amen. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadMaddie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 10:26 PM
Response to Original message
83. Nance
MMm....mmmm that was mighty tasty!!

One of many fine pieces.....

:bounce: :fistbump: :yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 10:41 PM
Response to Original message
84. Nancy don't let his sniveling get your last nerve.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
akbacchus_BC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
85. Very late but K&R. Fantastic as usual Nance. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bobbie Jo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 11:14 PM
Response to Original message
86. Well Hell Yeah.
Perfectly done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NBachers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 11:44 PM
Response to Original message
87. Thank you, Nance
I just can't stand that snide, smarmy, self-assured-in-his-own-vocal-flatulence schmuck
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political_Junkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 11:58 PM
Response to Original message
88. Smokin!
:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wiggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 12:32 AM
Response to Original message
89. Thank you. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fortyfeetunder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 12:37 AM
Response to Original message
90. Nance, I think you are the next Molly Ivins!
You pull back no punches, just like Molly. How I miss her. But you are a definite replacement!
Way to go :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rpannier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 02:17 AM
Response to Original message
91. dvaid Brooks is more evidence that being a butt-kissing idiot is the prime
requisite to be a *ahem* reporter these days
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
92. Sorry I missed this the first time through


This is IMHO your best column of all time, and considering the wise words that have proceeded it, you have just passed a very high bar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NanceGreggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #92
93. WOW!!!
Thanks, grantcart - that's especially high praise coming from you.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scentopine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 10:23 PM
Response to Original message
94. A Really Great Post
hahaha - "promiscuous". I love it when David talks dirty. This is really great post in a classic (dare I say) rude pundit style.

What is so great about this post is the well served up whoop-ass anger over Brooks and his pathetic appeal for moderation. It's like the captain of of the titanic arguing that we shouldn't steer to hard too port to avoid that iceberg cause it might make the first class passengers uncomfortable.

Brooks is a mealy-mouthed republican shill. Well done Nance - I registered just to leave this comment!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NanceGreggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 02:26 AM
Response to Reply #94
96. Welcome aboard the Good Ship DU ...
... matey!

:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_In_AK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 10:57 PM
Response to Original message
95. Excellent, Nance.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 10:59 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC