I have a rule of thumb: when a writer, especially a good one, excessively uses evasive or convoluted rhetoric, he is hiding something. Let’s try this: Obama, a very liberal politician, was smart enough to know he couldn’t win the presidency as a hard leftist. He posed as a moderate. New York Times columnists sung his praises. Pundits assured us that he was beyond ideology, a sort of philosopher-king with very neat pants. He got into office. He governed from the far Left. The president signed bill after bill, spending money we didn’t have and running up the debt. Obama insisted on a mammoth health-care bill the country hated. He egged Congress on to pass it. Meanwhile, the country recoiled. They hired a moderate on advice of pundits and media mavens and got a far-Left liberal, a ton of debt, an expanded federal government, and a slew of new taxes.
How’s that?
What’s amazing is that anyone takes David Brooks seriously, especially after this. Even more amazing that he’s still trotted out by the MSM as one of those “respectable,” “thoughtful” “conservatives.”
Straight truth. What a concept. What does it take to wake these idiots up from their mass delusions?
Until recently I had a running debate with a good friend over David Brooks. My friend calls him a “thinking man’s conservative” and I think David is simply an idiot. Oh and his prose is just awful, Bulwer-Lytton awful. Check out this masterpiece from his essay from April 5: “This column is a great luscious orgy of optimism.” Sheesh.
My friend used to post Facebook links to every new article David published in the NY Times, and I systematically dismantled the last three or four until I could bear to read David Brooks no longer. But I will be glad to forward to my friend the link to Jennifer’s analysis.
There is a certain genre of “film” or shall I say “video tape” that you have all seen whether you care to publically admit it or not. And that genre of “film” has certain stock “lines” or “phrases” — that is, when this to the extent that there are “speaking parts”, or at least lines of recognizable spoken words apart from other modes of vocalization that aren’t singing either.
Truth is it has been nearly 30 years since I have seen one of these “films”, but the story is that some of our governmental watchdogs could set us straight of what is in the more modern versions.
So after all of this has been done to us without our consent or over our feeble protests, Jim or Chris will come along shortly on this thread to indicate that this was a thing that gave us some manner of satisfaction despite our insincere attempts at saying “no” to it, and we will be collectively told, “Yes, but you liked it!”
Forget it. Even the red pill isn’t strong enough.
“thinking man’s conservative”
A back-handed way of saying “all other conservatives at Neanderthals”, which is what Brooks is saying whenever he talks about his own so-called conservativeness.
From the article: “History happened.”
You would think Brooks was talking about George Bush, the terrorist attacks on American soil, and the GWOT instead of the guy who came into office with a plan to “change” America.
“at” = “are”
…too early on on a Sat. morning to be bloviating…
Rubin cites the Affordable Care Act as evidence that Obama is a “hard leftist”. The ACA is the federal version of a law passed in Massachusetts by the runner-up for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination. It is based on ideas published by the Heritage Foundation. It takes an approach endorsed by such ultra-left firebrands as Bob Dole and Howard Baker.
If the ACA is “hard left”, Medicare is Stalinism.
He posed as a moderate.
Part of that “pose” was spending two years on the campaign trail calling for the very sort of health reform legislation that Rubin now labels as “far left.” Obama is so clever, he hid his true agenda by posting it to his campaign website.
The president signed bill after bill, spending money we didn’t have and running up the debt.
Are we talking about Obama here, or those other hard leftists, George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan?
It is based on ideas published by the Heritage Foundation
The Heritage Foundation has since said their support of the individual mandate was a mistake: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzM5OWQ2ZWEyZTQwNjMyZWY1YzBlMmEzZGI5OTU3MDg=
If the ACA is “hard left”, Medicare is Stalinism
Medicare, like Social Security, Medicaid, and the prescription drug benefit passed under Bush 43’s Presidency are all state-sponsored Ponzi schemes. You may be more accurate than you intended.
Obama is so clever, he hid his true agenda by posting it to his campaign website
I believe Rand referenced this link previously but in case you missed it here is a list of Obama’s broken campaign promises: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/
Are we talking about Obama here, or those other hard leftists, George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan?
Equivocation this absurd dilutes just about any credibility you hoped to retain at this point. I am furious at Bush for many of his decisions during his presidency, but the only other hard leftist President in our lifetimes has been Jimmy Carter.
he hid his true agenda by posting it to his campaign website
No, he hid his true agenda by mixing it with what sounded moderate. If he was the genius you think he is, he would not have given any indication at all that he was a marxist (my ex-wife was a Russian born and educated marxist. Facts are facts.) People believed him. He lied and continues to lie.
The ACA is the federal version of a law passed in Massachusetts
You think maybe it being “federal” instead of, you know, a state thingy, might have something to do with its massive popularity?
The Heritage Foundation has since said their support of the individual mandate was a mistake
Yes, they’re embarrassed to see their ideas implemented by Democrats. That doesn’t make the ideas “far leftist.”
No, he hid his true agenda by mixing it with what sounded moderate.
It sounded moderate because it was, and is, moderate.
You think maybe it being “federal” instead of, you know, a state thingy, might have something to do with its massive popularity?
No. Back when his plan passed Mitt Romney told Newsweek that he wanted it to be a model for the nation, and now that his wish has come true it’s massively unpopular with today’s version of Mitt Romney and the sort of people who listen to Mitt Romney. The thing that changed was the politics, not the plan.
it’s massively unpopular with today’s version of Mitt Romney and the sort of people who listen to Mitt Romney.
Gee, I had no idea Mitt had such a large following.
Jim,
One of the cool things about Federalism is that the states can be used as test grounds for policy ideas. Massachusetts is such a test ground when it comes to health care. By their own (if not Mitt Romney’s) admission, it isn’t working.
Right on, Chris! And Romney’s failure to recognize that the Massachusetts ‘experiment’ isn’t working as
intendedadvertised means he won’t be speaking for me in 2012 either.When today’s “liberals” apply the adjectives “thoughtful” and “respectable” to conservatives, it’s the modern equivalent of “responsible,” which is what they used to call State-loving conservatives like Clinton Rossiter. Essentially it means, “no threat to the Plantation.” These are the polite, deferential, “house” conservatives, who love ol’ Massa–unlike the “uppity” conservatves of talk-radio and the blogosphere. I call these “thoughtful” and “responsible” conservatives “Uncle Daves.”
Brad DeLong has been routinely referring to ObamaCare as RomneyCare on his blog – perhaps thinking that a lot of conservatives support the latter. I seem to recall a few righties that federal subsidies are what keeps the latter from sliding into the financial abyss. ObamaCare doesn’t have that luxury.
There’s nothing “moderate” about irresponsibility.
It sounded moderate because it was, and is, moderate.
Absolutely true Jim, but you forgot the other part… he was lying.
David Brooks seems to model his approach to political discourse on Obama’s foreign policy or the game of Twister. Basic principle: avoid acknowledgment of actual differences as long as possible.
By their own (if not Mitt Romney’s) admission, it isn’t working.
Actually it’s quite popular, even with people like Scott Brown. But whether it’s popular or not, and whether it works or not, it’s hardly a “hard left” policy, as Rubin asserts.
There’s nothing “moderate” about irresponsibility.
Actually, I’d disagree with that. Some of our “moderate” senators (e.g. Blanche Lincoln of AK) champion terrifically irresponsible policies (e.g. estate tax breaks for Walmart heirs).
Irresponsibility can exist all over the political spectrum. George W. Bush spent money irresponsibly, and no one accuses him of being “hard left”.