With a sense of logic this bad…

One wonders if there’s any job David Brooks is more suited for than a hack news columnist.

I’ll admit that I’m jealous of Bobo because he’s got a pretty sweet gig: bi-weekly columnist for the New York Times, read by millions, and paid a salary generous enough to comfortably live in a pricey metropolitan area like Washington DC. And all he has to do for this honor is cause enough controversy to become the topic of conversation. And Bobo has figured out that the way you create this controversy is not scrutinized, so he can say whatever he wants — no matter how illogical and unintelligent it sounds — and whammo! Big payday for Bobo!

Take, for example, his latest column: “The Two Obamas.” It’s not worth your time to read this frustrating piece of drivel, and here’s why:

This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He’s the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside. […]

Dr. Barack said he could no more disown the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than disown his own grandmother. Then the political costs of Rev. Wright escalated and Fast Eddie Obama threw Wright under the truck.

I love this example. Bobo is trying to paint Obama as just another politician by disowning Rev. Wright, while completely ignoring the fact that it was the media — people like him, that he refuses to criticize — was shouting, “OMFG! HOW COULD OBAMA BE FRIENDS WITH WRIGHT! HOW COULD HE NOT DISOWN WRIGHT! IS HE A BLACK MUSLIM SEPARATIST WHO WANTS TO HARM AMERICA?! RUN! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!” Then Obama gave his race speech and didn’t throw Rev. Wright under a bus, and the issue started to die down.

But this wasn’t enough for the media, who resurrected Rev. Wright with his appearance at the National Press Club. They gave so much coverage to it that another earthquake could have hit China and nobody here would have known because the media was too busy exasperating “REV. WRIGHT IS EVIL! OBAMA HAS TO THROW HIM UNDER A BUS OR WE’LL JUST KEEP TALKING ABOUT OBAMA’S ARROGANCE BECAUSE HE DOESN’T LISTEN TO US! DITCH WRIGHT OR WE’LL WRECK YOUR CAMPAIGN! WE’LL SAY YOU’RE RACIST! BLAH BLAH BLAH!”

So finally, to shut the Bobo/media types up, Obama is forced to disassociate himself from Rev. Wright. And after all this, Bobo has the audacity to claim that Obama is some sort of dual-faced person who seeks to use people only for his political ambitions? WTF else was he supposed to do? So I guess Obama is damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t — if he says anything, it’s wrong. Either way, morons like Bobo can write another column about his supposed miscues and continue raking in their six figure salary. Ahhhh yes, it must be good to be a shameless hack.

As if this wasn’t enough cognitive dissonance for one column, Bobo continues with more “points”:

Dr. Barack could have changed the way presidential campaigning works. John McCain offered to have a series of extended town-hall meetings around the country. But favored candidates don’t go in for unscripted free-range conversations. Fast Eddie Obama threw the new-politics mantra under the truck.

Yup, that’s right. We’re not even at the midway mark for the summer and Bobo claims that Obama wants to hark back to old school politics because he didn’t support the debate idea thrown out there by his opponent, who just happens to be an old school politician. And only an old school politician would be slimy enough to recommend that the first of the debates take place last week; only a week after Obama’s Democratic primary opponent conceded. To Bobo, I guess “new politics” means staging a debate where the Republican opponent has had months to plan his strategy against Obama, and Obama only has a week to plan his. That’s fair! But despite that fact — and despite the fact that McCain’s campaign rejected all of Obama’s proposals for debates — this is all Obama’s fault, right? He just doesn’t believe in his campaign plank of “new politics” because he won’t become McCain’s whipping boy on the campaign trail.

This level of stupidity takes talent — and a lot less brains than one would imagine. Either that or Bobo loves the paycheck he reaps from his village idiot act. But hey, any form of debasement is worth the extra buck, right?

–Edited by Kathy

6 Responses to “With a sense of logic this bad…”

  1. Terry Ott says:

    Sorry, but in this instance Mr. Brooks retains the advantage. One may belittle another person because he disagrees, but when that other person has a series of worthy points, ones that make even a “friend of Obama” like me have second thoughts, then that will trump the trashing.

    Now in my 60’s, I have gradually and grudgingly formed a low opinion of politicians. I thought Obama was “different”. Now I must concede he is only “different enough” to tease us and capture our interest. I’m not saying he’d be a bad President (I am openminded on that), but he is revealing himself to be “standard issue” in terms of his values and behaviors.

    I’ll probably not vote for either Barack or McCain.

  2. tas says:

    Well, what about Brooks’s exclusion of singling out the media — his bread and butter industry — for criticism? And what about the fact that Brooks instigated that Obama flat out rejected McCain’s debate proposals without making any counter-proposals?

    If Brooks wants to make honest criticisms against Obama, fine. But this isn’t in the least a show of honesty — it’s a one-sided smear job.

  3. Cernig says:

    Hi Tas,

    “it’s a one-sided smear job”

    And Brooks isn’t being stupid, he’s being quite deliberate.

    Having said that, I do agree with Terry – but “different enough” will do.

    Regards, C

  4. e40 says:

    Terry and Cernig: to use “evidence” from Brooks that you are disappointed in Obama… that shows me you weren’t really on the Obama train to begin with. Brooks is spouting highly partisan and illogical crap.

  5. John says:

    Little man, stop being so angry. David is right.

    PS, I’m tired of speeches. That’s the only thing Obama will agree to.

  6. tas says:

    It’s not a matter of being on the Obama train or not — we should all have objective thoughts about this, no matter where our biases lay. As I mentioned in my last comment and will stand by, if people want to criticize Obama, fine — but be honest about it. I will not droop my contention that Brooks has been dishonest with this column. The logic of his arguments thus fails.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook