Free Republic

In his Friday column, New York Times columnist David Brooks speculates about a new political dichotomy and writes that President-elect Donald Trump will “resign or be impeached within a year.” From Brooks’ column: Finally, it seems important to be humbled and taught by this horrific election result. Trump’s main problem in governing is not going to be some fascistic ideology; his main problem is going to be his own attention span, ignorance and incompetence. If he’s left to bloviate while others are left to run the country and push through infrastructure plans, maybe things won’t be disastrous.

Brooks said the less educated and non-college educated whites are going to vote for Donald Trump no matter what. He added, "people are just going with their gene pool." "Basically, less educated or high school-educated whites are going to Trump," Brooks told host Judy Woodruff. "It doesn't matter what the guy does. And college-educated going to Clinton."

WARNING! David Brooks has admitted that he lives in a wealthy bubble and to rectify that he plans to break out of his New York Times cocoon and travel down the Heart of Darkness to mix with the hoi polloi. What caused Brooks to issue his bubble admission was the rise of Donald Trump whom he had previously discounted. So before getting down from his high horse to possibly mix with the peasants at your neighborhood sports bar Brooks, with a massive chip on his shoulder, declares his moral superiority:

David Brooks, the fake conservative half of public broadcasting on Friday – the one day they pretend to let conservatives on the taxpayer-funded airwaves – forecast on Friday's All Things Considered on NPR that Donald Trump has done one positive thing – destroyed the “dying husk” of obsolete Reaganism in the Republican Party. Naturally, his liberal radio counterpart E.J. Dionne agreed, hoping for a more liberal, domesticated GOP.

On Friday's regular "Shields and Brooks" segment on the PBS NewsHour, pretend conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks slammed the North Carolina bathroom law -- which tries to protect women and girls from men intruding into women's restrooms in state buildings -- as he declared that the law is "so bad now I have to praise Donald Trump" for the GOP candidate's criticism of the law on NBC's Today show. He went on to complain that the Republican party "should have moved on" from "1980s socially conservative culture war politics," and concluded by lauding "moderate" Trump as "not stuck...

Even morons don’t slap their paws on a hot stove twice, but then the GOP Establishment would have to work pretty hard to rise to the level of “morons.” Exhibit A in the case against the cloistered, sheltered Ruling Class is the latest column from mainstream media conservative catamite David Brooks. I’d link to it, but I don’t want to send traffic to the hateful New York Times. Just Google “David Brooks smug clueless jerk” and it should pop right up. Brooks opposes Trump for all the wrong reasons. He thinks Trump is low class, which Trump is, but that’s...

History is a long record of men like him temporarily rising, stretching back to biblical times. Psalm 73 describes them: “Therefore pride is their necklace; they clothe themselves with violence. … They scoff, and speak with malice; with arrogance they threaten oppression. Their mouths lay claim to heaven, and their tongues take possession of the earth. Therefore their people turn to them and drink up waters in abundance.” And yet their success is fragile: “Surely you place them on slippery ground; you cast them down to ruin. How suddenly they are destroyed.” The psalmist reminds us that the proper thing...

Whatever you think of Donald Trump, is it fair to play the full Nazi card against him? David Brooks--the fellow who was so impressed by the crease in Obama's pants--apparently thinks so. On today's Meet the Press, commenting on images of Trump supporters at a rally responding to his request to raise their right hands to pledge to vote for him, Brooks said "if we're going to get Trump, we might as well get the Nuremberg rallies to go with it." Have a look at the photos below and compare the Trump rally to a real Nuremberg rally. Really, Chuck...

If you give Obama a pass when he is dishonest or breaks the rules, because he seems like a good man, or is at least better than those guys; if you argue he had to change the law himself because Congress is dysfunctional and Republicans are unreasonable; if you lambast Bush for starting a war, but give Hillary a pass for both Iraq and Libya; then you are adopting one set of rules for your tribe and another set of rules for everyone else. That shows a lack of respect for people who disagree with you. They notice. They resent...

If you read The New York Times "conservative" columnist David Brooks, you might better grasp the chasm between true and phony conservatives, between Reagan conservatives and establishment Republicans. In his piece "I Miss Barack Obama," Brooks unwittingly humiliates himself in his latest paean to the president, just as when he revealed his perverse attraction to Obama's "perfectly creased pant." Let me just share Brooks' words rather than trying to characterize them, for he does much more damage to his own credibility than I could. He writes, "As this primary season has gone along, a strange sensation has come over me:...

It is the love that dares speak its name over and over and over again. Yes, the New York Times "house" conservative David Brooks has returned to loudly proclaiming his eternal love for Barack Obama. His love letter in the form of a paean disguised as a column might sound very familiar since his declaration that "the Obama administration has been remarkably scandal-free" is almost word for word the same blind love he professed last May. First let us show the most recent love burst from Brooks followed by his earlier profession of blind love. However, a warning. Cupid's obvious influence on...

Levin might cry and whine about Trump's tactics but here's the thing, there are no rules in politics. The only rule is winning. Trump is making that clear this cycle by breaking all the rules and winning so far. If Cruz can't beat Trump, he doesn't deserve to be the nominee. Hillary and the democrats would use the same "tactics" and more to pulverize him. This is what primaries are about. They are tests for the strongest nominee. They make the eventual nominee stronger. Cry baby whining about Trump does not make Cruz stronger. It's what losers do when they...

So... I heard straight from the great one's mouth. Mark Levin's fiancee's son works for Ted Cruz.

Mark Levin opened his radio show with the disclosure a political campaign was attempt to intimidate him by disclosing his fiancee's son works in Ted Cruz's DC office. He said he is going to find out and identify who it is. He doesn't believe it is the Trump group.

There is an expression: “I will leave you naked before your enemies”… A proactive assertion essentially stating: if you chose to engage in war with me – not only do I promise your defeat against my interests, but I will lay you open to exposure from all adversaries – who will then take advantage of your new vulnerability. Presidential Candidate Donald Trump is doing a remarkable job filling the role behind this proclamation. In a seismic political shift Trump has gone far beyond drawing a line in the sand. He has openly dug a trench on his pre-selected battle space...

By now almost everyone has acknowledged that Donald Trump has ripped the masks from most of the modern professional punditry who espoused to be conservatives yet showed their hidden ideological colors as elite globalists. Most notably this was evidenced in June as millions of Fox News viewers saw FOX’s entire line-up of professional pundits proclaim borders shouldn’t matter; border walls won’t work; illegal alien amnesty was the only viable solution to decades of unenforced immigration law; and, heck, this was only in week #1 of Donald Trump’s campaign Since June ’15, on almost every issue those same pundits have now...

By now almost everyone has acknowledged that Donald Trump has ripped the masks from most of the modern professional punditry who espoused to be conservatives yet showed their hidden ideological colors as elite globalists. Most notably this was evidenced in June as millions of Fox News viewers saw FOX's entire line-up of professional pundits proclaim borders shouldn’t matter; border walls won’t work; illegal alien amnesty was the only viable solution to decades of unenforced immigration law; and, heck, this was only in week #1 of Donald Trump's campaign. Since June '15, on almost every issue those same pundits have now...

Lonely-hearts reactionary David Brooks, writing this week in the New York Times, describes the angst and despair of the old Republican leadership, as it watches the Trump/Cruz nativist revolution: "Members of the Republican governing class are like cowering freshmen at halftime of a high school football game. Some are part of the Surrender Caucus, sitting sullenly on their stools resigned to the likelihood that their team is going to get crushed. Some are thinking of jumping ship to the Trump campaign... "Rarely has a party so passively accepted its own self-destruction." Farther down in his piece, Brooks trumpets a call...

Worse is the prospect that one of them might somehow win. Very few presidents are so terrible that they genuinely endanger their own nation, but Trump and Cruz would go there and beyond. Trump is a solipsistic branding genius whose "policies" have no contact with Planet Earth and who would be incapable of organizing a coalition, domestic or foreign. Cruz would be as universally off-putting as he has been in all his workplaces. He's always been good at tearing things down but incompetent when it comes to putting things together. So maybe it's time for Establishment Republicans to actually do...

Two weeks ago, I assumed that - as candidates such as Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and John Kasich floundered - the GOP establishment would migrate to Marco Rubio and then Ted Cruz before coalescing around Donald Trump if and only if he emerged as the inevitable nominee. I may be wrong. Simply put, I keep underestimating establishment distaste for Cruz. In conversations with establishment figures I respect - people who love this country and have nothing substantial to lose from either a Trump or Cruz presidency - I'm detecting a preference for Trump. Erick Erickson has written that this preference...