Speaking of Barack, he's got a new movie out that his constituency will really love...
David Brooks is no conservative. Like Andrew Sullivan, his politics are driven by his sexual (dis)orientation.
I believe David Brooks is the CNN/Time homosexual “conservative.” He’s a complete phony.
Speaking of Barack, he's got a new movie out that his constituency will really love...
“We have a radical elite, an elite that believes in climate change, gay marriage, unrestricted abortions, and the United Nations. We have an elite that intends to make massive, liberal changes to every aspect of American life. This elite ruins almost everything it touches — from the schools, to the media, to the universities. Giving more power to the elites means watching the United States become more and more like Europe.”
I like Laura.
:-)
Fixed!
The Washington elites and country-club set detested Reagan. They had to respect him when he won the presidency, but they were very two-faced in their dealings with him. As for David Brooks, since when does he speak for any Republican constituency? I thought he was a Democrat.
you have to have balance. McCain has a ton of washington experience. Palin on the other hand, truly gets what the folks have to deal with. And yes, the fact that she can see Russia, a nuclear armed country that already invaded georgia, gives her a unique appreciation for national security that you can’t get from policy briefings and textbooks.
Ingraham’s failure to deal with Noonan, Meyers, and Hutchison in a similar manner has me losing interest in her opinion. She has little or no criticism for her buddy, Andrea Mitchell, on any given disinformation project. Every day she mentions one of her new liberal buds and how they are ‘ok’....why go after Brooks? Plenty of rhinos and hot mics to write about.
She is quickly becoming a ‘back bencher’ as another radio personality likes to say.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
NO!!!! He did NOT say that. Only a RINO would say that...what?...ooooooooooh!
As it always is. Classical Greece, Imperial Rome, even in a twisted sort of way, the Soviet Union. There are leaders and there are elites. Leaders look out for their people. Elites look out for themselves.
My GGMother lived from Lincoln to Nixon.
Her father my GGGfather voted for the first Republican national office seeker. Its been that way in the family ever since.
Her son my Gfather became a rabid Reaganite after seeing him during the Goldwater campaign, supported him thereafter and was elated upon seeing him elected POTUS before he died.
My dear GGmother believed T.Roosevelt was the greatest President in her lifetime by far (even after Dwight and Eamie Eisenhower sent her a personal 95th birthday card).
I suspect that Sarah Palin is going to be the T.R. of the 21st century.
Well, preppie conservatism never would have gotten very far without a few cowboys and average C students. Maybe he remembers.
Why, that sounds just like David Brooks. Who'da thunkit?
Brooks is wasted by Laura.
David Brooks long ago drank he NYT kool-aid.
If Brooks actually was conversant with classical Greek, he probably could not have resisted pointing out that ‘palin’ means ‘backwards’ in that language.
“And the problem with this attitude is that, especially in his first term, it made Bush inept at governance. It turns out that governance, the creation and execution of policy, is hard. It requires acquired skills. Most of all, it requires prudence.
What is prudence? It is the ability to grasp the unique pattern of a specific situation. It is the ability to absorb the vast flow of information and still discern the essential current of events — the things that go together and the things that will never go together. It is the ability to engage in complex deliberations and feel which arguments have the most weight.”
What is Brooks talking about in this quote?
Let’s not confuse management techniques with leadership. It is not a parlor game, and the essential element is moral decisiveness which the Dems, from Carter on, have completely thrown under the bus. I really don’t know if it is “complex deliberations” anymore than whether a smart mathematician makes a good leader. The Governor has moral fiber and a strong backbone, palpable courage, and people will willingly follow her into battle - that’s a leader - Brooks is talking about a computer programmer, (or a law lecturer), someone who will reboot your machine when it is down. (Clinton 1 or Obama) Those people you hire, a leader has to make decisions and live with them. A manager takes polls and then votes “present”. A leader risks his presidency and fights a pre-emptive war because the consequences of not doing so are unimaginable, a manager blows up an aspirin factory and declares victory.
“Populism rests on two great insights. First, it understands that the people (taken as a whole) are often wiser and more prudent than the elites.”
What a silly generalization. Populists have quite the history of making idiotic choices and have damaged the liberties of this country. See the direct election of Senators, the introduction of the income tax, govt control of private property including railroads. A more recent example would be George Wallace and his support for segregation and Jim Crow.
No sale. If this is what populists have to offer, I’ll look elsewhere for leadership.