Posted on 03/06/2009 4:04:00 AM PST by PJ-Comix
"General" David Brooks, the very compliant house conservative of the New York Times, after just three days of bravely volunteering to lead a mighty "moderate" army against the "ideological outrages" of the Barack Obama administration, has now called a hasty retreat with a column that borders on outright apology for daring to oppose the very liberal budget. First let us take trip down memory lane to three days in the past to take a look the battle plan presented by General Brooks following his astounding revelation that most of the non-house conservatives discovered long, long ago:
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
LLS
Yeah but General Brooks has a chart. It’s like a talisman that explains all. Just consult the chart.
We never ran out of THE ideas that always work... this POS rat-lite party of repubic “moderates” defamed Reagan and threw his philosophy out... and they will wander the wilderness for 45 more years unless they return to REAGANISM! No ideas... BS!!!!!!! and Reagan’s way NEVER goes out of style... and neither do the Constitution or our Founders hopes for our Nation’s future!
LLS
LLS
The Republicans did have ideas, but the lame stream media shut them out. Obama and his crowd of lightweights were elevated way beyond their depth and they do have ideas. Half baked, and warmed over at the same time, BAD ideas.
In the garden, growth has it seasons. First comes spring and summer, but then we have fall and winter. And then we get spring and summer again.
Which quote is Chance the Gardener and which is David Brooks? It's hard to tell the difference.
LLS
Brilliant. Thanks for finding that quote, I'd forgotten all about it and how apropos.
Over the years there have been a few articles discussing the obvious autism of "Chance Gardener" in Being There.
And Brooks?
What should be call the magic talisman chart proudly hanging on the wall of General Brooks? One name suggestion is “Rosebud.” Or how about “Jumby?”
Bankrupting the US by Invading Iraq without a plan for what to do there was not an idea. It was neocon drug induced nightmare. The party that thought that up that irresponsible little caper should die.
I am not defending 0 one bit. Brooks isn't either if you read what he said rather than what this hit goon said he said. But the counter to 0 is not neener neener but real workable ideas for what you will do.
All hail Jumby the Chart!!!
In other words, four goons came by and forced him to publicly back-track. That's probably the last time he'll dare to criticize Dear Leader.
Hit goon? Shame on me for quoting the exact words of General David Brooks! Oh, and what he said on Tuesday...NEVER MIND!
Look, I like Sarah, as a person. She is probably a good governor of Alaska. She is not prime conservative leadership material. I don't hear new ideas from her, which is not surprising. She is not the kind of person likely to generate new ideas.
Sarah is not going to save conservatism. You need a better more moral Newt to do that. I don't see any around.
You're a moron, and you argue like a liberal. First, nobody deservesto die for having an idea. Nobody here hopes for Obama's death for his massive amounts of foolishness in just 6 weeks.
Second, We did have a plan in Iraq. It worked. Mission was accomplished. The war ended within days. The clean-up goes on... and if we followed the brilliant Marshall Plan the way we did in Germany and Japan, we'd still be there 60 years later, helping defend one of the top economies in the region. Just beause the Left calls it "war" does not make it so.
Third, our actions in Iraq are not doing anything close to resembling "bankrupting" us. Obama in six weeks has spent multiples more than Iraq has cost us in seven years.
But, like a liberal, facts do not seem to be your strong point.
Nonetheless, the White House made a case that was sophisticated and fact-based. These people know how to lead a discussion and set a tone of friendly cooperation. Im more optimistic that if Senate moderates can get their act together and come up with their own proactive plan, they can help shape a budget that allays their anxieties while meeting the presidents goals.
Smarmy intellectuals and overthinkers like Brooks continually get the Delphi treatment and never know it.
However Brooks now has the magical talisman he can consult to ward off evil conservative spirits: Jumby the Chart.
Oh, so you are the author of this slimey piece of drivel. Brooks exact words, the important ones, the ones that you didn't quote, the ones that make clear his actual intent rather than the intent you attribute to him when you accuse him of defending Obama were:
I had conversations with four senior members of the administration and in the interest of fairness, I thought Id share their arguments with you today.
In the first place...
Second, they argue...
Third, they say...
And so on.
Now, we constantly accuse others of misrepresenting conservatives when they put words in the mouths of others, so Brooks trying to say what that 0bama crowd said is not pandering. It is just quoting, which is the essence of good reporting and good scholarship [not that YOU would know anything about scholarship].
The only folks who can say whether Brooks is misrepresenting the administration position is the administration position. I would not have thought it traitorous of someone from the "right" to represent the views of someone from the "left" accurately.
Quoting the administration's defense of its positions is not defending those positions, and representing it as such makes you a scoundrel of the worst order. I am more than happy to call you and your ilk on it. Your kind of fascist propagandists are not going to save conservatism from 0 and his crowd. Real defensible ideas based on genuine facts to solve real problems will be required, and your libelous hit piece has nothing to do with any of that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.