Posted on 01/13/2016 5:11:24 AM PST by Kaslin
New York Times columnist David Brooks poses as a moderate who never stoops to being crabbily doctrinaire. He is the very model of a PBS/NPR "conservative" -- defining conservatism in a very 1950s way, as wearing dreary gray suits and liking Ike and Dick Nixon. Go along, and get along with the liberal elites.
But as conservatives know all too well, people who pose as "moderates" -- politically and rhetorically -- have a way of losing their sweetly temperate nature when conservatives seriously challenge the liberal order of things. David Brooks is clearly not a moderate or temperate man when it comes to Ted Cruz. Just the thought of this man triggers a spontaneous combustion.
On Jan. 8, Brooks started his new year at PBS with a bang, suggesting Cruz's rhetoric carried "dark and satanic tones...we're going to stomp on this person, we're going to crush that person, we're going to destroy that person. It is an ugly world in Ted Cruz's world." Even PBS anchor Judy Woodruff found that S-word a bit impolite -- although she was laughing all the way. It's what one does in the face of rhetorical excesses against conservatives. Brooks then pretended to walk it back, declaring Cruz was merely "Mephistophelian."
On Jan. 12, he doubled down in a Times column titled "The Brutalism of Ted Cruz." He repeated his attack: "Cruz's speeches are marked by what you might call pagan brutalism. There is not a hint of compassion, gentleness and mercy. Instead, his speeches are marked by a long list of enemies, and vows to crush, shred, destroy, bomb them." On behalf of Obama, Brooks proclaimed, "The fact is this apocalyptic diagnosis is ridiculous."
I guess we should be relieved Brooks no longer finds satanic influences in Cruz. That said, how bizarre this accusation of paganism! Usually Cruz is painted as a Christian fanatic.
On the other hand, his lack of "compassion, gentleness, and mercy" -- all qualities possessed by Brooks and Obama -- clearly suggests Cruz isn't very Christian. "The best conservatism balances support for free markets with a Judeo-Christian spirit of charity, compassion and solidarity," he declared. "Cruz replaces this spirit with Spartan belligerence. He sows bitterness, influences his followers to lose all sense of proportion and teaches them to answer hate with hate. This Trump-Cruz conservatism looks more like tribal, blood and soil European conservatism than the pluralistic American kind."
Here we go again. The next step is to dismiss his followers as the "poor, uneducated and easy-to-command" types.
This man is not the one to lecture about "answering hate with hate" and "losing all sense of proportion." He comes unglued when he talks about Cruz. When the new Senator from Texas arrived in 2013, Brooks sneered, "I think he's made a lot of enemies. It doesn't help that he has a face that looks a little like Joe McCarthy." Ah, but this is the rhetoric of the left -- so it's acceptable.
Compare all this with "conservative" Brooks' adoration of Barack Obama, famously endorsing his ambitions in an Oct. 19, 2006 column tiled "Run, Barack, Run." No real conservative would assent to that headline unless it was dripping with sarcasm (rhetorically excessive, to be sure). It wasn't. Brooks concluded Obama was the "rarest of creatures: a megahyped phenomenon that lives up to the hype."
Even at the late date of May 27, 2015 -- after the scandals of Fast and Furious, Solyndra, the VA, the IRS, HealthCare.Gov, Benghazi, ad infinitum -- Brooks still let all of his mental faculties cease in a moment of ecstasy on PBS: "President Obama has run an amazingly scandal-free administration, not only he himself, but the people around him. He's chosen people who have been pretty scandal-free. And so there are people in Washington who do set a standard of integrity, who do seem to attract people of quality."
There is nothing moderate -- or accurate -- about that. Or David Brooks.
Hey Brooks. Obama said if they bring a knife, we bring a gun. He also said he was getting good at killing people.
The left/media cartel has declared that if the Washington Post has not declared it a scandal, then it is *not* a scandal.
That is exactly what their definition of a scandal is - something that the Washington Post declares.
Nothing to do with reality - just what a liberal paper says.
Cruz and Trump are performing an invaluable service to the nation merely by driving our loathsome pundit class batdung looney.
Brooks is one of the most dangerous people out there. He convinces liberal New York Times readers that they are making a conservative choice when they are picking the most demonic of traitors.
Media types who are straight-out hateful are not nearly as dangerous.
Agreed.
They have exposed so much.
It is like having a nagging feeling about your spouse’s fidelity, then being presented with irrefutable proof of infidelity.
The GOP has been exposed as unfaithful to us all, and they have been in bed with the Dems the whole time.
We just couldn’t believe it.
But that last budget bill proved it.
Now there is no doubt, and a new political future must be forged for America to survive.
It’s time for many of these so called journalists to leave the business.
They sure are. B. Obama showed his fear of Trump and so did Nikki Haley.
And then there are the mouth foaming goofballs we have on the Cruz team. Everything said by anyone is a plot by Trump. They don’t help Cruz and they reflect poorly on those of us who are rational Cruz supporters.
Brooks is another Jewish Canadian, like David Frum. Both are fixtures at NPR, as the “guest conseravtives”. Both are less supportive of Israel than Senator Cruz. Brooks would be an odd choice to select to reflect on the Christianity of Sen. Cruz.
Brooks was a senior at the same college I attended when I was a Freshman. We likely had some of the same teachers. So, if he should decide to “dismiss his [Cruz’] followers as the ‘poor, uneducated and easy-to-command’ types.” I’ll be happy to offer myself as a counter-example.
No no, you misunderstand the meaning of "moderate." "Moderate" means a leftist camouflaging himself in the hope of infiltrating some leftist ideas into the minds of less observant non-leftists.
Recalling his 1st up close meeting with Obama, Brooks drools out "I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant and I'm thinking, a) he's going to be president and b) he'll be a very good president" [LINK]
Chris Matthews eat your heart out! All you got was 'thrill up your leg' - from a distance.
David Brooks is a pillow-biter.
David Brooks still wears a fanny pack too.
This is standard let's-throw-their-Christiantiy-in-their-faces stuff. Anyone can do that. "If you're such a great Christian, why don't you [insert what the person writing wants you to do]." These people who have never read the Gospel in their lives.
I'm a Trump supporter but I hate the Times and Brooks and can't stand this kind of attack.
Gender issues? What are we talking about here? Brooksie has gayness issues? I never heard that about him. He just keeps saying stuff about pants legs and creases and manly hotness, but I've never heard anyone out David Brooks. The way Frank Rich did David Brock, for example, in the pages of The New York Times back when Brock was writing for American Spectator and working on a book about Hildebeast.
Apologies to Brooks. I conflated his name with David Brock. Know nothing about David Brooks, and withdraw my comment. (Except from what you wrote, maybe it was a good guess.)
Oy.
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.