David Brooks: Jindal’s speech was an insane nihilist disaster

posted at 1:16 pm on February 25, 2009 by Allahpundit

Another withering critique of last night’s fizzle, but unlike the rest of the punditocracy, it’s not the delivery he’s objecting to. There’s a serious question raised here that’ll soon be obscured by the mountain of sneering comments about RINOs below: How does the GOP adapt to a political climate in which government, at least momentarily, is seen less as the problem than as the solution? This is what I was getting at in writing about how the public wants to see action for action’s sake, even if they’re skeptical that it’ll work. Lowry’s on target about how Obama’s adapting — by trying to redefine the Great Society agenda as mere centrist “pragmatism” to make it palatable to Americans who dislike big government in theory but not so much in practice. Republicans can either stick to laissez faire and wait for the inevitable liberal overreach to push the country back to the right or, per Brooks (and Bill Kristol) they can start incorporating government solutions into their own platform. The danger of taking the first approach isn’t that we might have to wait a few years, it’s that if Obama succeeds in redefining the center, we might have to wait decades. In that sense, it’s like the amnesty debate: The politically useful thing to do is to pander to Hispanics by supporting it, the principled thing to do is to oppose it and enforce the law. Which course is correct if the latter means you’re out of power for ages and amnesty gets pushed through anyway?

Part of the problem is that the GOP’s done an abysmal job of marketing its alternatives to the stimulus. Dave Weigel compared it yesterday to McCain’s campaign strategy, aimed at winning the news cycle with stunts and memorable soundbites but badly losing the big-picture debate. It often does feel like they have no plan of their own — nihilism, as Brooks puts it — and there’s a reason for that:

During the stimulus debate, the strategist argued, Republicans had an actual alternative but were unable to direct much attention to it — in part because they were focusing so much of their rhetoric on the massive and unnecessary spending in the bill. The debate became a question of an up-or-down decision on the Obama/Democratic plan — not a choice between the Obama/Democratic plan and a Republican plan. “The coverage of the stimulus bill focused on the difference between the House and Senate versions,” the strategist told me, “which were basically two sides of the same coin.” The Republican role was limited to a) saying no to the Obama/Democratic bill, and b) having three moderates in the Senate approve of the bill as long as it offered a little less than what Democrats proposed. The idea that Republicans, mostly in the House, had an actual full-scale alternative, was lost. “On the Sunday talk shows, right after it passed, find me one person who mentioned the Republican alternative,” the strategist said.

So now Republicans want to try something new. They point to last year’s debate over energy, in which the GOP got the upper hand on the issue of drilling — so much so that majority Democrats were forced to retreat from their position. That, the strategist says, was the kind of clearly-articulated policy alternative that Republicans will be seeking to put forward today.

Better get cracking. That 61/26 gap leaves The One with an awful lot of daylight to run in.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

How does Palin get to 270 electoral votes, assuming Obama doesn’t completely crater his approval ratings?

dedalus on February 25, 2009 at 2:37 PM

How does Jindal? How does Sanford? Both are men from the South, but the GOP will win the South anyway. All the GOP needs is to replicate the 2004 Bush map. Winning the South, Rocky Mountain West, and most of the prairie states. I personally think Palin is far better suited to win back states like Montana & Colorado (where I live) than Jindal or Sanford given her Western background.

Norwegian on February 25, 2009 at 2:42 PM

Don’t worry MadisonFauxConservative should be along shortly.

Mark Garnett on February 25, 2009 at 2:40 PM

I’d like to welcome the conservative inquisition to the debate. Please begin producing your credentials in an orderly fashion. Criticism of those leaders labeled “Acceptably Conservative” will not be tolerated and is punishable by ex-communication.

TheUnrepentantGeek on February 25, 2009 at 2:42 PM

You just made me laugh my ass off. Your entire post was very humourus :)

txaggie on February 25, 2009 at 2:37 PM

he may have meant it to be funny..but what he said is the truth…phoenix already has the 2nd highest kidnapping rate in the WORLD behind mexico city…

the gangs like the Zetas are infiltrating this country and acquiring power and influence…using people like Robert Allen Stanford to launder money and buy influence for them…they’re playing to win, and we’re not…

for our future look to mexico..

right4life on February 25, 2009 at 2:42 PM

lorien1973 on February 25, 2009 at 2:13 PM

the 2 arent always so…but neither are they always aligned. it would be helpful to anyone seeking to fix problems to realize this.

ernesto on February 25, 2009 at 2:42 PM

How does Palin get to 270 electoral votes, assuming Obama doesn’t completely crater his approval ratings?

dedalus on February 25, 2009 at 2:37 PM

How do any of the other potential candidates do it right now?

davek70 on February 25, 2009 at 2:43 PM

What this thread needs is a good enema.

Joe Bloggs on February 25, 2009 at 2:38 PM

Don’t worry MadisonFauxConservative should be along shortly.

Mark Garnett on February 25, 2009 at 2:40 PM

He said a good enema not a full frontal lobotomy.

Cheshire Cat on February 25, 2009 at 2:43 PM

blue13326 on February 25, 2009 at 2:41 PM

I could not agree more. That’s why we need to stop the beauty pageant talk and start dealing with those realities that you just stated.

genso on February 25, 2009 at 2:43 PM

He said a good enema not a full frontal lobotomy.

Cheshire Cat on February 25, 2009 at 2:43 PM

+100

right4life on February 25, 2009 at 2:45 PM

I personally think Palin is far better suited to win back states like Montana & Colorado (where I live) than Jindal or Sanford given her Western background.

Norwegian on February 25, 2009 at 2:42 PM

She likely doesn’t fare as well in FL and PA. Jindal or Mitt might do better with suburban voters.

dedalus on February 25, 2009 at 2:48 PM

TheUnrepentantGeek on February 25, 2009 at 2:42 PM

Actualy very funny…

Mark Garnett on February 25, 2009 at 2:49 PM

Everybody has their favorite candidate I just want a real conservative. Is the Devil a real conservative? I’d vote for him if he were.

Vince on February 25, 2009 at 2:49 PM

People are angry/furious/boiling over about Obama and his policies and then they see the “conservative” pundits bashing emerging leaders such as Jindal, Palin whoever over minor, cosmetic things.

Allahpundit baits his readers, no question about it. Right now, people aren’t in the mood for it.

BigD on February 25, 2009 at 2:31 PM

In this particular thread, it’s not so much the bashing of Jindal. It’s Allahpundit/Brooks beginning their argument on the premise that conservatives need to abandon their principles because standing up for them is too painful.

What’s the point of even having principles in the first place if you’re going to abandon them the instant things become difficult? Republicans tried that for decades prior to Reagan’s ascension, and what did they have to show for it, other than permanent minority status?

thirteen28 on February 25, 2009 at 2:49 PM

Yes, lets play the left’s game. What are you willing to give those new “immigrants” to secure their votes? It better be good cause the left is willing to pay up. Whether we do it or they do it, it still increases government and weakens our society.

genso on February 25, 2009 at 2:40 PM

I will want a brand new car and not some general motors crap either. Something like one of those lexus ones. Maria will want a new house with big refrigerator and new chrome washer and drier and the ninos will want at least a 37 inches LCD for each bedroom with all stations in Spanish and private tutors who are fluent in Spanish and Spanish history to include all the bad things that you gringos did to us and about all the things that you stole from us and how bad you all are. Then we may vote for you sometimes if we feel like it.

NoBordersJose on February 25, 2009 at 2:50 PM

NoBordersJose on February 25, 2009 at 2:50 PM

Heh. And that’s just to start the negotiations. I wonder how the other side will top that?

genso on February 25, 2009 at 2:53 PM

She likely doesn’t fare as well in FL and PA. Jindal or Mitt might do better with suburban voters.

dedalus on February 25, 2009 at 2:48 PM

PA is not necassary to win. But I still doubt a Jindal or Romney would outpoll Palin in PA.

In Florida, I am certain Palin would do far better than Romney. And I doubt Jindal could draw crowds of 60,000 or more in FL like Palin did.

In my suburban area, both Romney, Obama and Palin came to visit in the last campaign. Romney drew 350 people. Obama drew 4,500. Palin drew 12,000.

Norwegian on February 25, 2009 at 2:55 PM

abandon hope all ye who enter.

I really like Jindal but there is absolutely no way he’s going to draw a crowd outside of Louisiana and no way he’ll get people nation wide to ring phones and knock on doors.

Romney and Huckabee are DOA, can’t beat McCain then you can’t beat “The One”.

I still pput money on Palin.

Onager on February 25, 2009 at 2:56 PM

How do any of the other potential candidates do it right now?

davek70 on February 25, 2009 at 2:43 PM

Obama’s biggest liability is the Dem congress. Those clowns wrote the stimulus bill before he could even articulate parameters. I think Brooks is making the point that the GOP needs to demonstrate that it knows how to rally government to the rescue, without turning it into a special interest free-for-all or permanently damaging what private markets do well.

dedalus on February 25, 2009 at 2:57 PM

he may have meant it to be funny..but what he said is the truth…

right4life on February 25, 2009 at 2:42 PM

You see and you observe and you understand.

semloh on February 25, 2009 at 2:57 PM

It’s probably been noted 147 times… but I don’t recall any of the lousy Democratic responses to Bush (read: all of them) which got this much attention (or any critical attention at all).

mankai on February 25, 2009 at 2:58 PM

Romney and Huckabee are DOA, can’t beat McCain then you can’t beat “The One”.

Reagan is DOA, can’t beat Ford, then can’t beat Carter.

Just sayin’.

;)

PS: Not that I am in love with Huck or Mitt, but right now, anybody can emerge.

mankai on February 25, 2009 at 3:00 PM

genso,
If I had to come up with a plan, it would be the opposite of what AP preaches here. I think we have to get smaller at first, and eject the Bush/Brooks wing of the party; by that I mean get rid of the foreign-democracy promotion from our foreign policy and return to Bush I style realism, and get rid of the expanded welfare ideas in our domestic policy. In other words, provide a clear alternative. So, when the misery comes from Obama’s plans, people have something to turn to rather than a party that’s just a bit less worse.

Granted, this is my own version of ‘hope and change’, because I know my beliefs are in the minority; and my hope is that Americans will find the wisdom to come to my way of thinking. But I also think that we’re going to have to go through a good bit of misery to get there, if we ever do. In the meantime, we have to be the naysayers, and yes, we’ll be trying to explain our positions in the face of a very partisan and hostile media. I’m not sure what else we can do.

blue13326 on February 25, 2009 at 3:00 PM

In my suburban area, both Romney, Obama and Palin came to visit in the last campaign. Romney drew 350 people. Obama drew 4,500. Palin drew 12,000.

Norwegian on February 25, 2009 at 2:55 PM

No question she has the most enthusiastic voters. The question with Palin is whether she can make the sale to voters who currently have a negative opinion of her.

dedalus on February 25, 2009 at 3:00 PM

Stop the panic and for God’s sakes stop listening to David Brooks. Brooks is a liberal Canadian for heaven’s sakes. Take a deep breath and be patient.

Jdripper on February 25, 2009 at 3:00 PM

How does Palin get to 270 electoral votes, assuming Obama doesn’t completely crater his approval ratings?

dedalus on February 25, 2009 at 2:37 PM

Not easily because the GOP lost most if not all of the state secretary of states in the swing states when George Soros’ funded and directed his “Project SoS” to put in power like minded liberals into those positions.

http://www.secstateproject.org/

That political office controls the voting system, any improvements to the voting system and any complaints or controversies (voter fraud) regarding the system. (remember the decision to allow homeless people to use a park bench as their address)

From the Project SoS website:

Note that we also ousted an incumbent republican Secretary of State in 2006. That was in the state of Minnesota. If not for that feat, the elected official running the recount in the Franken/Coleman race would be Republican Mary Kiffmeyer and not progressive champion Mark Ritchie. We know Mark Ritchie will make sure every vote is counted.

As we see in MN with the Coleman/Frankin race, the decisions in the recounts and re-recounts that have gone before the sec. of state have gone in favor of Frankin.

JeffVader on February 25, 2009 at 3:02 PM

Ha! Allah still has to rely on the Washington Post and now David Brooks to make his point. Sorry, not buying it but I hope Obama got Allah and Brooks their Unicorn.

robtr on February 25, 2009 at 3:04 PM

blue13326 on February 25, 2009 at 3:00 PM

Again we agree. Do what we have to do to weed out the weak conservatives and I think that recruitment of conservatives will increase as people become drawn to reality instead of political posturing.

genso on February 25, 2009 at 3:06 PM

How does the GOP adapt to a political climate in which government, at least momentarily, is seen less as the problem than as the solution?

I had to stop reading this post and respond to this question. The problem is that the Bush administration was incapable/unwilling to make a conservative argument on anything because they lacked conviction at the top on many conservative principles including free markets. So when the crisis broke and the administration went with the huge statist solution the public assumed that this bipartisanship meant that the conservatives agreed with TARP and later the bailout.

Now that there is opposition being voiced from the leadership more people who are confused about what is happening are speaking out against the big gov’t solution.

Bill C on February 25, 2009 at 3:06 PM

I can’t wait for Christmas when Jindal tells the story about how the Wise Men rode dinosaurs to see the baby Jesus.

capitulus on February 25, 2009 at 3:08 PM

As it is, we can’t win right now. Because of the constant doublespeak by Republicans under Bush people who don’t follow politics closely honestly think the Bush years were years of deregulations and contractions in government. And so when they look at the situation we’re in now, they think that it’s the fault of deregulation and cutting back on government, and so subsequently they think the appropriate response is regulation and expanding government. And we can’t win that game, not only do most of us have no interest in even trying to play it, to those who do the old Mark Twain line “Never argue with a fool, he’ll drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience” certainly applies. In an election between the guys who just figured out we need big government and the guys who always knew we needed big government, the johnny-come-lately’s are always going to lose.

And so we’ve gotta give up on winning in this environment. We’ve instead gotta focus on being ready when the environment changes. All of this is going to blow up in their faces, and when that time comes it’d be in our best interest to have staked out the principled position so that the people see us as a legitimate alternative.

And this doesn’t mean just tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts. The whole “we’ve got an alternative stimulus plan where we replace all of the spending with tax cuts” leaves me absolutely cold because it’s almost exactly as dumb as the Democrats’ plan. The problem is deficit spending, we’re in a recession because of deficit spending, and attempting to solve the problem with increasing our level of deficit spending is trying to cure cancer with cancer. For every budget Obama offers, we should offer a balanced budget alternative. We should work with Obama on the things we agree on, charter schools if he ever comes to that, war funding, but when it comes to things like the bailouts or stimuli or anything else with even a whiff of Keynesianism on it we should not be willing to give an inch in terms of bipartisanship. And the explanation should be clear and easy, the American people have spoken, and they have chosen to put the Democrats in charge. Whatever they can hammer through, by all means, hammer it through, and when that inevitably blows up in their face the people will know that they have a viable alternative in the Republican party. We’re not obstructionists (and on that, politically speaking we should thank God for RINO’s like Specter, Snowe and Collins), and we pray to God that we’re wrong and that somehow down has become up and things like this have somehow started to work, but the reality is that we know that they won’t. The American people don’t trust us, and the only way we’ll get that back is being honest, and that means recognizing that the marginal benefit of only having a $400 billion stimulus over a $1 trillion stimulus is like the marginal benefit of having 45% of the bones in your body shattered or 85% of the bones in your body shattered, we’re going to stake out the no shattered bone side because we know that that’s better.

galenrox on February 25, 2009 at 3:09 PM

What this thread needs is a good enema.

Joe Bloggs on February 25, 2009 at 2:38 PM

Don’t worry MadisonFauxConservative should be along shortly.

Mark Garnett on February 25, 2009 at 2:40 PM

He said a good enema not a full frontal lobotomy.

Cheshire Cat on February 25, 2009 at 2:43 PM

Got that right.

klickink.wordpress.com on February 25, 2009 at 3:11 PM

I can’t wait for Christmas when Jindal tells the story about how the Wise Men rode dinosaurs to see the baby Jesus.

capitulus on February 25, 2009 at 3:08 PM

Is he a creationist? I didn’t think so. My impression was that he gave some support to the “teach the controversy” argument. Nationally, Jindal could also frame it as a “local-control” issue and not wanting big government to override local school boards.

dedalus on February 25, 2009 at 3:11 PM

I can’t wait for Christmas when Jindal tells the story about how the Wise Men rode dinosaurs to see the baby Jesus.

capitulus on February 25, 2009 at 3:08 PM

Is he a creationist? I didn’t think so. My impression was that he gave some support to the “teach the controversy” argument. Nationally, Jindal could also frame it as a “local-control” issue and not wanting big government to override local school boards.

dedalus on February 25, 2009

He is, but who gives a sh*ts? The so-called theory of “Evolution” should be taught in a philosophy class alongside Creationism – that’s what both are!

Evolution should more correctly be called “Adaptaion” but it’s not as progressive thinking

Speak of “Oh God” – I’m listening to HannityRadio playing the media-praise of AllahPundit’s Master, The One.

WTH happened to journalism – and did it ever really exist!?!

klickink.wordpress.com on February 25, 2009 at 3:15 PM

Cut taxes.

Period.

Cut waste.

Period.

Cut the Medi programs.

Period.

What deficit?

Period.

klickink.wordpress.com on February 25, 2009 at 3:16 PM

How does the GOP adapt to a political climate in which government, at least momentarily, is seen less as the problem than as the solution?

…the problem is when meat-puppets like Brooks urge “pragmatic” actions from a philosophical center…which has no center…”pragmatism” and “populism” are joined at the hip…jumping like junior office clerks in a three-legged race at a company picknick…ultimately pitching forward face-first into the potato salad….

…if the point is “get into office”, as it is with the Dems, there do do your dirty work, fine…both pragmatism and populism (both beginning with “P”, like “PIMP”), work in this case…give the prolls what they think they want, point their snouts at the pretty blinking lights while you rob their childrens’ inheritance blind….

…what’s the use of just “getting into office”, ultimately…if that’s the point, why not go with the Dems? They’re as shallow as your average birdbath, but at least they talk pretty. They have a high “feel-good” factor, all honey without the sulfer of having to do anything constructive…they’re the fiddle music part of Rome burning….

…on the other hand, doing what’s necessary is never popular, and is hard to sell to an electorate lazy and dim enough to actually put Barack Obama into a position any higher than “community organizer”…but, if there’s to be a future, it’s gotta be done….

…and Mr. Brooks’ll have not part in it….

This is what I was getting at in writing about how the public wants to see action for action’s sake, even if they’re skeptical that it’ll work.

…action for action’s sake is like sex in prison….

…you have a need…the winking car thief behind the cellblock staircase is the best you can get with what’s on offer…it may even be momentarily satisfying, I suppose…but leads almost immediately afterwards to some rather messy complications…not least of which touch on your reputation….

Puritan1648 on February 25, 2009 at 3:20 PM

Stop the panic and for God’s sakes stop listening to David Brooks. Brooks is a liberal Canadian for heaven’s sakes. Take a deep breath and be patient.

Jdripper on February 25, 2009 at 3:00 PM

…well…Osama bin Laden was unavailable for comment…so, Brooks has to stand in….

…if you can’t kill a nation with ordnance, kill it slowly with compromise….

Puritan1648 on February 25, 2009 at 3:23 PM

…action for action’s sake is like sex in prison….

…you have a need…the winking car thief behind the cellblock staircase is the best you can get with what’s on offer…it may even be momentarily satisfying, I suppose…but leads almost immediately afterwards to some rather messy complications…not least of which touch on your reputation….

Puritan1648 on February 25, 2009 at 3:20 PM

Excellent way of stating it!

Reminds me of the “d!cks, @ssholes, and pu$$ies” speech from Team America.

thirteen28 on February 25, 2009 at 3:30 PM

David Brooks is not a conservative.

therightwinger on February 25, 2009 at 3:31 PM

When the bill comes in for all this, and there’s nobody left to pay it, it will hit the fan, and believe me, that day is coming.

By the way Allah – in nbetween panic attacks about nothing in particular – you must be pretty forgetful not to recall that at this exact same time in his administration, G. W.Bush was higher than Obama in the polls. Remember all the editorials about “the death of the Democrat Party”?

If America wants socialism, then let it have it for a while – where the moon don’t shine. That will be an educational experience. Let the country undergo its own “stress test”
Besides, the Chinese can say just one word and every economist out there agrees that they will bring down our entire economy like a wounded duck.
That single word is “No”, as in, “I’m not going to buy any more of your crappy Treasury Bonds”.

TexasJew on February 25, 2009 at 3:34 PM

He is, but who gives a sh*ts? The so-called theory of “Evolution” should be taught in a philosophy class alongside Creationism – that’s what both are!

Uh huh. That’ll play real well in 2012. He should talk about his exorcisms too. His numbers will go through the roof!

capitulus on February 25, 2009 at 3:34 PM

I agree that the Republican party is a disaster right now. I have more confidence in Blue Dogs like Zell Miller was. Not a single Republican politician gives me a tingle up my leg like that numb skull Chris Mathews.

It may be time to start a new consevitive party. Brooks talks about the juxtaposition of amnesty and how it is wrong but it is what is best. BULL $HITThe John McCain type moderates are what the GOP is now, and I for one want to join a conservitive party with the principals stated in the Constitution.

saiga on February 25, 2009 at 3:35 PM

How does Palin get to 270 electoral votes, assuming Obama doesn’t completely crater his approval ratings?

dedalus on February 25, 2009 at 2:37 PM

How does Jindal? How does Sanford? Both are men from the South, but the GOP will win the South anyway. All the GOP needs is to replicate the 2004 Bush map. Winning the South, Rocky Mountain West, and most of the prairie states. I personally think Palin is far better suited to win back states like Montana & Colorado (where I live) than Jindal or Sanford given her Western background.

Norwegian on February 25, 2009 at 2:42 PM

Simple. Palin wins by shifting 4% of the popular vote back over. Indiana, Ohio, Virgina, North Carolin, and Florida shift back.

Nevada comes back to GOP and the battle is Colorado. Palin’s western libertarian qualities will come out and she’ll win. Think Bush 2004 less New Mexico and Iowa.

That’s just one scenario.

Sapwolf on February 25, 2009 at 3:40 PM

Which course is correct if the latter means you’re out of power for ages and amnesty gets pushed through anyway?

If the GOP must be out of power for decades so be it. If the GOP moves away from its free-market platform, then I will personally oversee its destruction. If the GOP cannot stand up for capitalism, it does not deserve to be a party.

Achilles on February 25, 2009 at 3:41 PM

And so we’ve gotta give up on winning in this environment. We’ve instead gotta focus on being ready when the environment changes. All of this is going to blow up in their faces, and when that time comes it’d be in our best interest to have staked out the principled position so that the people see us as a legitimate alternative.

galenrox on February 25, 2009 at 3:09 PM

I fully agree with this post. Look folks the people spoke. It is pretty clear a slim majority wants to try a socialist approach to running the country. I believe conservatives have to do a few things:

1. Let it happen. We need to practice tough love here. Like an alcoholic who needs to reach bottom before they are ready to admit their problem and be helped, we need to do that with the socialist agenda now. Our immediate response is to try and “save” the country, but we cannot – because the people don’t want to hear from republicans right now. This is going to be really hard and painful, but it must be done. People have to experience the disaster of socialism in order to fully reject it.

2. While we are waiting for the inevitable failure, we need to prepare. First, we have to change the open primary system in several states. That system screwed us royally this past election. We did not end up with the cream of the crop via that system – it needs to change. Second, we need to continue to stand on principal. The left will complain and stomp about us not playing well, but it will pay off in the long run because when the socialist experiment fails the people will remember the conservatives who would not buy into the socialist agenda.

KickandSwimMom on February 25, 2009 at 3:47 PM

If the GOP must be out of power for decades so be it. If the GOP moves away from its free-market platform, then I will personally oversee its destruction. If the GOP cannot stand up for capitalism, it does not deserve to be a party.

Achilles on February 25, 2009 at 3:41 PM

I agree. Give them til 2010 elections and if it is still controlled by RINO’s we split out with a Conservative Party and it becomes a three-way show like in other countries.

The two-party system cannot possibly operate when the two-parties overlap 80% on having the government hammer used to try to solve every problem.

The GOP needs to unite on the same VISION and then execute properly with alternative plans to the Dems and then persuade others to go with their alternative.

The problem right now is a lack of unity.

Sapwolf on February 25, 2009 at 3:49 PM

Is David Brooks sitting in a rocking chair or what?????

PrincipledPilgrim on February 25, 2009 at 3:54 PM

And so coming from the right and moving leftward, Obama’s cult zombies begin to rouse from their Voice induced slumber. Brooks is starting to get it. Watch Sullivan become a bitter clinger, clinging to Obama for hope through whatever (relative) economic misfortune he may know.

exdeadhead on February 25, 2009 at 3:59 PM

If the GOP must be out of power for decades so be it. If the GOP moves away from its free-market platform, then I will personally oversee its destruction. If the GOP cannot stand up for capitalism, it does not deserve to be a party.

Achilles, I’m with ya’

It sort of makes you wonder if all the Washingtonians are in on the scheme. Like it is one big drama and the GOP is already the designated loser but they still have to act the part of playing the contender. Horrible job of acting, guys!

PrincipledPilgrim on February 25, 2009 at 4:00 PM

I agree. Give them til 2010 elections and if it is still controlled by RINO’s we split out with a Conservative Party and it becomes a three-way show like in other countries.

yes, Yes, YES, YES!!!!

I’m in!

PrincipledPilgrim on February 25, 2009 at 4:02 PM

Another big part of the problem nobody, or at least very few with to address is that people in general (more so the farther left you go) are expecting the government to provide them with as close to a free ride as you can possibly get, even if it means sacrificing any possibility of future generations having any shot at all of prosperity and freedom.

Everybody seems to have chucked the idea of personal responsibility and individual freedoms out the window in favor of some sort of imaginary fluffy little cocoon where there is no risk and mommy government will take care of your every whim and need…hell, they probably expect the government to catheterize them when they have to potty.

I’m getting sick of this. Even moral, fiscal, and religious right conservatives are now looking for answers from the government. This is WRONG. We can get into arguments about what got us here or what to do to help those who really need help, but it’s not addressing the core issue here which is really the reason things are so screwed up in the first place…..

LIFE HAS RISK
NOBODY ELSE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR ACTIONS
NOTHING IS FREE
YOUR RIGHTS STOP AT THE END OF MY NOSE AND VICE VERSA

People need to get a grip on themselves and take control of their own lives again. There is no other country to move to to get away from this CRAP we’re being subjected to because everyone is a victim of some sort and the government will solve all our problems and make our lives all squeaky clean soft and fuzzy.

If things don’t change there will either be no USA in the future as we have known it or there will be a civil war between those that are responsible and those that refuse to be, and many, many Americans will die.

The answers are simple. The problem is that nobody wants to be responsible for anything anymore.

Spiritk9 on February 25, 2009 at 4:07 PM

Uh huh. That’ll play real well in 2012. He should talk about his exorcisms too. His numbers will go through the roof!

capitulus on February 25, 2009 at 3:34 PM

I’ll take the christian vote over the darwiniac vote any day…

right4life on February 25, 2009 at 4:07 PM

The answers are simple. The problem is that nobody wants to be responsible for anything anymore.

Spiritk9 on February 25, 2009 at 4:07 PM

So true. The only question left to address, IMO, is if there is enough of us left to spark a realistic political movement to take back this country?

genso on February 25, 2009 at 4:10 PM

I don’t know what happened to that first sentence…TIP: never type in a rage and forget to proofread before hitting the submit button.

Spiritk9 on February 25, 2009 at 4:10 PM

galenrox on February 25, 2009 at 3:09 PM

You stole my thoughts exactly.

shannonkelly on February 25, 2009 at 4:16 PM

When you’re the “House Conservative” at the NY Times, you have to do your master’s bidding. Pinch has the pooch trained well: sit, paw, lie (in more ways than one), fetch. If Brooks becomes a didobedient dog, his next trick is “dead dog.”

Brooks will never bite the hand that feeds him. At this point, he’s pretty much a shill. It’s sad that people attempt to portray Brooks, Andrew Sullivan, Kathleen Parker, etc. as “conservatives.”

bw222 on February 25, 2009 at 4:40 PM

Allah, you’re incredible! You’re like a person who won’t yell “Fire!” in a burning apartment building because you don’t want to hurt your reputation with your neighbors as a quiet, mild-mannered guy!

For a preview of where this nation is heading if we continue to allow this creeping Leftist rot to dominate our culture and govt, look no further than California: flat broke, inundated with illegal foreigners, and completely unable to do anything about it because of an ignorant, spoiled electorate.

There is absolutely NOTHING “pragmatic” about Republican complicity in policies that will — not “may”, WILL — eventually bring about our country’s utter collapse.

The only question is this: when this occurs, what do you want Americans to see when they are desperately looking for answers: a Republican party that simply went along with this insanity or a Republican party that consistently voted against this madness, sounded warnings, and tried to steer our nation towards sanity? If the answer is the former, then there will be NO HOPE and I fear that our nation will descend into chaos. But if the latter is true, it may give just provide the public with enough faith that we don’t tear ourselves apart.

rvastar on February 25, 2009 at 4:48 PM

A lot of posters want the GOP to be ready when Obama fails. So what is your back up plan if Obama doesn’t fail?

okonkolo on February 25, 2009 at 4:59 PM

How does the GOP adapt to a political climate in which government, at least momentarily, is seen less as the problem than as the solution?

Stand by your principles. If the country is determined to go to hell, don’t help it along.

ddrintn on February 25, 2009 at 5:19 PM

Brooks is a schnook.

No plan to defeat Obama’s follies, but how to emulate the Husseinian glitz in order to win power, and then just do basically the same follies.

FAIL.

profitsbeard on February 25, 2009 at 5:40 PM

Don’t listen to Brooks or Allahpundit on this one.

Listen to Robert Stacy McCain and Jennifer Rubin.

thirteen28 on February 25, 2009 at 6:02 PM

How does Palin get to 270 electoral votes, assuming Obama doesn’t completely crater his approval ratings?

We have to remember that blue states will be losing EVs after the new Census (providing it isn’t completely hi-jacked) to Red States. I think TX is projected to pick up 2. I wouldn’t be surprised if CA loses a seat or two to AZ or NV if Californians flee the state to avoid the massive tax increase.

Lou Budvis on February 25, 2009 at 6:31 PM

We’ve got to stop worrying about being warm and fuzzy. The people want conservatives/GOPers to be tough SOBs. We can even see this in the UK. Did Margaret Thatcher run for “the kids?” Hell no, she didn’t even care when they called her ‘Thatcher-milk snatcher’ after she cut money for school lunch.

Even when Nixon won a landslide in ’72, not many people wanted to have a beer with him.

Finally, the people knew that beneath President Reagan’s amiable persona, he was hardcore.

Lou Budvis on February 25, 2009 at 6:41 PM

insane nihilist disaster…and Brook’s articles are?

Captain America on February 25, 2009 at 7:00 PM

Hey Dave (Brooks):

Don’t take this the wrong way, but why don’t you shut the frig up and go away. Anyone who would work for the NYT AND PBS ain’t no conservative and isn’t even one to be trusted.

Mr. Grump on February 25, 2009 at 7:03 PM

Allhap,

You’re on the ‘bash any hopeful conservative voice, while always bashing Rich Rush’ bandwagon. Seek other employment please.

frizzbee on February 25, 2009 at 8:13 PM

Seriously, why does anyone give him the time of day?

Cr4sh Dummy on February 25, 2009 at 8:20 PM

Brooks is a poofter who is saying whatever it takes to stay in the game in NYC. It’s entertaining to read the headline, but a waste of carbon otherwise, IMHO.

JAW on February 25, 2009 at 8:21 PM

Let’s see. David Brooks of the New York Times, Chris Matthews of MSNBC, Andrew Sullivan of the Angry Left and The Atlantic, and Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs. Now, what do they ALL have in common?

AntonK on February 25, 2009 at 8:22 PM

David who? Behind what barn?

No more. NEHA Not even half American. Pity. They made their choice.

Flying Gadsden

Caststeel on February 25, 2009 at 8:52 PM

GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM! IT IS TOO BIG, IT TAXES, SPENDS AND REGULATES TOO MUCH!

Government cannot do anything to “fix” the problem except reduce it’s size, reduce spending, reduce taxes and get the hell out of the way.

You are all mad if you think it can fix the economy. Brooks is an economic illiterate.

Poptech on February 25, 2009 at 9:54 PM

IS being in power so important that we abandon hope of doing anything worthwhile while we are in power?

The American people deserve a choice, not an echo. If Americans choose socialism then we deserve the impending disaster and the loss of our freedoms. Liberty can not be defended by compromise.

Sackett on February 25, 2009 at 10:05 PM

David “Babbling” Brooks.

SouthernGent on February 25, 2009 at 10:07 PM

Seriously, why does anyone give him the time of day?

Cr4sh Dummy on February 25, 2009 at 8:20 PM

He’s sort of a mascot, the “conservative” that liberals wish more conservatives were like.

ddrintn on February 25, 2009 at 10:55 PM

Brooks helped sabotage the presidential election and now he’s trying to help Obama destroy the economy.

He is a prostite for lies in a pretty package, but despises the truth if it’s not gussied up in lovely oration.

If we, as a nation, learn to love pretty lies better than the truth we will earm our sad kismet.

clnurnberg on February 26, 2009 at 1:05 AM

ACORN will be stronger and fully Federally funded by then, and with Rahm Emanuel Gerrymandering after the 2010 Census, I don’t think the GOP will have a chance no matter how badly these knuckleheads screw up.

Dr. ZhivBlago on February 26, 2009 at 2:26 AM

Must confess I refuse to read David Brooks for reasons of health but the gist of it being disaster for the Republicans brings up a question: which Republicans does he mean, McCain Brooks RINOs or the other guys? they are mutually exclusive

entagor on February 26, 2009 at 3:22 AM

Anyone who trusts Brooks as a voice of conservatism gets exacatly what they deserve. David, just like his fellow NYT buddies, is a complete waste of intellectual time.

Jockolantern on February 26, 2009 at 3:33 AM

In this particular thread, it’s not so much the bashing of Jindal. It’s Allahpundit/Brooks beginning their argument on the premise that conservatives need to abandon their principles because standing up for them is too painful.

What’s the point of even having principles in the first place if you’re going to abandon them the instant things become difficult? Republicans tried that for decades prior to Reagan’s ascension, and what did they have to show for it, other than permanent minority status?

thirteen28 on February 25, 2009 at 2:49 PM

That’s just it isn’t it? THe GOP has tried that bullshit already and spend decades as the minority. There is something to be said for principals for fucks sakes.

Dritanian on February 26, 2009 at 4:15 AM

David Brooks: Jindal’s speech was an insane nihilist disaster

Brooks is channeling Walter Sobchak:

“Nihilists! #^(% me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it’s an ethos.”

Rae on February 26, 2009 at 9:46 AM

If Rep. & Consev.keep listening and caring what people like David Brooks say or think.We are in deep DoDo.

thmcbb on February 26, 2009 at 10:33 AM

David Brooks: Jindal’s speech was IS an insane nihilist disaster

FIFY Allah

Mark Garnett on February 26, 2009 at 11:05 AM

Does anyone still consider Brooks a conservative? He says the reagan era of conservatism is dead. Reagan was conservative. If you are against Reagan Conservatism, then you are against conservativism.

He has been all excited about the most liberal president in history and then badmouths one of the few conservatives left.

The sad thing is if they pass the fairness doctrine and it somehow covers TV news as well. People like Brooks will be hired to give the “conservtive” viewpoint, which is actually liberal.

jeffn21 on February 26, 2009 at 12:19 PM

I used to like David Brooks. I read one of his books.
Now I see he falls into the ‘smart dumb’ category:
a smart person, for whatever reason, that appears dumb.

jimmer on February 26, 2009 at 1:03 PM

A lot of posters want the GOP to be ready when Obama fails. So what is your back up plan if Obama doesn’t fail?

okonkolo on February 25, 2009 at 4:59 PM

Republic of Texas, baby.

TexasDan on February 26, 2009 at 1:20 PM

Is the Devil a real conservative? I’d vote for him if he were.

Vince on February 25, 2009 at 2:49 PM

You would vote for the Devil but you don’t like his surrogate already in the white house?

SKYFOX on February 26, 2009 at 2:12 PM

DAVID BROOKS = WORTHLESS IDIOT

If David Brooks has EVER made an intelligent point or argument in the last year I have yet to read/hear it.

TheMightyQuinn on February 26, 2009 at 2:13 PM

Where’s the earmark in the Omnibus for Barry White music to run on a loop every time Brooks, Frum, Parker or Sullivan park it in the guest’s chair, to talk about Barky’s successes so far, and about his “aura” too?

Teddy on February 26, 2009 at 3:02 PM

How does the GOP adapt to a political climate in which government, at least momentarily, is seen less as the problem than as the solution?

Easy. In 4 steps.

1. Advance an agenda of prosperity through reduced government spending, tax cuts and balanced budgets.

2. Dutifully predict that Obama’s policies will wreak havoc on the economy and everyone’s pocketbooks.

3. Wait for Obama’s policies to wreak havoc on the economy and everyone’s pocketbooks – which they will (and sing Baby It’s Cold Outside every time he blabs on about AGW in a time of Global Cooling).

4. Remind everyone that you predicted Obama’s policies would wreak havoc on the economy and everyone’s pocketbooks.

Basilsbest on February 26, 2009 at 4:44 PM

Why is Allah working on a conservative blog anyway? Isn’t there a nice Rino blog would be happy at?

Kjeil on February 26, 2009 at 11:20 PM

The danger of taking the first approach isn’t that we might have to wait a few years, it’s that if Obama succeeds in redefining the center, we might have to wait decades.

The oldest baby boomers are turning 63 in 2009. They’ll shortly begin consuming others’ resources via Social Security and Medicare, and they’ll begin disinvesting by drawing from their 401(k)’s and IRAs. I don’t think you’ll have to wait long to see the signs of strain in the Americans’ “federal” budget.

Kralizec on February 26, 2009 at 11:24 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3