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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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

FIFY Allah

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Flying Gadsden