Quotes of the day

posted at 10:35 pm on October 2, 2009 by Allahpundit

“So what is the theme of our history lesson? It is a story of remarkable volume and utter weakness. It is the story of media mavens who claim to represent a hidden majority but who in fact represent a mere niche — even in the Republican Party. It is a story as old as ‘The Wizard of Oz,’ of grand illusions and small men behind the curtain…

Over the years, I have asked many politicians what happens when Limbaugh and his colleagues attack. The story is always the same. Hundreds of calls come in. The receptionists are miserable. But the numbers back home do not move. There is no effect on the favorability rating or the re-election prospects. In the media world, he is a giant. In the real world, he’s not.

But this is not merely a story of weakness. It is a story of resilience. For no matter how often their hollowness is exposed, the jocks still reweave the myth of their own power. They still ride the airwaves claiming to speak for millions. They still confuse listeners with voters. And they are aided in this endeavor by their enablers. They are enabled by cynical Democrats, who love to claim that Rush Limbaugh controls the G.O.P. They are enabled by lazy pundits who find it easier to argue with showmen than with people whose opinions are based on knowledge. They are enabled by the slightly educated snobs who believe that Glenn Beck really is the voice of Middle America.”

***
Limbaugh brushed off the Times columnist’s criticism by asking ‘how many Americans know who David Brooks is?’ — a view supported by another popular conservative radio host.

Mark Levin, author of the best-selling ‘Liberty & Tyranny,’ asked two questions in an e-mail to POLTICO: ‘David Brooks? Does he run Brooks Brothers?’”

***
“Republicans lost the election in 2008, not because of misplaced faith in the power of talk radio; they lost because as the party they broke trust with the conservative values that most Americans on some level agree with. And these are the same values many of our radio commentators espouse. And while conservative talk radio may not stuff the ballot box, it does have an impact: from the immigration debates of 2007-08 to the tea parties, the health care debate, and what I am sure now will be the critical debate over Obama’s bungling of Afghanistan.

Men like Rush, Sean, Mark and Fred were sticking to their principles, and talking about those principles, like free markets, the rule of law, respect for life, federalism, long before the 2008 campaigns, and have continued to do so. They haven’t shifted with the political winds. The same cannot be said for Mr. Brooks.”

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

http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2009/10/scrubbed-ny-times-scrubs-their-olympic-fail-article-no-mention-of-barack-odogmas-and-rahms-quotesscr.html

SCRUBBED: NY Times Scrubs Their Olympic FAIL Article – No Mention Of Barack Odogma’s And Rahm’s Quotes…Scrub Fact That Cabinet Members And Senator Dick Durban Flew With BO . . .

ninjapirate on October 2, 2009 at 10:37 PM

Hey Brooks: That crease in Obama’s pants doesn’t look so perfect anymore, does it?

Norwegian on October 2, 2009 at 10:39 PM

I think Brooks has just gone totally nuts. Break out the straight-jacket, because he’s going to need it very soon.

At least he is starting to understand who he is:

They are enabled by the slightly educated snobs who believe that Glenn Beck really is the voice of Middle America.”

progressoverpeace on October 2, 2009 at 10:40 PM

David Brooks, member of the Beltway Elite, struggle with the fact that he is a part of a dying media. While the very people he attacks have audiences around the world, his opinions are only valuable as bird cage liners.

kingsjester on October 2, 2009 at 10:40 PM

Brooks is a lame-assed pansy…anybody who get’s a thrill out of Obama’s pants creases…and tries to be the token NYT ‘conservative’…well, that’s the entire story about this loser.

He’s tied himself to the mast of Obama and the NYT…two rapidly sinking ships. Good bye Dave…and good riddance. BTW, you’ll be the last to know.

AUINSC on October 2, 2009 at 10:40 PM

If conservative talk radio was irrelevant, Air America’s backers wouldn’t have blown so much money trying to counter it and no one would be talking about re-instating the “Fairness Doctrine” to try to shut it up.

29Victor on October 2, 2009 at 10:40 PM

BTW, if there was an opportunity to mold the GOP into the party of Brooks and McCain it was between the Spring and August of last year… in fact, I was disappointed they didn’t even try… it’s too late now…

ninjapirate on October 2, 2009 at 10:40 PM

On solid rock we stand. All other ground is sinking sand…

Fletch54 on October 2, 2009 at 10:41 PM

And they are and will continue to have an affect on the process. Beck helped to bring down van Jones ….perhaps not an earth shattering even but in put a wee bit of a hitch in obama’s get a long. Beck and others helped expose ACORN giving obama yet another limp and yes it had an affect on obama as most are aware of the ties that the two have to each other. We will defeat obama but it will be the death of 1,000 cuts and for that we need Beck….Rush and all the rest …..both big and small

Aggie95 on October 2, 2009 at 10:41 PM

“Men like Rush, Sean, Mark and Fred were sticking to their principles, and talking about those principles, like free markets, the rule of law, respect for life, federalism, long before the 2008 campaigns, and have continued to do so. They haven’t shifted with the political winds. The same cannot be said for Mr. Brooks.”

Hear, hear. Very well said.

Now, can everyone stop talking about Brooks, who is person of no consequence, at all?

progressoverpeace on October 2, 2009 at 10:42 PM

Rush has so little influence he was made an honorary member of the house class of 94…silly brooks

karasoth on October 2, 2009 at 10:43 PM

Shallow Brooks won’t leave a ripple in history.

Josiah on October 2, 2009 at 10:43 PM

” It is a story as old as ‘The Wizard of Oz,’ of grand illusions and small men behind the curtain…”

The definition of the leading Majority in Congress and the Executive Branch to a tee…

Seven Percent Solution on October 2, 2009 at 10:43 PM

I can’t believe Brooks wants to be taken seriously after waxing poetic about Obama’s pants. Take a vacation, you asslicking poser.

Emily M. on October 2, 2009 at 10:45 PM

McCain died in Vietnam, God rest his soul. His corpse should be cremated. And take that fat f*ck of a daughter with him. Amen.

Coronagold on October 2, 2009 at 10:46 PM

Rush has so little influence he was made an honorary member of the house class of 94…silly brooks

karasoth on October 2, 2009 at 10:43 PM

That was like yesterday

/sarc

Of course you proved that it meant he had even a little influence. /sarc

PWND

CWforFreedom on October 2, 2009 at 10:47 PM

Mr. Thompson dittos from Buffalo…

mjbrooks3 on October 2, 2009 at 10:48 PM

Thread Theme Music!

Styx,Grand Illusion!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW8TlrYhBxk&feature=related

canopfor on October 2, 2009 at 10:48 PM

“…the slightly educated snobs who believe that Glenn Beck really is the voice of Middle America.”

As opposed to the really, really educated snobs like David Brooks who really, really know better.

rrpjr on October 2, 2009 at 10:48 PM

America needs more Jeri Thompson.

Pablo on October 2, 2009 at 10:49 PM

Now, can everyone stop talking about Brooks, who is person of no consequence, at all?

progressoverpeace on October 2, 2009 at 10:42 PM

Okay. Let’s switch to a more important point – Why aren’t there any women in that list of sticking to principles? Do conservative women just not do radio?

misslizzi on October 2, 2009 at 10:49 PM

What a moron. Huckabigot split the conservative vote simply because he is a bigot. He couldn’t stand to see a Mormon in the white house because, well Huck is THE Christian leader and all.

Funny thing was that McShamnesty was willing to lie about Romney but refused to tell the truth about Obama. Is it any wonder people ran from McShamnesty?

csdeven on October 2, 2009 at 10:50 PM

ark Levin, author of the best-selling ‘Liberty & Tyranny,’ asked two questions in an e-mail to POLTICO: ‘David Brooks? Does he run Brooks Brothers?’”

I thought he was the Brooks Brother who invented the original “exquisite crease.” He turned his back on the family business when he saw that their products were being used as the uniform of choice for Neanderthal health care protesters.

Nosferightu on October 2, 2009 at 10:50 PM

Once again…

Brooksback Mountain

Daggett on October 2, 2009 at 10:50 PM

Sorry… Mrs. Thompson dittos from Buffalo…

mjbrooks3 on October 2, 2009 at 10:51 PM

I had no idea cabinet members and Sen Durbin flew there too!
even ore of an epic fail
BWAAHAA DOUBLEHAAA

ginaswo on October 2, 2009 at 10:52 PM

Conservative talk radio stopped amnesty when Republicans were going to support it.

Conservative talk radio has stopped ObamaCare so far in it’s tracks. If ObamaCare comes – it will be forced down the throats of an unwilling population that was educated to the evil by Conservative talk radio.

Brooks is a little man – he’s never done a damn thing in his life.

HondaV65 on October 2, 2009 at 10:52 PM

Me thinks,this is a pitch for Newspaper bailouts!

canopfor on October 2, 2009 at 10:52 PM

Brooks, Frum, et al, are not conservatives. They are absolutely full-blown liberals. Just because someone can claim to be something, doesn’t make it so.
My personal opinion is that Brooks & crew are complete liberals installed in their positions because of their ability to con with a straight face. The vast majority of live liberals cannot maintain decorum for any length of time. Brooks, and people like him are the select few who can. Thus we have supposed ‘token’ conservatives.
Primary mission accomplished, great unwashed duped into believing conservatives and Republicans are something that we’re not.

Lanceman on October 2, 2009 at 10:53 PM

Brooks has lost it. This arguement about conversvative talk radio is nothing more than jealousy and fear of losing what they never really had.

Next on their agenda………..conservative bloggers. As long as we have screwballs like Charles Johnson, who’s now in the business of smearing every other conservative blogger out there, who even goes as far trying to delete entire threads and posts that show his hypocrisy, things are going to get bloody on the internet.

Knucklehead on October 2, 2009 at 10:53 PM

David Brooks? Isn’t that the hermaphrodite that’s been in the news lately?

trapeze on October 2, 2009 at 10:53 PM

How many people know who in the hell “David Brooks” is?

I believe this is somewhat akin to penis envy.

Star20 on October 2, 2009 at 10:54 PM

Brooks would be a lot more credible if newspaper columnists weren’t such lightweights. I’m not even counting Dowd.

exception on October 2, 2009 at 10:54 PM

Soooooooooo,is it attack on the RightWing Radio once again,
and fairness doctrine needs another look see!

canopfor on October 2, 2009 at 10:54 PM

The party is leaderless right now because nobody has the guts to step outside the rigid parameters enforced by the radio jocks and create a new party identity. The party is losing because it has adopted a radio entertainer’s niche-building strategy, while abandoning the politician’s coalition-building strategy.

Nice try at spinning there Mr. Brooks. The “party” stepped away from conservative values, which is how it won in 2000 and 2004, to be defeated in 2008. The platform that they ran on in 2000 and 2004 was NOTHING like the one in 2008.
People don’t listen to talk radio because they don’t know what to think. It’s because they do think. And they wonder why it isn’t obvious to people on the Left, the mainstream media, and well, people like you.
Try reading “Liberty and Tyranny” – there is a reason that book sold more than a million copies. It’s not because we don’t know what we believe or think.
You should try writing a book and see how far you get with your ideas……. Oh….

JeffinOrlando on October 2, 2009 at 10:55 PM

I wouldn’t have known who David Brooks was, if I hadn’t seen this.

Star20 on October 2, 2009 at 10:55 PM

They haven’t shifted with the political winds. The same cannot be said for Mr. Brooks.

Bullseye.

ddrintn on October 2, 2009 at 10:56 PM

America needs more Jeri Thompson.

Pablo on October 2, 2009 at 10:49 PM

And Illinois needed less Jeri Ryan in 2006.

Lanceman on October 2, 2009 at 10:57 PM

Mr. Brooks should listen to the song “Country Boys Can Survive”.

SouthernGent on October 2, 2009 at 10:57 PM

Next on their agenda………..conservative bloggers.

Knucklehead on October 2, 2009 at 10:53 PM

Knucklehead: Sounds about right to me,re-targetting
their Search and Destroy Missions,the
Left that is!!:)

canopfor on October 2, 2009 at 10:58 PM

what I am sure now will be the critical debate over Obama’s bungling of Afghanistan.

This Mission Is Not McChrystal Clear

Our troops are not in Afghanistan for a social experiment [they are not suppose to be anyway].

Deep down, national-security conservatives know President Obama will not wage a decisive war against America’s enemies in Afghanistan. They also know that the young men and women we already have there are sitting ducks. Ralph Peters notes that our commanders, obsessed with avoiding civilian casualties, have imposed mind-boggling rules of engagement (ROE) on our forces, compelling them to retreat from contact with the enemy and denying them resort to overwhelming force — including the denial of artillery and air cover when they are under siege. As the Washington Examiner’s Byron York recently reported, even some Afghans are telling our commanders to “stop being so fussy . . . and kill the enemy.”

Yet the national-security Right is urging that we up the ante and put another 40,000 American lives at risk in this hostile theater, under this commander in chief and the same military leadership that dreamed up the ROE. Why? To attempt, under the rubric of “counterinsurgency,” the unlikeliest of social-engineering experiments: bringing big, modern, collectivist, secular government to a segmented, corrupt, tribal Islamic society — a society that has been at war with itself for three dozen years, which is to say, since the first futile effort to impose big, modern, collectivist, secular government ran smack into Afghanistan’s tribal Islamic ways.

Many on the right who urge the troop escalation want no part of the experiment. But they are hallucinating, too. They have convinced themselves that just because they would take the fight to our enemies, Barack Obama also is inclined to do so: the same Barack Obama who has decried American “militarism” since he was a Columbia undergrad, whose top foreign-policy priority has been to make nice with Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood, and who would have to overcome every fiber of his blame-America-first being to wage the war that needs to be waged. It is foolish to believe that, and it would be much worse than foolish to put American lives at risk based on that belief.

To be sure, a general’s military judgments are owed great deference, particularly by those of us without military backgrounds. But labeling McChrystal’s proposal a “military strategy” doesn’t make it one, and this proposal happens to be short on combat planning and long on sociological theory. On the latter, we don’t owe him any more deference than we do the ineffable Joe Biden.

When McChrystal does get around to Islam, on page 38 of his opus, he botches it:

A more forceful and offensive StratCom approach must be devised whereby [the insurgents] are exposed continually for their cultural and religious violations, anti-Islamic and indiscriminate use of violence and terror, and by concentrating on their vulnerabilities. These include their causing of the majority of civilian casualties, attacks on education, development projects, and government institutions, and flagrant contravention of the principles of the Koran. These vulnerabilities must be expressed in a manner that exploits the cultural and ideological separation of the [insurgents] from the vast majority of the Afghan population.

This remarkable passage comes after McChrystal repeatedly cautions readers that “We must never confuse the situation as it stands with the one we desire.” He should take his own advice.

MB4 on October 2, 2009 at 10:58 PM

and I duno as a homeless Dem but I do listen to El Rushbo since our primaries, despite his anti Clinton-ness. but when he starts going on about womens place in the home I have to turn it off, but David Brooks strikes me like that Kathleen Parker and Sally Quinn, the lefts Parker, who said about Hill in 92 virtually the same things Parker said about Sarah, elite snobs who look down on flyover America, they may as well be liberals IMO..

I think Rush and Levin are very important because they let people hear others who feel the sam way ie the caller Susan form Glendale, video/audio on my blog, who called into Rush the other day, I feel just like her I a CONVINCED millions of us do…

but I think Rush hurt GOP electoral turnout on Nov 4th, but he was bein true to his own views and he didnt like MAC so I am nto one to judge that

but were I a GOP person I would apportion some responsibility for depressing turnout to OP Chaos and MAC bashing but that can b said of blogs too, cough

I tried to rally everyone I could to vote MAC but frankly more DEMS I know went out and voted MAC than GOPers I know, they were depressed after MACs campaign staff let Sarah walk into that Couric trap TWICE and they did nothing to rehab her image after that

seeing what the MAC campaign staff are saying today ie schmidt, I think THAT is the person to blame for losing, had Sarah not been Couriced I think 10 M more GOP voters wouldve come out and voted and we wouldve won

anywho thats my opinion I think Rush and Levin are important but they can swing things to a loss too, but if they are being true to themselves maybe that is the aprtys fault for nomianting MAC, more and more I think TOTUS had a hand in that really

ginaswo on October 2, 2009 at 10:58 PM

I honestly have no idea who that Brooks guy is. Never heard of him before I started visiting HA.

txag92 on October 2, 2009 at 10:58 PM

Brooks is busy getting his thigh rubbed by some male politician and admiring his mural to Obama to even pay attention to the concerns of conservatives.

Talk radio has had a major impact especially with Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Mark Levin.
These three are vital because they are our only outlet to vociferously address our concerns, frustrations, and positions to the news and politics of the day against the MSM, and the idiot GOP/democrats in Washington.
I’m glad they are on our side, and Brooks is an imbecile of no intellect nor concern.

cubachi on October 2, 2009 at 10:59 PM

BTW, if there was an opportunity to mold the GOP into the party of Brooks and McCain it was between the Spring and August of last year… in fact, I was disappointed they didn’t even try… it’s too late now…

ninjapirate on October 2, 2009 at 10:40 PM

Not after World Ports Dubai, and Nominee Meyers, and amnesty for illegal immigrants. From mid 2005 through about mid 2008 or early 2009, the Republican Party made the conscious decision to try to appeal to new friends by abandoning their old ones. It’s not a new phenomenon, Aesop told of it and its consequences thousands of years ago. The Republicans, especially Johnny Mac, earned their just desserts over the course of that period, as underwhelmed conservatives and small-l libertarians stayed at home (or sometimes even cast votes for Pelosi-Obama-Reid).

When adults who haven’t pursued office all their lives run; when such people are willing to put in the hard work of wearing out their shoes and tires to keep campaign costs down, actually meeting and interacting with their would-be constituents in the process; when such people run on a pledge of 1 or 2 terms, maximum, because they don’t want to be in Washington for the rest of their lives; when such people exemplify that they trust their constituents to know how best to live our own lives, and as a consequence are ready to take out the Debt Star hanging over our heads – then we’re going to start to recover from the “current” mess, which dates all the way back to the start of these monster programs.

Pardon me if I’m not exactly holding my breath. We want a Cincinnatus even more than we want a Reagan, I think – but none of us are exactly springing out of our seats to answer that call. Even if there’s no one else who can do it for us.

Blacksmith on October 2, 2009 at 11:01 PM

According to the series supernatural, Palin will be president in 2014…(the liberal kooks on the staff are having some fun with it I guess)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-S8JJCQlpp4

TimeTraveler on October 2, 2009 at 11:01 PM

What I really want to hear,

is ONE thing that Hopey has accomplished!

Instead of the LEFT b*tchin about the Right,
jus sayin!!

canopfor on October 2, 2009 at 11:01 PM

Okay. Let’s switch to a more important point – Why aren’t there any women in that list of sticking to principles? Do conservative women just not do radio?

misslizzi on October 2, 2009 at 10:49 PM

Good point, especially since the conservative women have been doing a good deal of the work. BTW, Liz Cheney was just on Greta. But radio is a little light on conservative women, isn’t it? Laura Ingraham certainly should have been in there, but who else is there for the women. Tammy Bruce is pretty good. Ann Coulter has been a rock for years, but she doesn’t do radio, does she?

progressoverpeace on October 2, 2009 at 11:03 PM

As always, the faux-conservative revisionist-history version of the primary race leading up to the 2008 election is a fiction, built to avoid a couple of truths.

1. Open primaries bring non-conservative republican candidates to the forefront.
2. It was the caucuses, and an amount of colusion between the the Huckabee and McCain campaigns, that doomed the Romney campaign.
3. The media loved McCain, and marginalized everyone else.
4. Romney spent time and money answering the idea that he was ‘not a Christian’ or ‘less than Christian.’

Telling the story, without telling the whole story, is fundamentally dishonest.

massrighty on October 2, 2009 at 11:03 PM

Oh btw, Apparently Palin orders the bombing of Houston in 2014.

TimeTraveler on October 2, 2009 at 11:03 PM

ninjapirate on October 2, 2009 at 10:37 PM

The Corrupt Media Establishment strikes again.

TheBigOldDog on October 2, 2009 at 11:04 PM

It is a story of remarkable volume and utter weakness.

Oh yea… so weak they are talked about non stop. They even got the President of the United States whining about them picking on the leader of the free world….

Hog Wild on October 2, 2009 at 11:05 PM

Today’s column is for all hawkish Americans currently wrestling with looming doubts about the pointlessness of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan and clubbing those doubts down with the much-mentioned perils of leaving Afghanistan to “the terrorists.” In short, it’s about how to “lose” Afghanistan and win the war.

And what war would that be? Since 9/11, the answer to this question has eluded our leaders, civilian and military, but it remains the missing link to a cogent U.S. foreign policy.

It is not, as our presidents vaguely invoke, a war against “terrorism,” ” radicalism” or “extremism”; and it is not, as the current hearts-and-minds-obsessed Afghanistan commander calls it, “a struggle to gain the support of the (Afghan) people.” It is something more specific than presidents describe, and it is something larger than the outlines of Iraq or Afghanistan. The war that has fallen to our generation is to halt the spread of Islamic law (Sharia) in the West, whether driven by the explosive belts of violent jihad, the morality-laundering of petro-dollars or decisive demographic shifts.

This mission demands a new line of battle around the West itself, one supported by a multilevel strategy in which the purpose of military action is not to nation-build in the Islamic world, but to nation-save in the Western one. Secure the borders, for starters, something “war president” George W. Bush should have done but never did. Eliminate the nuclear capabilities of jihadist nations such as Iran, another thing George W. Bush should have done but never did — Pakistan’s, too. Destroy jihadist actors, camps and havens wherever and whenever needed (the strategy in place and never executed by Bill Clinton in the run-up to 9/11). But not by basing, supplying and supporting a military colossus in Islamic, landlocked Central Asia. It is time, as Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely (USA ret.) first told me last April, to “let Afghanistan go.” It is not in our interests to civilize it.

But we would “lose face” in leaving Afghanistan, supporters say. News flash: We lose face every day in Afghanistan executing a costly, impotent policy based on massive state bribery, the public devaluation of American life (“population protection” trumps “force protection”), and deference to Islamic custom, as when women Marines are ordered to wind head scarves under their helmets for missions. And the point of this mass American supplication? To win a local popularity contest in which the only competition is the Taliban. Earth to military geniuses: The people are already with you, or they’re against you.

In other words, it’s time to toss the policy of standing up Sharia states such as Iraq and Afghanistan onto that ash heap of history. It’s time to shore up liberty in the West, which, while we are stretched and distracted by Eastern adventures, is currently contracting in its accommodations of Sharia, a legal system best described as sacralized totalitarianism.

MB4 on October 2, 2009 at 11:07 PM

It must be tough to come up with material for a weekly column. I know that Rush and Tony Snow have said so. And David Brooks has indicated as much.

JKahn913 on October 2, 2009 at 11:09 PM

MB4 on October 2, 2009 at 11:07 PM

What’s the matter, you couldn’t figure out how to make the text blink too?

TheBigOldDog on October 2, 2009 at 11:11 PM

You know who had an awesome response this morning to the Brooks Debacle? Glenn Beck. Oh well.

I_C on October 2, 2009 at 11:12 PM

David Brooks taking on Limbaugh reminds me of my corgi. I have three mastiffs, and every so often the corgi takes advantage of their good nature and backs them off. But when the pack is chasing something, the little dog gets out of the way or she gets stepped on. She’ll happily yap on behind them, too.

Brooks is just such a ‘conservative’. Happy to make noise and let his betters ignore his yapping as insignificant noise. He’ll skulk away as soon as integrity demands action, happy to let the big dogs take the fight, and then run along afterwards to be part of the ‘winning team’ for the sake of political expedience.

Right now he’s in the path on oncoming big dogs and he’s going to be paw fodder. In 2010, after the Republican sweep, he’ll say it was ‘his advice’ to the GOP that brought down the House.

Yappy dogs are so annoying.

Carolina Kat on October 2, 2009 at 11:12 PM

David Brooks…Ummm ya isn’t he the chief idiot that some village was looking for years ago. I thought I saw him on a milk carton once but I threw it away. I guess he is that insignificant.

0321_GUY on October 2, 2009 at 11:13 PM

This mission demands a new line of battle around the West itself, one supported by a multilevel strategy in which the purpose of military action is not to nation-build in the Islamic world, but to nation-save in the Western one. Secure the borders, for starters, something “war president” George W. Bush should have done but never did. Eliminate the nuclear capabilities of jihadist nations such as Iran, another thing George W. Bush should have done but never did — Pakistan’s, too. Destroy jihadist actors, camps and havens wherever and whenever needed (the strategy in place and never executed by Bill Clinton in the run-up to 9/11). But not by basing, supplying and supporting a military colossus in Islamic, landlocked Central Asia. It is time, as Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely (USA ret.) first told me last April, to “let Afghanistan go.” It is not in our interests to civilize it.

MB4 on October 2, 2009 at 11:07 PM

I agree with all that, but the West, and the US specifically, doesn’t have the guts or the brains to do what really needs to be done. If we would, then I would have no problem pulling out of Afghanistan and reordering our military offensive, but since that would only result in us doing nothing and allowing the arab/persian/muslim enemy to grow unabated in the vacuum we would leave, we must stay there and work with little we allow ourselves from there. I would dispense with all concept of building the nations – just maintaining our presence to serve our own security interests, but that presence is important until we find the brains to actually do the required job.

We could end all the threats from the arab/persian/muslim world in about an instant, by retaking the gulf oil fields and totally defanging them (politically, financially and militarily – in one fell swoop), but as we refuse to do that we are stuck in our current situation. Pakistan and Iran cannot be left on their own and need a close US military presence, for the time when we get our heads straight to do the job that will need to be done.

progressoverpeace on October 2, 2009 at 11:14 PM

WHY is David Brooks still talking????

cynccook on October 2, 2009 at 11:16 PM

Jeri gave Brooks a first class beat-down… BRAVO

phreshone on October 2, 2009 at 11:19 PM

but as we refuse to do that we are stuck in our current situation.

progressoverpeace on October 2, 2009 at 11:14 PM

Many on the right who urge the troop escalation want no part of the experiment. But they are hallucinating, too. They have convinced themselves that just because they would take the fight to our enemies, Barack Obama also is inclined to do so: the same Barack Obama who has decried American “militarism” since he was a Columbia undergrad, whose top foreign-policy priority has been to make nice with Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood, and who would have to overcome every fiber of his blame-America-first being to wage the war that needs to be waged. It is foolish to believe that, and it would be much worse than foolish to put American lives at risk based on that belief.

To be sure, a general’s military judgments are owed great deference, particularly by those of us without military backgrounds. But labeling McChrystal’s proposal a “military strategy” doesn’t make it one, and this proposal happens to be short on combat planning and long on sociological theory. On the latter, we don’t owe him any more deference than we do the ineffable Joe Biden.
- Andrew C. McCarthy

MB4 on October 2, 2009 at 11:20 PM

Self-important assclown

Cicero43 on October 2, 2009 at 11:21 PM

Every now and then, Brooks wants to get noticed. And every time he is feeling so lonely, he decides to buzz around Limbaugh’s head like a mosquito. Then, he hits the cocktail party and all the libs from the MSM pat their lap dog on the head. For a moment, Brooks feels relevant. But the feeling quickly fades.

pearson on October 2, 2009 at 11:22 PM

David Who?
I heard there was a David Brooks that got sucked into one of Air Force One’s engines as obama boarded the plane…evidently, he was still attached and suffering from anal poisoning.

HornetSting on October 2, 2009 at 11:25 PM

Okay. Let’s switch to a more important point – Why aren’t there any women in that list of sticking to principles? Do conservative women just not do radio?

misslizzi on October 2, 2009 at 10:49 PM

I guess you never heard of Laura Ingraham who is on conservative talk radio after Mark Levin. Plenty of conservative women on tv.

docdave on October 2, 2009 at 11:26 PM

I have to say that I am amazed by the reaction of the likes of Brooks to the last year in American politics.

The Republicans nominated a vaunted moderate, McCain, who had spent the last several years attacking Bush and “reaching across” the aisle, even as Bush himself did the same thing. McCain lost. And we lost big time in Congress.

And the lesson from this is we need more of the likes of McCain? Had Bush ran the same sort of campaign in 2004 as McCain did in 2008 we would be talking about President Kerry right now.

The Republicans do need a change – but they need charismatic conservatives, and especially ones that recognize the State Media as their enemy.

18-1 on October 2, 2009 at 11:28 PM

The Brooks bark but the caravan moves on.

Sounds like a ghostly little chihuahua in a wavering desert mirage…

Shamnesty was STOPPED In great part due to this impotent bunch of talk radio nobodies… using this ineffectual medium, Dave.

(Lot of creepy Daves lately…)

profitsbeard on October 2, 2009 at 11:28 PM

Shamnesty was STOPPED In great part due to this impotent bunch of talk radio nobodies… using this ineffectual medium, Dave.

profitsbeard on October 2, 2009 at 11:28 PM

And let’s not forget about someone Brooks has never heard of….Van Jones.

pearson on October 2, 2009 at 11:31 PM

Shamnesty was STOPPED In great part due to this impotent bunch of talk radio nobodies…

profitsbeard on October 2, 2009 at 11:28 PM

Let’s not forget the Harriet Miers debacle.

Lanceman on October 2, 2009 at 11:32 PM

Oh yea… so weak they are talked about non stop. They even got the President of the United States whining about them picking on the leader of the free world….

Hog Wild on October 2, 2009 at 11:05 PM

Hey, all Obama is trying to do is to move our nation from a republic to a socialist technocracy, it really isn’t fair that people are criticizing him for it. And is there anything truly more conservative then a radical leftist, authoritarian state? I mean, have you seen the crease in his pants? –David Brooks.

18-1 on October 2, 2009 at 11:33 PM

And Illinois needed less Jeri Ryan in 2006.

Lanceman on October 2, 2009 at 10:57 PM

And Obama needs more Jeri-curl in 2009.

1921 C DRUM on October 2, 2009 at 11:33 PM

And why does Brooks think Obama is having such a hard time with his health care takeover? Blistering editorials from Brooks and the NYT? Maybe its all those ads from BigPharma? Or all that critical news coverage from NBC and CBS?

pearson on October 2, 2009 at 11:35 PM

And Obama needs more Jeri-curl in 2009.

1921 C DRUM on October 2, 2009 at 11:33 PM

You know, I was gonna say something with Jeri-Curl…
Great minds I guess:)

Lanceman on October 2, 2009 at 11:35 PM

AP, Ditto.

aigle on October 2, 2009 at 11:35 PM

WHEN OH WHEN WILL HOT AIR RECOGNIZE DR SAVAGE???

The man has been banned from Britain, Hot Air ignores it.

You ignore the Savage ban story at your own peril.

Ugly on October 2, 2009 at 11:36 PM

David Who?
I heard there was a David Brooks that got sucked into one of Air Force One’s engines as obama boarded the plane…evidently, he was still attached and suffering from anal poisoning.

HornetSting on October 2, 2009 at 11:25 PM

HornetSting: This poisoning you speak of,from the
engines,ahem,hehe!!:)

canopfor on October 2, 2009 at 11:38 PM

You ignore the Savage ban story at your own peril.

Ugly on October 2, 2009 at 11:36 PM

He tells it like it is….apparently, that is not allowed, those damn back benchers….

HornetSting on October 2, 2009 at 11:39 PM

HornetSting: This poisoning you speak of,from the
engines,ahem,hehe!!:)

canopfor on October 2, 2009 at 11:38 PM

Ahem, apparently, obama stopped too quickly and David Brooks got ‘sucked in’.

HornetSting on October 2, 2009 at 11:40 PM

(Lot of creepy Daves lately…)

Ya, that other D guy can go back to being the village idiot (newmajority) as well. I guess common sense has thrown out the window. Why do people think these two village idiots, among others, are significant or pay any attention to these two?

0321_GUY on October 2, 2009 at 11:40 PM

“There is no effect on the favorability rating or the re-election prospects.”

Really? Is that why Rush is credited with bringing about the Republication Revolution of 1994?

echosyst on October 2, 2009 at 11:40 PM

Next on their agenda………..conservative bloggers. As long as we have screwballs like Charles Johnson, who’s now in the business of smearing every other conservative blogger out there, who even goes as far trying to delete entire threads and posts that show his hypocrisy, things are going to get bloody on the internet.

Knucklehead on October 2, 2009 at 10:53 PM

Yes it will get bloody. But in the final analysis, when the smoke clears, they will be choking on meat pipe and we will be laughing all the way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Geochelone on October 2, 2009 at 11:41 PM

HornetSting: This poisoning you speak of,from the
engines,ahem,hehe!!:)

canopfor on October 2, 2009 at 11:38 PM
Ahem, apparently, obama stopped too quickly and David Brooks got ’sucked in’.

HornetSting on October 2, 2009 at 11:40 PM

HornetSting: Ya that tends to happen when your near the
in-board engines!!hehe:)

canopfor on October 2, 2009 at 11:42 PM

WHEN OH WHEN WILL HOT AIR RECOGNIZE DR SAVAGE???

Ugly on October 2, 2009 at 11:36 PM

When the Vichy Right starts attacking him, I guess. If you can convince MegaMac or Brooks or Baby Buckley or Frum or any of those faux conservatives to start ripping on Savage then we’ll have threads on him, I guess.

progressoverpeace on October 2, 2009 at 11:42 PM

HornetSting on October 2, 2009 at 11:39 PM

Apparently it’s not smiled upon here, either.

Ugly on October 2, 2009 at 11:42 PM

Ahem, apparently, obama stopped too quickly and David Brooks got ’sucked in’.

HornetSting on October 2, 2009 at 11:40 PM

HornetSting: Ya that tends to happen when your near the
in-board engines!!hehe:)

canopfor on October 2, 2009 at 11:42 PM

No, see, David Brooks was already ‘in’ obama and, as obama bounded the steps, David, very ill from anal poisoning, was unable to hang on and thus, sucked into an engine.
That’s what I heard, anyway.

HornetSting on October 2, 2009 at 11:44 PM

Dang Ugly… relax man. Take a deep breath…. Now Shaddap. LOL

Guys check out Joe Dan of JoeDanMedia… The Conservative Rocker/Provocateur…. has a guitar in one hand while he head slaps the Libnuts with the other hand. He’s not good, he’s exceptional… A cross between Pink Floyd & Rush (Limbaugh) LOL.

No joke.. this guy is for real.

deedtrader on October 2, 2009 at 11:44 PM

Well,I’m off to SleepCity,its been a hoot once again,goodnight everyone!:)

canopfor on October 2, 2009 at 11:44 PM

HornetSting on October 2, 2009 at 11:40 PM

You know? In my entire life, I’ve never seen a hornet. (TV and pictures don’t count) Only paper wasps, yeller jackets and various bees.

Lanceman on October 2, 2009 at 11:45 PM

Ahem, apparently, obama stopped too quickly and David Brooks got ’sucked in’.

HornetSting on October 2, 2009 at 11:40 PM

HornetSting: Ya that tends to happen when your near the
in-board engines!!hehe:)

canopfor on October 2, 2009 at 11:42 PM
No, see, David Brooks was already ‘in’ obama and, as obama bounded the steps, David, very ill from anal poisoning, was unable to hang on and thus, sucked into an engine.
That’s what I heard, anyway.

HornetSting on October 2, 2009 at 11:44 PM

HornetSting: Were gonna get banned,hehehehe:) Nite:)

canopfor on October 2, 2009 at 11:46 PM

‘cept for that AMC Hornet back in the ’70s.

Lanceman on October 2, 2009 at 11:47 PM

HornetSting on October 2, 2009 at 11:44 PM

They must have been flying United, that is until Barry’s colon relaxed and his grip on Brooks let loose. Whooosh right into that engine. Bwwaahhh

Geochelone on October 2, 2009 at 11:47 PM

Dang Ugly… relax man. Take a deep breath…. Now Shaddap. LOL

deedtrader on October 2, 2009 at 11:44 PM

Who are you and why should I shaddup? After ONE post, I should shaddap?

Don’t like anyone mentioning Savage? Is that it? Am I being provocative by the very mention of him?

Ugly on October 2, 2009 at 11:47 PM

They haven’t shifted with the political winds. The same cannot be said for Mr. Brooks.”

Brooks is nothing more than the weak kneed Rhino that liberal elites allow to come to their parties so they can point at him and say “see, even the Republicans agree with us now”.

Baxter Greene on October 2, 2009 at 11:48 PM

America needs more Jeri Thompson.

Pablo on October 2, 2009 at 10:49 PM
And Illinois needed less Jeri Ryan in 2006.

Lanceman on October 2, 2009 at 10:57 PM

+1

That was the first thing I thought of at that line, too. Ironically, 7 of 9, who rebelled against the collective, unwittingly delivered us to it.

Can I get an “Assimilate this!” ?


Geek turned up to 11.

CPL 310 on October 2, 2009 at 11:48 PM

HornetSting on October 2, 2009 at 11:44 PM

Brooks should have told Barry to use Poly-Grip instead of KY.

Geochelone on October 2, 2009 at 11:49 PM

You forgot Savage, Laura Ingraham, Crowly and Liddy.

You ignore the Savage ban story at your own peril.
Ugly on October 2, 2009 at 11:36 PM

Yes, isn’t it odd how every conservative blog and talk show ignores the banned in Britain story of Michael Savage.
I believe Michelle mentioned his plight once or twice.
It should be a front page issue for everyone that claims to appreciate democratic freedoms.

FireBlogger on October 2, 2009 at 11:49 PM

CPL 310 on October 2, 2009 at 11:48 PM

You’re the first person to understand this. I’ve been saying since the primaries to anyone who’d listen, “If it weren’t for seven of nine, you wouldn’t have heard the name Brak Insane Nobama.

Lanceman on October 2, 2009 at 11:50 PM

It should be a front page issue for everyone that claims to appreciate democratic freedoms.

FireBlogger on October 2, 2009 at 11:49 PM

Damn straight.

Can’t wait for my signed copy of BiB

Ugly on October 2, 2009 at 11:51 PM

The Republicans do need a change – but they need charismatic conservatives, and especially ones that recognize the State Media as their enemy.

18-1 on October 2, 2009 at 11:28 PM

“Charismatic,” hell, I’ll settle for one (preferably more, at Congressional levels) who doesn’t act like a hypocrite in public pronouncements vs private affairs, and is quick-witted enough to give as well as they take when the press arm of the DNC tries throwing debates and interviews. The first is pretty easy if one is honest in public from the start, and can resist the urge to legislate their own ideals for private affairs. The second is a bit harder, but not impossibly so, and practice helps. An ability to do those two things becomes charismatic, simply from the candidate’s confidence in their own convictions. Look at Hannan and Churchill, as well as Reagan.

Blacksmith on October 2, 2009 at 11:53 PM

Comment pages: 1 2