David Brooks totally bummed that centrism is in disfavor

posted at 3:35 pm on April 23, 2010 by Allahpundit

It seems that something very polarizing indeed happened circa January 2009. And luckily for us, he’s identified the culprit. No, not Barack Obama.

“History,” my friends. History.

The country had just elected a man who vowed to move past the old polarities, who valued discussion and who clearly had some sympathy with both the Burkean and Hamiltonian impulses. He staffed his administration with brilliant pragmatists whose views overlapped with mine, who differed only in that they have more faith in technocratic planning.

Yet things have not worked out for those of us in the broad middle. Politics is more polarized than ever. The two parties have drifted further to the extremes. The center is drained and depressed.

What happened?

History happened. The administration came into power at a time of economic crisis. This led it, in the first bloom of self-confidence, to attempt many big projects all at once. Each of these projects may have been defensible in isolation, but in combination they created the impression of a federal onslaught.

Jennifer Rubin and DrewM are tearing him to shreds for using weasel words here instead of manning up and flatly admitting that he was wrong about The One — wrong about him being a “pragmatist” who’d address the country’s most pressing problems first, wrong about him being “moderate” who’d rein in spending while pushing for more effective, not necessarily bigger, government. The thing is, I thought Brooks already had admitted that. Remember? March 2, 2009, mere weeks after the inauguration:

Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was. His words are responsible; his character is inspiring. But his actions betray a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice. As Clive Crook, an Obama admirer, wrote in The Financial Times, the Obama budget “contains no trace of compromise. It makes no gesture, however small, however costless to its larger agenda, of a bipartisan approach to the great questions it addresses. It is a liberal’s dream of a new New Deal.”

Moderates now find themselves betwixt and between. On the left, there is a president who appears to be, as Crook says, “a conviction politician, a bold progressive liberal.” On the right, there are the Rush Limbaugh brigades. The only thing more scary than Obama’s experiment is the thought that it might fail and the political power will swing over to a Republican Party that is currently unfit to wield it.

Those of us in the moderate tradition — the Hamiltonian tradition that believes in limited but energetic government — thus find ourselves facing a void. We moderates are going to have to assert ourselves. We’re going to have to take a centrist tendency that has been politically feckless and intellectually vapid and turn it into an influential force.

He knows who Obama is — or at least, he does now — and he explicitly says in today’s piece that “the Democrats, either wittingly or unwittingly, decided to put the big government-versus-small government debate at the center of American life.” He’s not looking to absolve them of responsibility for horrifying half the country with their agenda; his point about “history” is simply that they’ve done this before under other presidents and that, alas, Captain Pantscrease’s tenure has turned out to be no different. If you want to knock him for something, knock him for recycling his tedious scylla-and-charybdis passion play in which the Voices of Reason are forever beset by wingnut zombies of all stripes. That’s one of the most irritating things about him, Frum, Kathleen Parker, Christopher Buckley and the rest of the center-right punditocracy. Nothing wrong with not being an ideologue — no self-respecting Chamberlain-esque RINO candy ass would say otherwise — but the endless, and endlessly smug, sighing self-pity over having to put up with partisans is alienating. Most people who feel strongly enough about politics to get involved with it are ideologues. Make peace with it.

In a way, I think Brooks is more bummed about Obama than the righty base is. As Krauthammer said elsewhere today, “Where there are no expectations, there is no disappointment,” and there were noooooo expectations for The One among grassroots conservatives. He is who we thought he was. For Brooks, though, who gazed into his eyes and thought he was staring into an ideological mirror, imagine the heart-ache. This was the guy who was going to prove that governance by elite intellectual pragmatists, unburdened by the ideological baggage to which the hoi polloi clings, was not only possible but superior. In Brooksy’s own memorable words, “So, that’s why it’s important he doesn’t f*** this up.” And now he’s gone and f***ed it up royally. Double heart-ache.


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

The Brookses of this world appear never to have met a really good car salesman.

The kind who will sell you the worst piece of crap he needs to move off the lot, and send you home utterly convinced that it’s what you wanted in the first place.

And you’ll even remain so for a while, and you might even tell your friends that yes, it was absolutely the right car, even a year later when you know you’ve been had and you’re spending your time browsing eBay and Autotrader looking for a way to get rid of it.

This is the price we pay for being force-fed our opinions by individuals seemingly without real-world experience in human nature.

JEM on April 23, 2010 at 4:27 PM

But on the social issues, Dems are more libertarian than the GOP.
Jimbo3 on April 23, 2010 at 4:00 PM

Not remotely, but it’s not surprising that you miss that.

Dems don’t hold libertarian ‘government butt-out’ positions on social issues – they want an active government that forces their view on social issues upon everyone else.

If a business or church doesn’t want to hire gays, chooses to decline to do business with gays or promoting gays – the libertarian view would say “ok, I may disagree, but that’s their right to determine who they hire or don’t, who they do business with or don’t, etc”. The Dem view is to have the government force and fine them into submission to propogate a social ideal that the individual or business is diametrically opposed to.

Businesses deciding whether to provide benefits to same-sex partners of employees – what is the libertarian view, and what is the Dem view? If the business decides not to, what would the Dems want government to do about it? What would libertarians want government to do about it?

Gun control?

etc.

There are two questions stated above; what would Dems want government to do about something, and what would libertarians want government to do about it?

The answer is rarely the same.

Midas on April 23, 2010 at 4:27 PM

lorien1973 on April 23, 2010 at 4:23 PM

No, it was where we poured countless taxpayer funds into Africa. And implemented No Child Left Behind. And pushed amnesty for illegal aliens. And repeatedly called Islam a “religion of peace”. And tried to further regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

amerpundit on April 23, 2010 at 4:28 PM

I missed the right wing crazy part? You mean the one where bush grew the federal government? And added entitlements? That one?
lorien1973 on April 23, 2010 at 4:23 PM

As with most words, liberals literally do not know the meaning of the word “compromise.” What they really mean is something like “incrementalism.”

Bush increases central government control at one pace; Obama increases central government control at a faster pace. So, Communists offer to “meet in the middle” and act like they’re chopping off an arm and giving it to you.

“They should thank me!”

logis on April 23, 2010 at 4:29 PM

Go lick your crease, Brooks.

HornetSting on April 23, 2010 at 4:31 PM

Not remotely, but it’s not surprising that you miss that.

Dems don’t hold libertarian ‘government butt-out’ positions on social issues – they want an active government that forces their view on social issues upon everyone else.

If a business or church doesn’t want to hire gays, chooses to decline to do business with gays or promoting gays – the libertarian view would say “ok, I may disagree, but that’s their right to determine who they hire or don’t, who they do business with or don’t, etc”. The Dem view is to have the government force and fine them into submission to propogate a social ideal that the individual or business is diametrically opposed to.

Businesses deciding whether to provide benefits to same-sex partners of employees – what is the libertarian view, and what is the Dem view? If the business decides not to, what would the Dems want government to do about it? What would libertarians want government to do about it?

Gun control?

etc.

There are two questions stated above; what would Dems want government to do about something, and what would libertarians want government to do about it?

The answer is rarely the same.

Midas on April 23, 2010 at 4:27 PM

–Where is there any requirement that forces busineses to give health insurance to gay partners or forces businesses to do business with gays? There are more and more requirements that businesses can’t discriminate against gays because they’re gay, but that’s different from saying that they have to do certain things because someone is gay.

Jimbo3 on April 23, 2010 at 4:32 PM

This was the guy who was going to prove that governance by elite intellectual pragmatists, unburdened by the ideological baggage to which the hoi polloi clings, was not only possible but superior.

Excellent!

scalleywag on April 23, 2010 at 4:34 PM

GM is no longer (I think) owned by the government,

Jimbo3 on April 23, 2010 at 4:14 PM
61% owned by the Treasury Department. Quoth:

…..

amerpundit on April 23, 2010 at 4:21 PM

–Debt (including loans) are different than equity (including shares of stock and the equivalent). What amount of GM equity does the goverment own.

Jimbo3 on April 23, 2010 at 4:35 PM

***

It would be nice if it would be one of pragmatic means instead of just simply returning to right wing crazy. That doesn’t help anyone or anything. Outside of that social circle of those in power, that is.

Moesart on April 23, 2010 at 4:22 PM

What’s pragmatic? I find that to be a weasle word to justify the current nanny state. Time to roll it back my friend. Put everyone on notice that unless you’re not able bodied, you look to the concentric circles of assistance: close family, extended family, friends, association communities, and geographical communities. Only then should government be stepping.

Roll back the nonsense grant-giving. Case in point, which I bet exists all over the country, my area (Cincinnati, OH) just closed down a 10-year federal “empowerment zone” entity. Led by a wholly unqualified moron paying himself $170,000 a year, the entity blew through $25 million and accomplished virtually nothing in promoting inner-city economic development. Total fiasco. Sadly, the local paper’s biggest regret is that the entity never got around to lending as much as $130 million that it conceivably had access to. To my way of thinking, U.S. taxpayers are somewhat lucky that the entity and its leadership was so incompetent that it couldn’t blow through another $130 million.

Lucky for me, the local paper picks up Brooks’s columns as one of the “conservative” voices that we get to read.

Sigh.

BuckeyeSam on April 23, 2010 at 4:37 PM

After Nov. will Brooks take vacation and motor home across the country and perhaps find his epiphany?

Speakup on April 23, 2010 at 4:37 PM

His words are responsible; his character is inspiring.

Yet it turned out they were just that, words. Eloquently spoken words.

scalleywag on April 23, 2010 at 4:37 PM

Allah sometimes your post make me pull my hair out but this one is a homerun!

Big Orange on April 23, 2010 at 4:38 PM

Progressive conservatism is Centrist Socialism.

maverick muse on April 23, 2010 at 4:38 PM

tried to further regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

amerpundit

Not Bush. All that corruption and ruin of our economy was happening under his watch. “Regulation” was given only lip-service.

maverick muse on April 23, 2010 at 4:41 PM

Strictly anecdotal, but I did polling for the RNC many yrs ago, and a vast majority of ppl will tell you they are moderate on issues. However, when you get to specific ideological views, i.e. wars, abortion, drugs, spending, you find pretty clear-cut views. I would say that it ran about 70-30 that most ppl fleshed out as pretty conservative. Keep in mind, some of these ppl had earlier in the questioning had described themselves as liberal or moderate, but weren’t really liberal or moderate, at all.

di butler on April 23, 2010 at 4:43 PM

Brooks is a moron. All you needed to know about Obama was reflected in the Jeremiah Wright video clips.

No reasonable person remains in a church like that for 20 years unless he’s a crackpot. Heck, Oprah left it in the mid-1990s fearing it would tarnish her brand.

Wilful blindness.

BuckeyeSam on April 23, 2010 at 4:44 PM

GWB executive ordered the office of the Treasury Secretary to be AUTONOMOUS and beholden to no one, certainly not to Congress. Bush sold out the US while he cranked up his own version of a war to end all wars with his crazed progressive propaganda to “win the hearts and minds of the enemy”. AS IF any jihadist’s heart and mind is won over by US troops ordered to abide by the corrupt Karzai 12 PC Rules of Engagement meant to keep us from winning anything beyond the lost lives limbs and faculties of our volunteer troops.

maverick muse on April 23, 2010 at 4:45 PM

Jimbo3 on April 23, 2010 at 4:35 PM

So we’re supposed to believe we’re not moving towards Central control of the Automotive, Healthcare and Financial industries?

Chip on April 23, 2010 at 4:48 PM

I’d tell David Brooks what to do except that I’m not @ Ace of Spades HQ.

maverick muse on April 23, 2010 at 4:49 PM

Chip on April 23, 2010 at 4:48 PM

You can trust Jimbo.

It would also be good to let the IRS (or its citizen deputies) enter your houses without probable cause to see if you’re complying with ObamaCare. That will properly come soon enought

Jimbo3 on April 23, 2010 at 1:22 PM

lorien1973 on April 23, 2010 at 4:52 PM

Jimbo3 on April 23, 2010 at 4:35 PM
So we’re supposed to believe we’re not moving towards Central control of the Automotive, Healthcare and Financial industries?

Chip on April 23, 2010 at 4:48 PM

–You don’t see Obama trying to take over Honda, KIA and Toyota do you?

Jimbo3 on April 23, 2010 at 4:53 PM

Brooks is stuck in the denial stage. What an pseudo-intellectual, elitist sap.

and there were noooooo expectations for The One among grassroots conservatives. He is who we thought he was.

The bigger story is that AP just described himself as a grassroots conservative. *gasp*

conservative pilgrim on April 23, 2010 at 4:54 PM

Chip on April 23, 2010 at 4:48 PM

You can trust Jimbo.

It would also be good to let the IRS (or its citizen deputies) enter your houses without probable cause to see if you’re complying with ObamaCare. That will properly come soon enough
Jimbo3 on April 23, 2010 at 1:22 PM

lorien1973 on April 23, 2010 at 4:52 PM

Don’t ya love it how the Left always denies it’s implementing Statism?
– until it’s too late to stop it.

Chip on April 23, 2010 at 4:54 PM

The hardest thing for a person to admit is that he’s been had, sold out by his own. People recognize when the “other” party is wrong, but look how long it’s taken for Republicans to tell the neoconservatives to go back where they came from — TO ADMIT THE SOCIALISM OF PROGRESSIVE “CONSERVATIVES” aka neoconservatives.

The only “centrist” element in America is the Constitution as constructed, not as mutated by socialists.

/And even that was a far cry compromise from the Articles of Confederation that our founders unanimously invoked after winning Independence and national identity.

maverick muse on April 23, 2010 at 4:54 PM

Strictly anecdotal, but I did polling for the RNC many yrs ago, and a vast majority of ppl will tell you they are moderate on issues. However, when you get to specific

ideological views, i.e. wars, abortion, drugs, spending, you find pretty clear-cut views. I would say that it ran about 70-30 that most ppl fleshed out as pretty conservative. Keep in mind, some of these ppl had earlier in the questioning had described themselves as liberal or moderate, but weren’t really liberal or moderate, at all.

di butler on April 23, 2010 at 4:43 PM

–Any chance that’s changing a bit over time? The stuff I see suggests the younger people (with the exception of abortion) are more socially liberarian on drugs, gay rights, etc.

Jimbo3 on April 23, 2010 at 4:55 PM

–You don’t see Obama trying to take over Honda, KIA and Toyota do you?
Jimbo3 on April 23, 2010 at 4:53 PM

So, as long as we have less than 100% of the economy nationalized, It’s NOT Statism?

Chip on April 23, 2010 at 4:56 PM

Don’t ya love it how the Left always denies it’s implementing Statism?
– until it’s too late to stop it.

Chip on April 23, 2010 at 4:54 PM

–Don’t confuse Statism with a desire to see existing laws enforced. Do you think the people against illegal immigration are Statists? (sic, perhaps).

Jimbo3 on April 23, 2010 at 4:57 PM

–You don’t see Obama trying to take over Honda, KIA and Toyota do you?

Jimbo3 on April 23, 2010 at 4:53 PM

AS IF tariffs aren’t in the works against foreign makes, not to mention the fabricated propaganda that our taxes provide to advertise ANTI-imports PRO-GM. Obama did try his best with Ford to seduce them into being taken over along with GM and Chrysler.

maverick muse on April 23, 2010 at 4:59 PM

–You don’t see Obama trying to take over Honda, KIA and Toyota do you?
Jimbo3 on April 23, 2010 at 4:53 PM
So, as long as we have less than 100% of the economy nationalized, It’s NOT Statism?

Chip on April 23, 2010 at 4:56 PM

–The goverment is planning to sell its stakes in GM and Chrysler and the banks. I think they’ve already sold some of its ownership interest in one (I forget which).

Jimbo3 on April 23, 2010 at 5:00 PM

David Brooks is just too naive to be taken seriously. He does not know the heart of this country and all would be better served if he wrote the obituaries rather than political opinion.

scullymj on April 23, 2010 at 5:01 PM

–You don’t see Obama trying to take over Honda, KIA and Toyota do you?

Jimbo3 on April 23, 2010 at 4:53 PM

Unions.

the_nile on April 23, 2010 at 5:11 PM

David Brooks is just too naive to be taken seriously. He does not know the heart of this country and all would be better served if he wrote the obituaries rather than political opinion.

scullymj on April 23, 2010 at 5:01 PM

You know, that is actually a brilliant idea for Brooks. He’s weepy, emotional and has an eye for detail like pant creases. He can’t get the bigger, world picture despite what he thinks, so obits would be good.

He could do a jam-up job of discussing flower arrangements and the color and quality of satin lining a coffin as well as the job the mortician did on the corpse. Of course, Brooks has no idea what is real or fake, but this is a good job for him. People could get into his schtick, and he would have no influence.

Perfecto!! :))

Cody1991 on April 23, 2010 at 5:13 PM

All right ,who kidnapped Allahpundit and wrote this post?
Doctor Zero,have you done this and how much are you asking in ransom?
(I don’t have an Ipad but I have an old Atari 2600 video game console.)

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on April 23, 2010 at 5:19 PM

–You don’t see Obama trying to take over Honda, KIA and Toyota do you?
Jimbo3 on April 23, 2010 at 4:53 PM

So, as long as we have less than 100% of the economy nationalized, It’s NOT Statism?
Chip on April 23, 2010 at 4:56 PM

–The goverment is planning to sell its stakes in GM and Chrysler and the banks. I think they’ve already sold some of its ownership interest in one (I forget which).
Jimbo3 on April 23, 2010 at 5:00 PM

So the incremental stage isn’t Statism? Okay.

Chip on April 23, 2010 at 5:20 PM

I like Chris Horner’s idea of doing a Hitler Downfall spoof ’bout Brooks. “He staffed his administration with brilliant pragmatists! Then what happened?! History!”

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWM5ZDA5N2E0ZjFmYTlmNzkzMDBhMzRmNmQ4NzkwYjg=

year_of_the_dingo on April 23, 2010 at 5:23 PM

As with most words, liberals literally do not know the meaning of the word “compromise.” ….

logis on April 23, 2010 at 4:29 PM

–And the GOP does? Have you been reading most of the comments on this blog since the election?

Jimbo3 on April 23, 2010 at 5:28 PM

Allah,

I think it’s time you ceded the title of RINO-candy-ass to Brooks. I think he’s earned it. Except I’d lengthen it by adding ‘squishy-Eeyorish-narcissistic-turd.’

Pablo Snooze on April 23, 2010 at 5:32 PM

him, Frum, Kathleen Parker, Christopher Buckley and the rest of the center-right punditocracy.

Are you saying that in New York they’d be considered center-right? Not where I live, that’s for sure.

FloatingRock on April 23, 2010 at 5:35 PM

There are a lot of reasons not to like David Brooks, but worst among them is this kind of cowardice and insecurity. David, just admit you were duped. Admit to yourself and the world that you fell for the pretty baubles and the shiny suits. You’re a victim, David! A victim of one of the oldest scams around: the pigeon drop, the bait-and-switch. Yes, they appealed to your vanity, saw your shallowness, and they got you to bite. You were an easy mark, apparently, and we understand that it’s embarrassing. But please, please please just stop with the pathetic rhetorical gymnastics designed to avoid the one thing you’ve got to do: man up, and just admit that you were conned.

Rational Thought on April 23, 2010 at 5:37 PM

I used to be a Democrat, but even I can see that this administration is nothing but a kick-back to the 1960′s style party stuff.

It’s a rebellion against the Clintons, all right.

And against moderates.

Heaven help us. Now comes the fringe.

AnninCA on April 23, 2010 at 5:42 PM

Where AP looks at Brooks and sees a “center-right” pundit, I see a false-flag operation.

FloatingRock on April 23, 2010 at 5:42 PM

“Progressive conservatism.”

Dammit, don’t say that!

It’s like ‘beetlejuice’. Say it three times and CK MacLeod will pen another retarded RINO essay.

rayra on April 23, 2010 at 5:50 PM

The only thing ‘center-right’ about Brooks is the gig line of his shirt. That there’s a tranzi-progressive POS.

rayra on April 23, 2010 at 5:52 PM

Heaven help us. Now comes the fringe.

AnninCA on April 23, 2010 at 5:42 PM

True, true.

I talked to a lady the other night that defined herself as a Conservative democrat and agreed that they are near extinct.

cntrlfrk on April 23, 2010 at 5:52 PM

Each of these projects may have been defensible in isolation, but in combination they created the impression of a federal onslaught.

I’ll give him that one, but I’ll wonder where he keeps his cliff notes :)

Dr Evil on April 23, 2010 at 5:57 PM

The only thing more scary than Obama’s experiment is the thought that it might fail and the political power will swing over to a Republican Party that is currently unfit to wield it.

How can he say this and identify himself as a Republican? He is whining that Obama isn’t mirror image of himself, but he’s better than his own party governing? Really? I think the Left have it coming to them – a sharp hard backlash to the right, and I am an Independent so I guess that means David Brooks is talking out his not inconsiderable A$$

Dr Evil on April 23, 2010 at 6:03 PM

For Brooks, though, who gazed into his eyes and thought he was staring into an ideological mirror, imagine the heart-ache. This was the guy who was going to prove that governance by elite intellectual pragmatists, unburdened by the ideological baggage to which the hoi polloi clings, was not only possible but superior. In Brooksy’s own memorable words, “So, that’s why it’s important he doesn’t f*** this up.” And now he’s gone and f***ed it up royally. Double heart-ache.

Dude, you deserve another raise.

Brooks gazed not into his eyes, but rather into his pants, thought he’d see a rod…and found a gummy snake.

Schadenfreude on April 23, 2010 at 6:07 PM

Brooks gazed not into his eyes, but rather into his pants, thought he’d see a rod…and found a gummy snake.

Schadenfreude on April 23, 2010 at 6:07 PM

WowZa!! And I thought I was a mean woman. I love it.

I’ve often wondered what MO thinks about all this man-love, but, um….. well… never mind.

It’s so obvious, isn’t it?!

Cody1991 on April 23, 2010 at 6:14 PM

AllahPundit Akbar! David Brooks, please report to the dais!

John E. on April 23, 2010 at 6:44 PM

The only thing more scary than Obama’s experiment is the thought that it might fail and the political power will swing over to a Republican Party that is currently unfit to wield it.

How can he say this and identify himself as a Republican? He is whining that Obama isn’t mirror image of himself, but he’s better than his own party governing?
Dr Evil on April 23, 2010 at 6:03 PM

You wonder why the Concern Trolls swarm to express their concern for David Brooks?

Newsflash: He is one of them. Just with a suit and slightly better hygiene.

logis on April 23, 2010 at 6:50 PM

Brooks? Fooled by the snow job, couldn’t see what Obama was, still having trouble getting it.

Me? Saw through him before the election, not surprised by what happened, saw this coming.

One of us is supposedly “super smart” with the edumucation, job title, prestige, etc. that justifies their opinion regularly being an a major newspaper. This one was even a visiting professor of public policy at Duke University’s Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy!

The other one of us is a mostly-anonymous joe-schmo with a small college degree in Math/Comp.Sci who actually expects his comments to be ignored or occasionally spawn a flame-war on him. And his work is in computers and programming and stuff; not even vaguely related to politics.

Weird how those don’t match up as you might otherwise expect. I guess “expert” means something different to the people who hired him for his “expert opinion”.

gekkobear on April 23, 2010 at 7:08 PM

David Brooks was educated beyond his intelligence … … way beyond.

MB4 on April 23, 2010 at 7:27 PM

BROOKS / PARKER / NOONAN / BUCKLEY……all would support Obama even if he had to declare a “state of emergency” and clamp down “temporarily” on free speech/internet freedoms.

THAT is all you need to know about the “tool fools”.

PappyD61 on April 23, 2010 at 7:34 PM

David Brooks was educated beyond his intelligence … … way beyond.

MB4 on April 23, 2010 at 7:27 PM

/snicker

ElectricPhase on April 23, 2010 at 7:41 PM

Go lick your crease, Brooks.

HornetSting on April 23, 2010 at 4:31 PM

The problem with Brooks is he liked licking so much he got carried away and his head has been lodged up there for a very long time.

belad on April 23, 2010 at 8:33 PM

Another Leftist myth is that this putz is a Conservative.

ahem on April 24, 2010 at 9:55 AM

It would also be good to let the IRS (or its citizen deputies) enter your houses without probable cause to see if you’re complying with ObamaCare. That will properly come soon enough.
Jimbo3 on April 23, 2010 at 1:22 PM

So, Jimbo, have you applied for your dream job as an IRS ferret yet?

ya2daup on April 24, 2010 at 11:17 AM

It would also be good to let the IRS (or its citizen deputies) enter your houses without probable cause to see if you’re complying with ObamaCare. That will properly come soon enough.
Jimbo3 on April 23, 2010 at 1:22 PM
So, Jimbo, have you applied for your dream job as an IRS ferret yet?

ya2daup on April 24, 2010 at 11:17 AM

–I’m waiting for the IRS to double the reward money first.

Jimbo3 on April 24, 2010 at 11:57 AM

A man as brilliant as Brooks couldn’t figure out that Obama wanted to redistribute the wealth? Brooks obviously doesn’t know what fundamentals mean (as in fundamentally transforming America)… That’s weird.

Even a dumba$$, flatearther, hating, racist, xenophobic, gun loving, dangerous, teabagger like me can figure those two things out.

bubby62 on April 25, 2010 at 1:08 AM

Comment pages: 1 2