Laura Ingraham to David Brooks: Why are you so elitist towards the tea party?

posted at 8:04 pm on March 8, 2011 by Allahpundit

A good question, although there are others I’d rather hear him answer. One, obviously: How sharp does the crease in a man’s pants have to be to qualify him for the presidency? And two: Does he not see that Hopenchange is guilty of some the same demagogic sins he observes in the tea party? Patterico wrote an epic guest post about that a few months ago; do read it now if you missed it before. That’s not to suggest that Brooks has no issues with The One — even here, he scolds him in (too-polite) terms for his failure of leadership on our looming fiscal catastrophe — but rather that he seems to prefer him to tea partiers notwithstanding the reality of that looming catastrophe. A telling quote from one of his columns dated March 2, 2009, shortly after O was inaugurated and before the tea party got rolling:

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.

Does he still believe that in light of our new $223 billion monthly deficit? I’m curious to know, especially given the closing paragraph of his column last month about Obama’s insane new budget.

Exit question: You’ll hear him say here that he thinks Obama’s not hard left but “a more pragmatic type of liberal.” But in the 2009 column linked above, he acknowledged that moderates were wrong about O and that his “actions betray a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice.” Which is it?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Who cares what this metrosexual fool thinks or says?

Not I his opinion has zero valu, zero gravitas, zero credibility!

dhunter on March 8, 2011 at 8:10 PM

Brooks is delusional… for Obama that is.

upinak on March 8, 2011 at 8:11 PM

David Brooks is an other one voted off of rhino island.

SHARPTOOTH on March 8, 2011 at 8:11 PM

He is unprincipled and will say or do anything he thinks will keep him in the DC cocktail circuit.

kmarie on March 8, 2011 at 8:13 PM

Good call on highlighting that Patterico post. Epic is right. I’ll second Allah’s recommendation to read it if you (like me) missed it the first time.

Purple Fury on March 8, 2011 at 8:15 PM

“A guy with a lot of different personalities…”

Like Sybil?

Brooks, you’re an a**.

Fallen Sparrow on March 8, 2011 at 8:15 PM

i will bet you this guys still lives in his moms basement.

moonbatkiller on March 8, 2011 at 8:15 PM

Ahem,Brooks,why are you acting like a Jack*ss towards
the Party,of,

Taxed

Enough

Already!!

canopfor on March 8, 2011 at 8:17 PM

Thats five minutes of my life wasted in listening to that pointless drivel.

sharrukin on March 8, 2011 at 8:17 PM

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 problem: there is almost no real differences between the two except for cosmetic ones.

Our ‘present president’ only appears to have any shred of conviction or progressiveness. He’s done everything bad Bush did and added a laundry list of his own to boot.

The Flush Lim-bought Brigades may be looney tunes, but at least they don’t (usually) try to double-deal.

I actually have a smudge more respect for the “loud, dumb and proud” than I do for the weasels who hide behind a paper-thin veil of intellectualism.

Dark-Star on March 8, 2011 at 8:18 PM

Carried Viruses that may infect the GOP!!

Sweet sumpin sumpin,thats Certifiable Loony Crazy Talk!!

canopfor on March 8, 2011 at 8:19 PM

Thats five minutes of my life wasted in listening to that pointless drivel.

sharrukin on March 8, 2011 at 8:17 PM

oh, come now, you are smarter than that. You should have known!

upinak on March 8, 2011 at 8:21 PM

Brooks is a pansy weasel douche. End of story.

Lance Murdock on March 8, 2011 at 8:21 PM

His voice was shaking all over the place. Yes David be VERY afraid. We, the SILENT majority aren’t going to take your “moderate” BS anymore.

jbh45 on March 8, 2011 at 8:22 PM

Boy o boy,Brooks has an axe to grind with BachmannOverDrive!

Good gawd,I say to all the Conservative Ladies out there,
Egypt type mentality,is only a Brook away!!

Freaggin Yikes!!

canopfor on March 8, 2011 at 8:22 PM

Brooks has his head so far up his elite intellectual anal orifice, he doesn’t know up from down, so he spouts gibberish hoping to impress someone.

GarandFan on March 8, 2011 at 8:23 PM

oh, come now, you are smarter than that. You should have known!

upinak on March 8, 2011 at 8:21 PM

Not that smart, or I wouldn’t have listened.

Those DC Republicans are worse than Democrats because at least the Democrats actually believe in something, and they are never boring. Insane maybe, but never boring.

sharrukin on March 8, 2011 at 8:24 PM

Mr. Crease in Pants wishes he was man enough to put a dent in his own trousers.

Moderate sissy.

pugwriter on March 8, 2011 at 8:27 PM

Alan Colmes is more to the right of David Brooks. What exactly gives him conservative cred again…..?

NeoKong on March 8, 2011 at 8:28 PM

I have three questions for Brooks. Since, unlike millions of us, you weren’t smart enough to appreciate that Obama would be a complete disaster as POTUS, why should we pay any attention to what you say? When are you going to man up and admit you are a liberal? Do you know what stupid looks like ( do you have a mirror in your house)?

Basilsbest on March 8, 2011 at 8:28 PM

David Brooks is too stupid to write for a high school newspaper.

Seriously, he is a assclown.

tetriskid on March 8, 2011 at 8:29 PM

How much further left can you get than a guy who (1) wants to spread the wealth around (2) wants to bankrupt companies (3) wants universal health care (4) thinks we need a bill of “positive” rights of what the government has to do for you, (5) is friends with communist domestic terrorists, (6) admits he hung out with Marxists in college …

Good grief. What is Brooks’ definition of “hard left”? Lenin?

CJ on March 8, 2011 at 8:30 PM

David, I’ve often been taken with your commentary – when it’s sensible – and with your manly 5 o’clock shadow. But please guy – man up! You have a chance to be relevant into your retirement years. Choose carefully. The path I fear you are on leads to ignominy, penury, dog food dinners and the contempt of those to whom you have truckled and suckled that no longer need you. Seriously, I’m not being a troll here, I think you are better than that.

Mason on March 8, 2011 at 8:32 PM

Boy, D.B., stay of radio!!. What a measly voiced little t**rd!!

I thought he was going to start crying when Laura started making cracks about the Springsteen concert, lol.

dave c on March 8, 2011 at 8:33 PM

You’ll hear him say here that he thinks Obama’s not hard left but “a more pragmatic type of liberal.”

Dave, AP has you nailed.

Intellectual worthlessness.

ted c on March 8, 2011 at 8:34 PM

Brooks is a high school sophomore, trying not to let anyone know what an insecure little turd he actually is.

Cicero43 on March 8, 2011 at 8:34 PM

Brooks has said he is a hamilton conservative. I guess Luara doesn’t understand what that means. hint they would have thought reagan was one of the “mob”

unseen on March 8, 2011 at 8:34 PM

I don’t understand how Brooks got the reputation as an intellectual, thinker type.

DaveS on March 8, 2011 at 8:35 PM

What a putz.

Sporty1946 on March 8, 2011 at 8:35 PM

Alan Colmes is more to the right of David Brooks. What exactly gives him conservative cred again…..?

NeoKong on March 8, 2011 at 8:28 PM

Evidently, we have to accept someone as a “conservative” if that’s what they call themselves – regardless of their actual positions on issues.

See: David Brooks, Allahpundit.

Rebar on March 8, 2011 at 8:35 PM

The Flush Lim-bought Brigades may be looney tunes,

Dark-Star on March 8, 2011 at 8:18 PM

Really? How so?

CWforFreedom on March 8, 2011 at 8:36 PM

Brooks? Really? Who cares what this man thinks?

aigle on March 8, 2011 at 8:38 PM

I love it when intellectuals rub elbows with commoners….wouldn’t happen if not for the new book coming out.

d1carter on March 8, 2011 at 8:39 PM

Which is it?

Oh please. You’re just not smart enough to understand the subtle nuances of his position. If you graduated from an Ivy League school there wouldn’t be this intellect gap. It would make perfect sense to all you racist, xenophobic, Zionist tea party people.

TheBigOldDog on March 8, 2011 at 8:42 PM

Michele Bachmann over the top? Saying that Nancy Pelosi Metaphorically Speaking Should Have Her Head On A Platter is what 3/4 of Americans are thinking.

Nearly Nobody on March 8, 2011 at 8:46 PM

The Flush Lim-bought Brigades may be looney tunes,

Dark-Star on March 8, 2011 at 8:18 PM

Speaking as a logophile and a lover of all things wordy-clever, your attempt to make a funny out of Rush’s name is just plain insufficient. Fail. Hang up and try again.

As to Brooks:

Tickleddragon asks: “Why are you such a douche?”

tickleddragon on March 8, 2011 at 8:46 PM

Hail Rataxes? We need to get rid of the Pierre Trudeau wing of the party. Go play conservative in Canada, Davey.

clnurnberg on March 8, 2011 at 8:48 PM

David Brooks…

The gaydar’s tacking red.

BowHuntingTexas on March 8, 2011 at 8:50 PM

Can’t you just see him telling “Palin is dumb” jokes at the lefty cocktail parties? He’s like the fat girl who thinks the popular kids like her, but she’s just the one that has a car.

Rational Thought on March 8, 2011 at 8:51 PM

Obama is behaving “a little cynically” LOL. Good for Laura for calling Brooks on his Tea Party slams.

Paul-Cincy on March 8, 2011 at 8:55 PM

Tool

jnelchef on March 8, 2011 at 8:56 PM

Brooks has said he is a hamilton conservative. I guess Luara doesn’t understand what that means. hint they would have thought reagan was one of the “mob”

unseen on March 8, 2011 at 8:34 PM

Oh I thought when he said Hamilton conservative, I thought he was talking about his price and I was gonna call in and ask for some money back. Then I realized that, what with inflation and all, 10 bucks just doesn’t buy what it used to.

My bad.

Lily on March 8, 2011 at 8:57 PM

Laura rocks.

Brooks? no.

cntrlfrk on March 8, 2011 at 9:01 PM

See: David Brooks, Allahpundit.

Rebar on March 8, 2011 at 8:35 PM

Wow, yer just asking for it…..

BigWyo on March 8, 2011 at 9:06 PM

This dude’s day has long since passed. Brooks is a laughing stock, nothing more… Manchurian Conservative

Keemo on March 8, 2011 at 9:07 PM

Brooks has said he is a hamilton conservative. I guess Luara doesn’t understand what that means. hint they would have thought reagan was one of the “mob”

unseen on March 8, 2011 at 8:34 PM

This. Also, the below article has Brooks and his ilk pegged. Why more small government conservatives like Will see it, I’m at a loss:

The moral purpose of national-greatness conservatism, according to David Brooks, is to energize the American spirit; to fire the imagination with something majestic; to advance a “unifying American creed”; and to inspire Americans to look beyond their narrow self-interest to some larger national mission—to some mystically Hegelian “national destiny.” The new American citizen must be animated by “nationalist virtues” such as “duty, loyalty, honesty, discretion, and self-sacrifice.” The neocons’ basic moral-political principle is clear and simple: the subordination and sacrifice of the individual to the nation-state.

Politically, Brooks’s new nationalism would use the federal government to pursue great “nationalistic public projects” and to build grand monuments in order to unify the nation spiritually and to prevent America’s “slide” into what he calls “nihilistic mediocrity.” It is important that the American people conform, swear allegiance to, and obey some grand central purpose defined for them by the federal government. The ideal American man, he argues, should negate and forgo his individual values and interests and merge his “self” into some mystical union with the collective soul. This is precisely why Brooks has praised the virtues of Chinese collectivism over those of American-style individualism.

Firefly_76 on March 8, 2011 at 9:07 PM

How’s the crease in Book’s skirt?

chickasaw42 on March 8, 2011 at 9:09 PM

Well bad as he is, he can’t beging to compare with the guy from NPR. Apparently there are degrees of elitism.

jeanie on March 8, 2011 at 9:10 PM

I purposely did NOT listen to this.

Why would Laura have him on? It annoyed me. We know what a tool Brooks is by now.

I’m tired of Laura having tools like Brooks, Buchanan and Norquist on her show. It’s insulting.

Buy Jack Cashill’s book “Deconstructing Obama” instead. I love it!

Gob on March 8, 2011 at 9:16 PM

Well bad as he is, he can’t beging to compare with the guy from NPR. Apparently there are degrees of elitism.
jeanie on March 8, 2011 at 9:10 PM

I’d love to see what this simpering, sackless Moma’s Boy would say when he thought he was off the record.

Who was it..Noonan or Parker that got caught on a hot mic bashing Palin??

These (#$)#)#&@&’s are all the same…snotty, elitist a$$holes that have never worked a day in their sorry lives….

BigWyo on March 8, 2011 at 9:22 PM

He sure gotta perrty pink mouth.

leftnomore on March 8, 2011 at 9:24 PM

Brooks… missed the train… heading towards the sunset…

Khun Joe on March 8, 2011 at 9:24 PM

BigWyo on March 8, 2011 at 9:22 PM

It was both Noonan and Mike Murphy caught on an open mic while being paid by MSNBC for analysis…

Gohawgs on March 8, 2011 at 9:30 PM

The question is, will Brooksie still vote for the obamanation in ’12?

Gohawgs on March 8, 2011 at 9:31 PM

I’m coming to believe that we will really need to confine all these guys to a reservation somewhere. We need to stop them from doing damage to the rest of us that are actually sane.

trigon on March 8, 2011 at 9:35 PM

PANTS CREASE???…

…ADIOS CREDIBILITY.

PappyD61 on March 8, 2011 at 9:37 PM

The pantsy with a fetish for pant creases.

Nobody takes this RINO clown seriously. He is a joke.

Norwegian on March 8, 2011 at 10:06 PM

“I’m friends with Rahm, I don’t apologize for that.” ‘Nuff said.

Special K on March 8, 2011 at 10:11 PM

I won’t win any friends here for saying this, but I kind of like David Brooks. I met him a couple of years ago, and he seems like a nice, well-intentioned guy.

There’s a good deal he and I would disagree about. But loathe him, I do not.

jazz_piano on March 8, 2011 at 10:30 PM

Speaking as a logophile and a lover of all things wordy-clever, your attempt to make a funny out of Rush’s name is just plain insufficient.

tickleddragon on March 8, 2011 at 8:46 PM

Funny the Douche-Star could not explain his lame comment.

CWforFreedom on March 8, 2011 at 10:32 PM

There are so many little emperors being exposed as buck naked elitist puffoons (puffery + buffoons), I’m starting to blush…

Fallon on March 8, 2011 at 10:42 PM

This patsy is a nearly perfect poster-girl for the squishy RINOs who used to run the Republican party.

Nobody cares about Brooks outside the Beltway. Please stop linking him.

james23 on March 8, 2011 at 10:46 PM

David needs to define “over the top”. What a tool.

Mojave Mark on March 8, 2011 at 11:24 PM

Brooks has said he is a hamilton conservative. I guess Luara doesn’t understand what that means. hint they would have thought reagan was one of the “mob”

unseen on March 8, 2011 at 8:34 PM

Brooks wants to be a columnist for the New York Post?

jon1979 on March 9, 2011 at 12:06 AM

Brooks is one of the Democrats “house conservatives”, much like David Frum …. what is the deal with so-called conservatives named “David”, anyway?

BD57 on March 9, 2011 at 12:13 AM

Like all moderates like all liberals Brooks has no bedrock principles, only the shifting sands and all things mediocre.

Like Obama his statements have an expiration date and an unknown announcement time.

Speakup on March 9, 2011 at 12:46 AM

Laura should talk about “elite”.

stenwin77 on March 9, 2011 at 4:30 AM

So are the elitists feeding on each other now to increase their street cred with Tea Partiers?

Done That on March 9, 2011 at 5:52 AM

Laura rocks. Like Rush said yesterday, most of the gonads in our party nowadays happen to be wearing skirts.

petefrt on March 9, 2011 at 6:24 AM

RINO, RINO, RION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They finish High School, they do a little college, the get a job as a CPA. In other words, they do something productive for society instead of some RINO idiot with his head up his butt, who thinks Obama isn’t a hard left socialist.

flytier on March 9, 2011 at 6:29 AM

You’ll hear him say here that he thinks Obama’s not hard left but “a more pragmatic type of liberal.”

So sick of that word. In my mind, “pragmatic” has become synonymous with weak leadership.

UltimateBob on March 9, 2011 at 8:18 AM

She should have asked him a followup question… What has Michelle Bachman said that is so extreme?

One of the problem with most liberals today is that they consider the Constitution extreme. If a politician was to quote Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Washington, etc., then they would be extreme.

jeffn21 on March 9, 2011 at 8:52 AM

There is only one sure way to measure the political leanings of Obama since he tends to stay in the background on issues while reading lies platitudes from TOTUS. Look at his appointments: RADICAL!

Laurence on March 9, 2011 at 8:59 AM

One of the traits of a Community Organizer is they get other more talented people to run the organization because they are incapable of doing it. Organizers paint the picture of what the organization is “gonna do”. Change the world! What David calls “Obama’s coolness” (in leading from the back) is typical community organizer ineptitude. Been there, done that.

Herb on March 9, 2011 at 9:36 AM

I actually have a smudge more respect for the “loud, dumb and proud” than I do for the weasels who hide behind a paper-thin veil of intellectualism.

Dark-Star on March 8, 2011 at 8:18 PM

Well, since you equate Wisconsin teachers with slaves picking cotton, your “dumb” isn’t exactly paper-thin.

Don’t get yer panties in a wad, I’m just tryin to help ya here!!!

runawayyyy on March 9, 2011 at 1:57 PM