David Brooks calls GOP grassroots Nazis or something

posted at 4:15 pm on February 29, 2012 by Karl

At least, that’s the allusion Brooks makes to conclude his latest screed against “grass-roots protesters in the Tea Party and elsewhere”:

First they went after the Rockefeller Republicans, but I was not a Rockefeller Republican. Then they went after the compassionate conservatives, but I was not a compassionate conservative. Then they went after the mainstream conservatives, and there was no one left to speak for me.

Mr. Brooks, you are no pastor Martin Niemöller. You are not winning; you are Godwinning.

Indeed, the lesser claims in the column are equally suspect, if less offensive in tone:

All across the nation, there are mainstream Republicans lamenting how the party has grown more and more insular, more and more rigid. This year, they have an excellent chance to defeat President Obama, yet the wingers have trashed the party’s reputation by swinging from one embarrassing and unelectable option to the next: Bachmann, Trump, Cain, Perry, Gingrich, Santorum.

Outside the echo chamber between the ears of David Brooks, Americans see the ideology of the GOP candidates — including Bachmann and Santorum — as closer to theirs than Barack Obama’s ideology. Even among so-called independents, only Bachmann scored as more extreme than Obama, who holds the record for the most polarizing first, second and third years in office since Gallup started measuring polarization. A majority of Americans (and independents) say Barack Obama’s political views are “too liberal,” a greater percentage than believe either of his main Republican challengers — Rick Santorum (38%) or Mitt Romney (33%) — is “too conservative.” The share of Republicans who see Romney or Santorum as too conservative is significantly smaller. A majority of Americans (and independents) disagree with Obama on the issues most important to them, while only a plurality disagrees with either Romney or Santorum (the overwhelming majority of Republicans agree with either GOP candidate). Currently, the (essentially meaningless) head-to-head polls have Obama ahead of Romney (who Brooks seems to find electable) by 5%, and ahead of Santorum (embarrassing and unelectable) by… 5.9%. In short, most people see little difference between Romney and Santorum and see either as less extreme than Obama.

However, for Brooks, the problem is more than ideological:

In the 1960s and ’70s, the fight was between conservatives and moderates. Conservatives trounced the moderates and have driven them from the party. These days the fight is between the protesters and the professionals. The grass-roots protesters in the Tea Party and elsewhere have certain policy ideas, but they are not that different from the Republicans in the “establishment.”

The big difference is that the protesters don’t believe in governance. They have zero tolerance for the compromises needed to get legislation passed. They don’t believe in trimming and coalition building. For them, politics is more about earning respect and making a statement than it is about enacting legislation. It’s grievance politics, identity politics.

As an antidote to this hysterical overgeneralization, I’ll turn over the rebuttal to rabid wingnutter Peggy Noonan:

For conservatives on the ground, it has often felt as if Democrats (and moderate Republicans) were always saying, “We should spend a trillion dollars,” and the Republican Party would respond, “No, too costly. How about $700 billion?” Conservatives on the ground are thinking, “How about nothing? How about we don’t spend more money but finally start cutting.”

***

The second thing is the clock. Here is a great virtue of the tea party: They know what time it is. It’s getting late. If we don’t get the size and cost of government in line now, we won’t be able to. We’re teetering on the brink of some vast, dark new world—states and cities on the brink of bankruptcy, the federal government too. The issue isn’t “big spending” anymore. It’s ruinous spending that they fear will end America as we know it, as they promised it to their children.

Brooks is willing to write about “the nation’s ruinous debt problem,” but when Obama demanded his way or the highway during the debt ceiling fight, Brooks chose to blame “the movement” instead, falsely claiming that Republicans were “merely” being asked to close loopholes and eliminate tax expenditures. In reality, Obama’s proposals have received almost zero Congressional support, including from his own party. In developed countries, successful fiscal consolidations have relied overwhelmingly on spending cuts, while the so-called “balanced” approach has failed. Indeed, the International Monetary Fund would suggest spending cuts and tax cuts as a “Plan B” for overextended countries. In Brooksworld, those who believe in smaller government and solutions that have worked elsewhere are unrealistic, totalitarian troglodytes, while the dude who supports the most statist president in generations is the martyred mainstream conservative. That’s some double-plus good punditizing. David Brooks, clinging bitterly to Barack Obama’s creased trouser leg and his Reinhold Niebuhr, is not voice of mainstream conservatism. He is the poster boy for Big Media’s Biggest Failure, howling on behalf of the so-called professionals in total denial of their role in America’s current and future miseries.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


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

And the crease in their pants is so… so… dull.

profitsbeard on February 29, 2012 at 4:17 PM

Who?

crash72 on February 29, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Anyone doubt that this clown supports Romney for the GOP nomination?

Norwegian on February 29, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Outside the echo chamber between the ears of David Brooks

Classic.

rogaineguy on February 29, 2012 at 4:20 PM

It’s a complete joke that the New York Times tries to pass this guy off to us as a conservative.

Tomolena1 on February 29, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Brooks is a regular guest on the Batchelor radio where he spouts this same nonsense. I always adjust the dial when his segment comes on.

Wigglesworth on February 29, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Neither grassroots nor N@zis. And if the real N@zis were as incompetent and weak-spined as the GOP, Germans would still be burning their money in the fireplace.

MelonCollie on February 29, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Brooks: A 5’10″ douche bag

Sugar Land on February 29, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Wah wah why won’t real conservatives bend at will to the left wing nutjobs wahhhhh

therightwinger on February 29, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Dumb Ding-a-ling David!

KOOLAID2 on February 29, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Oh, I’m a f’n N@zi now?? Will I lose my spot singing for the NFL opening creds if I call YOU a f’n N@zi, Mr. Brooks??

Turtle317 on February 29, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Hey Brooks….F.U!

St Gaudens on February 29, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Just another babbling Brooks……

search4truth on February 29, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Just another bigot being intolerant of those that disagree with his opinion. He reacts like all liberals do with those who think differently by calling names and insulting like spoiled brats.Brooks is relevant in his own mind and anyone who gives his opinion credence is just as intellectually bankrupt as he is.

volsense on February 29, 2012 at 4:28 PM

It’s sad, but I guess it’s better that they write this stuff in public. Imagine if we didn’t realize that Brooks sees himself at the center of a Niemoller threat scenario.

J.E. Dyer on February 29, 2012 at 4:28 PM

You know a NYT’s Brooks article makes one want to start using newspapers again, to wipe their bums with, just like in the old days.

Skwor on February 29, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Those damned “Nazis” must really be getting to that pissant.

The very use of the term is nothing but intellectual cowardice – oh, and ignorance.

OhEssYouCowboys on February 29, 2012 at 4:31 PM

It’ a measure of just how far we’ve gone that the only sane people are called extremists.

Our currency will be destroyed. It’s going to happen. All this was going to come to an end, anyway. It was just a matter of how it was going to happen. Now, even that mystery is solved.

trigon on February 29, 2012 at 4:32 PM

David Brooks calls GOP grassroots Nazis or something –
posted at 4:15 pm on February 29, 2012 by Karl

No he didn’t.
Just desperate idiotic buffoonery to make that leap.

AND, you are just stealing someone else’s buffoonery –
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/02/28/is-david-brooks-comparing-the-tea-party-to-nazis/

If you’re gonna be hysterical, at least be original.

Your punishment is history class.

verbaluce on February 29, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Brooks says:

The big difference is that the protesters don’t believe in governance. They have zero tolerance for the compromises needed to get legislation passed. They don’t believe in trimming and coalition building. For them, politics is more about earning respect and making a statement than it is about enacting legislation. It’s grievance politics, identity politics.

Karl calls this “hysterical overgeneralization.”

Just read any thread on HA. The true believers refuse to compromise. Absolutely, positively REFUSE to compromise (oh, except when it comes to sucking it up and voting for Mittens in the general, they’ll all cop to that). So, I’d say Brooks is right and Karl either willfully blind or just plain stupid.

lostmotherland on February 29, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Yes, because everyone knows that “real, smart, and rational thinkers” like Burke, Jefferson, Madison, Disraeli, von Mises, Hayek, Bastiat, etc., would have judged a man’s ability to be the leader of the free world by the crease in his trousers.

Would you please pass the Grey Poupon, Dave?

Resist We Much on February 29, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Speaking of Nazis, here is a link to a pamphlet, written by Goebbels, titled: “Those Damned Nazis.”

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/haken32.htm

See how much of it describes the “thoughts” – especially the use of “working class/workers” – of today’s Democrats.

OhEssYouCowboys on February 29, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Evidentally, the esteemed Mr. Brooks cannot comprehend that there are people who actually think that it is important to elect someone who will not only “win” this election but actually attempt to run the country in a different way than the current pack o’ jackels.

Apparently, he thinks we should be perfectly fine with anyone at all as long as we can tick a mark in the win column.

Let us all tug our forelocks in gratitude for their benevolent rule!

Lily on February 29, 2012 at 4:37 PM

I just love being lectured by an unprincipled intellectual lightweight who votes based on the creases in the candidates pants./sarc

FOADIAF, Brooks.

Walter Sobchak on February 29, 2012 at 4:38 PM

P.S.

And the use of the terms … “bourgeois” and “class.”

OhEssYouCowboys on February 29, 2012 at 4:39 PM

mysphinctersayswhat…?

David Brooks: What?

mysphinctersayswhat…?

David Brooks: What?

mysphinctersayswhat…?

David Brooks: What?

/

Seven Percent Solution on February 29, 2012 at 4:39 PM

No he didn’t.
Just desperate idiotic buffoonery to make that leap.

AND, you are just stealing someone else’s buffoonery –
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/02/28/is-david-brooks-comparing-the-tea-party-to-nazis/

If you’re gonna be hysterical, at least be original.

Your punishment is history class.

verbaluce on February 29, 2012 at 4:34 PM

From Brooks articlle:

First they went after the Rockefeller Republicans, but I was not a Rockefeller Republican. Then they went after the compassionate conservatives, but I was not a compassionate conservative. Then they went after the mainstream conservatives, and there was no one left to speak for me.

You are an idiot if you fail to recognize that that what he wrote is a paraphrase of a quote specific to Nazi Germany. You are the one in need to learn some history.

Skwor on February 29, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Why can’t we find a conservative to pose as a commie libtard progressive and then just trash progressives.

ghettogasman on February 29, 2012 at 4:39 PM

First they went after the Rockefeller Republicans, but I was not a Rockefeller Republican. Then they went after the compassionate conservatives, but I was not a compassionate conservative. Then they went after the mainstream conservatives, and there was no one left to speak for me.

What?

Who is going after these groups?

This doesn’t make any sense.

Chip on February 29, 2012 at 4:40 PM

What?

Who is going after these groups?

This doesn’t make any sense.

Chip on February 29, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Brooks is making an allusion here implying that conservatives are behaving like Nazi’s. That is the intent behind the paraphrased quote.

Skwor on February 29, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Dear David Brooks(R-ino), Rockefeller Rs weren’t, C-cons weren’t, and neither are you. You came for us you brownshirt.

Now go back to having tea with the elites you boot-licking Nazi-smear-mongering Fascist pig.

DANEgerus on February 29, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Brooks is making an allusion here implying that conservatives are behaving like Nazi’s.

He’s also forwarding the allusion he is a conservative. Anybody have any evidence of that?

DanMan on February 29, 2012 at 4:44 PM

If there is no one left to speak for Brooks… doesn’t that mean his opinion has diverged from the movements?

MeatHeadinCA on February 29, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Yo, David, your poop smells just like everyone else’s.

SouthernGent on February 29, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Your punishment is history class.

verbaluce on February 29, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Do you know what that acronym translates to?

Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei translates to National Socialist German Workers Party

Now, which National political party is has an agenda of Socialism?

Chip on February 29, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Skwor on February 29, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Um, again…a leap.
And an idiotic one.
Akin to saying ‘David Brooks calls GOP grassroots Nazis’.
And-you-really-think-he-said-that.
Just zowz.

I’m no Brooks fan (for reasons aside from yours), but if his point was that some of you have gone way off the rails..well let posts like this one be yet another example.
And you yet another example.
I’m sure they’ll be more here soon…

verbaluce on February 29, 2012 at 4:46 PM

He’s also forwarding the allusion he is a conservative. Anybody have any evidence of that?

DanMan on February 29, 2012 at 4:44 PM

You will find more proof for God first.

Skwor on February 29, 2012 at 4:46 PM

And that from a guy whose greatest resemblance is to Homer Simpson.

D’oh.

Speakup on February 29, 2012 at 4:46 PM

Seems more like its the ‘moderates’ who won’t work with the conservative. They’re the real my-way-or-the-highway guys.

LilyBart on February 29, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Anyone doubt that this clown supports Romney for the GOP nomination?

Norwegian on February 29, 2012 at 4:18 PM

The nomination, maybe- but the guy he’ll vote for in November won’t have an “R” after his name…

Bat Chain Puller on February 29, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Um, again…a leap.
And an idiotic one.
Akin to saying ‘David Brooks calls GOP grassroots Nazis’.
And-you-really-think-he-said-that.
Just zowz.

I’m no Brooks fan (for reasons aside from yours), but if his point was that some of you have gone way off the rails..well let posts like this one be yet another example.
And you yet another example.
I’m sure they’ll be more here soon…

verbaluce on February 29, 2012 at 4:46 PM

Wow you are dense, follow the link already provided in the article. pastor Martin Niemöller This is no jump. Anyone who is better read than Dr. Sues knows full well this quote and how it is used in reference to Nazi’s. That you are blind to this speaks volumes for your age or mental capacity and not in a good way.

Skwor on February 29, 2012 at 4:49 PM

brooks says , oh yeah and those founders what a bunch of revolutionaries why couldnt they have been more like olympia snowe and mitt romney

rudee on February 29, 2012 at 4:49 PM

They killed my neighbor with the death panels and I did nothing. Then they killed my parents with the death panels. When the death panels came for me there was no one else around to protect me and David Brooks said it was all right.

Smedley on February 29, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Brooks is making an allusion here implying that conservatives are behaving like Nazi’s. That is the intent behind the paraphrased quote.

Skwor on February 29, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Yes, and that alludes to one of the biggest lies in the history of the last century – The fact is that group in Germany was Socialist – it’s incorporated in their name after all.

But the left would like to somehow balance the atrocities done in the name of that ideology in the Soviet Union and other regimes with the Big lie that the right is associated with that particular group.

Chip on February 29, 2012 at 4:50 PM

verbaluce on February 29, 2012 at 4:46 PM

DO you have any grasp whatsoever of the concept of ALLUSION ?/!

Skwor on February 29, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Saying David Brooks is the NYTimes’ Conservative is like saying he is the whore house’s priest.

mitchellvii on February 29, 2012 at 4:51 PM

It’s a complete joke that the New York Times tries to pass this guy itself off to us as a conservative newspaper.

Tomolena1 on February 29, 2012 at 4:20 PM

FIFM

WhatNot on February 29, 2012 at 4:52 PM

verbaluce on February 29, 2012 at 4:46 PM

One question: Where the Nazi’s Socialist?

Chip on February 29, 2012 at 4:52 PM

No one cares what this clown has to say.

This you give us, instead of:

Ron Paul Flyer Written In Arabic Outside Michigan Mosque Touts His Desire To Cut Aid To Israel… In typical sleazebag fashion the English side of the flyer makes no mention of Israel.

Akzed on February 29, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Do you really think there is a conservative person at the New York Times? A few years ago, a friend of mine lined his cat’s litter box with the Times. The New York Times is such a piece of garbage even his cat wouldn’t defecate on it.

volsense on February 29, 2012 at 4:53 PM

First, they came for the Moderate Democrats and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Moderate Democrat.

Then, they came for the Blue Dog Democrats and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Blue Dog Democrat.

Then, they came for the RINOs and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a RINO.

Then, they came for Obama and his sycophants like David Brooks and I didn’t speak out….

…because, frankly, I was sick to death of them and les bâtards had it coming.

Resist We Much on February 29, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Karl calls this “hysterical overgeneralization.”

Just read any thread on HA. The true believers refuse to compromise. Absolutely, positively REFUSE to compromise (oh, except when it comes to sucking it up and voting for Mittens in the general, they’ll all cop to that). So, I’d say Brooks is right and Karl either willfully blind or just plain stupid.

lostmotherland on February 29, 2012 at 4:35 PM

THERE IS NO MORE ROOM FOR “COMPROMISE”. We’ve “compromised” ourselves into a 14 TRILLION F$%#ING DOLLAR national debt. “Compromising” always – ALWAYS – consists of the progs saying “hey, let’s increase spending by 400 billion dollars this year” and the dumbass Repukes responding with “no, let’s only increase it by 200 billion”. This cannot continue.

There is no more room for “nice” Republicans because they are a cancer that is killing us. The Dems are not “our good friends”. They are our mortal enemies and they will never play nice. EVER. The only way to win is to fight just as nasty and dirty as they do. When they’re down, you don’t help them up. You kick them and curb-stomp them until they beg for mercy, and then you stomp them some more. Until our side realizes this, nothing is ever going to change.

Walter Sobchak on February 29, 2012 at 4:54 PM

lostmotherland on February 29, 2012 at 4:35 PM

1. AFAIK, HA commenters are not a representative random sample of Republicans or conservatives;

2. Obama blew up the “grand bargain” on the budget, not the GOP;

3. The Democrat-controlled Senate has failed to produce a budget for over 1,000 days, but it’s the GOP that is not interested in governance. Got it now.

Karl on February 29, 2012 at 4:56 PM

I don’t know what Brooks real affiliation is. But for certain he’s a certifiable water-carrier for the disaffected spawn mutants of Republican-Democrat out-of-wedlock liaison-love children who have come to hate their parents, and by extension themselves.

Cripes, it makes me want to sleep with one eye open.

To call Brooks a Republican of any stripe, would require redefining the entire party to meet his whimsical, churlish and illogical outbursts.

That he gets this much ink is simply befuddling. Talk about the “1%”. That about the percentage who reads his tripe.

Marcus Traianus on February 29, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Skwor on February 29, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Oh you silly Skwor –
You’d have to have been living in a cave not to have come across variations and appropriations of the quote in myriad ways.

Now leaving your recent Wiki search aside…
you really think ‘David Brooks calls GOP grassroots Nazis’.
Really?
Exactly.
It is indeed a jump. A very big and silly jump.

verbaluce on February 29, 2012 at 4:58 PM

David Brooks is still writing? I guess he didn’t get that valet job he applied for, and is not as I type this pressing the President’s pants?

David Brooks is frustrated. Brooks was obviously meant for a career in dry cleaning.

Dr Evil on February 29, 2012 at 4:59 PM

And here is the opinion of Thomas Sowell, a man who offers much more depth in determining what is best for America:
http://www.creators.com/print/conservative/thomas-sowell/-super-tuesday.html

Go iron your trousers, Brooksie.

onlineanalyst on February 29, 2012 at 5:02 PM

verbaluce on February 29, 2012 at 4:58 PM

To whom was the Quote originally referring to?

[Hint: they had the word socialist in their name]

Chip on February 29, 2012 at 5:02 PM

That moron Brooks should LOVE Nazis as they had snazzy uniforms. Since all it took for Brooks to know Obama was a superior politician was seeing the crease of his pants.

rayra on February 29, 2012 at 5:02 PM

verbaluce on February 29, 2012 at 4:58 PM

1. So, why did Brooks deliberately choose to conclude his column by aping pastor Martin Niemöller?

2. Does the fact that others have been equally stupid and offensive in appropriating pastor Martin Niemöller’s lines make Brooks any less stupid and offensive?

Karl on February 29, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Brooks has a crease in his head. What a tool.

Rixon on February 29, 2012 at 5:05 PM

lostmotherland on February 29, 2012 at 4:35 PM

The thing is the clock. Here is a great virtue of the tea party: They know what time it is. It’s getting late.

Try to stop talking and listen. Tic..Toc..Tic..Toc..

lynncgb on February 29, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Hey, Dave, what do you think about the crease in this dude’s pants? Pretty sharp, eh?

Mucking Foron.

Resist We Much on February 29, 2012 at 5:07 PM

they have an excellent chance to defeat President Obama, yet the wingers have trashed the party’s reputation by swinging from one embarrassing and unelectable option to the next: Bachmann, Trump, Cain, Perry, Gingrich, Santorum.

It’s called “VETTING” you douchebag.

Remember the dem primary process in 2007/8? It was no less nasty and divisive, and the libs had as many in their process that they filtered out through the use of the race card, essentially ending up with the biggest racist of all. This guy’s heartache rests on the fact that everyone isn’t jumping up and down about Romney.

It’s not hard to figure out why either.

Wolfmoon on February 29, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Brooksie, another big government loving “conservative” that hates conservatives and votes for socialists.

now, where is that Esoteric nitwit that agrees with Brooks and loves him some Robotney?

james23 on February 29, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Karl on February 29, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Karl,
If you want to make a case that you found it offensive or insensitive that Brooks riffed on this quote..I could accept that. I wouldn’t agree, but it wouldn’t be illogical.
But you went with ‘David Brooks calls GOP grassroots Nazis’.
So you took that that leap, and you deserve the derision I offer.
But now your are sort of backtracking a bit – and good on ya for that.
Maybe re-think and re-write your post?

verbaluce on February 29, 2012 at 5:16 PM

It’s obvious that Brooksie is oblivious to the left-wingery intransigence of Obama, Pelosi,Reid, Schumer, Wasserman Schultz,and the rest of the Dem mouthpieces who have a “progressive” agenda and not the best interests of the nation motivating them.

onlineanalyst on February 29, 2012 at 5:20 PM

verbaluce on February 29, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Are you one of those who would like to stain the right with a strain of socialism?

Chip on February 29, 2012 at 5:22 PM

A few years ago, a friend of mine lined his cat’s litter box with the Times. The New York Times is such a piece of garbage even his cat wouldn’t defecate on it.

volsense on February 29, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Why would he do that to his poor cat?! Call PETA!

squint on February 29, 2012 at 5:25 PM

Is there anyone on this blog that doesn’t believe the Brooks, Krauthammers, Roves, and Parkers of the GOP e-stabemintheback-lish-ment won’t do their best to sabotage the Republican nominee if it’s anyone other than Romney?

Just look at what they did or tried to do to the Tea Party candidates who wrested nominations from establishment types in 2010.

Doug Piranha on February 29, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Maybe re-think and re-write your post?

verbaluce on February 29, 2012 at 5:16 PM

I agree. It should be re-titled: “Pretentious Jackass Calls GOP ‘Meanies’.”

squint on February 29, 2012 at 5:31 PM

I agree. It should be re-titled: “Pretentious Jackass Calls GOP ‘Meanies’.”

squint on February 29, 2012 at 5:31 PM

…then runs home crying to Mummy.

Resist We Much on February 29, 2012 at 5:33 PM

David Brooks needs to put an aspirin between his knees every time the liberal media comes courting if he doesn’t want to look like the biggest whore in the room.

Brooks is another lib-turned-conservative, known in polite society as a neocon, who has remained a liberal at heart. His idea of conservatism seems to be a combination of war-mongering and Ivy League snobbery. Always a joke, he turned into a full blown ass with his Obama boot-licking in 2008. Hell, he probably thought Obama was the conservative candidate in the race. Here is the famous money quote:

“Usually when I talk to senators, while they may know a policy area better than me, they generally don’t know political philosophy better than me. I got the sense he knew both better than me. [...] I remember distinctly an image of–we were sitting on his couches, and I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant, and I’m thinking, a) he’s going to be president and b) he’ll be a very good president.”

Well, David, I’m not sure I know philosophy better than you, but I do know grammar, and it’s “better than I”. Perhaps you should have had Captain Wonderful proof read your prose.

Mr. Arkadin on February 29, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Can you imagine the New York Times having Mark Steyn as its in-house conservative voice? Neither can I.

Brooks is like the inhabitants of those faux native villages that the Victorians used to put up to allow civilized people to have a safe and entertaining look at the benighted locals from some exotic corner of the Empire. His purpose is to allow the Times’ insular Leftard readership the chance to read some benign babblings of a “conservative” that will never threaten their worldview and allow their sense of smug superiority over the troglodytes of the Right to remain intact. His job isn’t to make converts.

It’s a living, I guess. But why any conservative would give a flip about what he has to say is beyond me.

Cicero43 on February 29, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Brooks:

The big difference is that the protesters don’t believe in governance. They have zero tolerance for the compromises needed to get legislation passed. They don’t believe in trimming and coalition building. For them, politics is more about earning respect and making a statement than it is about enacting legislation. It’s grievance politics, identity politics.

Karl:

As an antidote to this hysterical overgeneralization …

Karl? Dude? I’m not a big fan of Brooks, but on this issue, he’s spot on. Read any, absolutely any thread on HA, and you will find this exact attitude expressed time and again, mainly by SoCons: Après moi le déluge! Half the people here just want to go on a Deathmarch of the Elephants, and as long as they’ve made their point, and pissed off the liberals, who cares about actually governing our nation? It’s the protester mentality, and it’s no different among conservatives here than it is among OWS, or Afghan Koran-burning rioters.

Bartrams Garden on February 29, 2012 at 5:39 PM

Is there anyone on this blog that doesn’t believe the Brooks, Krauthammers, Roves, and Parkers of the GOP e-stabemintheback-lish-ment won’t do their best to sabotage the Republican nominee if it’s anyone other than Romney?

Just look at what they did or tried to do to the Tea Party candidates who wrested nominations from establishment types in 2010.

Doug Piranha on February 29, 2012 at 5:26 PM

*Raises hand*

a capella on February 29, 2012 at 5:41 PM

verbaluce on February 29, 2012 at 5:16 PM

I asked you what Brooks meant by aping the pastor. You didn’t answer. So I will ask you again: What is the point of that allusion? You claim I made a leap, so what is the alternative interpretation I’m missing?

Karl on February 29, 2012 at 5:53 PM

mainly by SoCons: Après moi le déluge! Half the people here just want to go on a Deathmarch of the Elephants, and as long as they’ve made their point, and pissed off the liberals, who cares about actually governing our nation? It’s the protester mentality, and it’s no different among conservatives here than it is among OWS, or Afghan Koran-burning rioters.

Bartrams Garden on February 29, 2012 at 5:39 PM

Well I’m not a SoCon…and yet I must disagree on a few fronts:

1. We have tried ‘trimming’ and ‘coalition building’ it hasn’t worked. Fair enough? Maybe its time for a New strategy…maybe one like the uncompromising ‘Radical Republicans” of 1860. Yes it may get ugly. Oh well. National survival has a price.

People like you would happily run the train off the cliff at 50 mph as opposed to 80 mph…people like us want to stop the train…there simply isn’t a ton of middle ground left. I’m sorry I dont have more time to explain macro economics to you…so maybe you could You tube recent comments by Paul Ryan where he states clearly we have about 3 years to get this right.

2. There’s nothing wrong with a “protest mentality”…it is precisely that protest mentality that freed Americans from British tyranny, freed Poland from Communist tyranny and most recently Freed Serbia from Authoritarian tyranny. It simply takes a large bloc of the productive class to either go Galt simultaneously or fight back simultaneously…either way works. By the way, compromise and trimming etc were tried in the 3 examples above (i.e. the olive branch petition) and predictably it didn’t pan out.

3. Anytime you are tempted to post that David Brooks is spot on, its really time to set the laptop down for the day and go for a run.

Afterseven on February 29, 2012 at 6:01 PM

verbaluce on February 29, 2012 at 5:16 PM

I asked you what Brooks meant by aping the pastor. You didn’t answer. So I will ask you again: What is the point of that allusion? You claim I made a leap, so what is the alternative interpretation I’m missing?

Karl on February 29, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Karl it is pointless this has been explained to the sophist at least 4 times and every time he just repeats the same thing, “you are making a leap.” Not once has this troll attempted to explain why it is a leap in logic or offered an alternative interpretation for a quote that any other reader above 10th grade understands to imply a Nazi connotation.

verbaluce obviously has no intent on serious conversation or debate which leaves only one place for the our little troll, irrelevancy, welcome to it.

Skwor on February 29, 2012 at 6:02 PM

I can’t tell who he dislikes more, the inflexible extremists who are willing to lose elections or the squishy moderates who will sell their principles to win an election. He seems to dislike both.

In Brooks’ world extremism is simply a product of the right. He doesn’t seem to acknowledge left-wing extremism. In fact, what he calls “extremism” seems to be based on the views of people who don’t agree with him.

He says that tea party people don’t want to govern. He’s got it half-right. Tea party people don’t want to govern in the Washington way. “They have zero tolerance for the compromises needed to get legislation passed.” Yet, compromise leads to this: “It’s not honorable to adjust your true nature in order to win re-election.”

So, which is it, Brooks? Is compromise good or is a principled stand better?

People like Brooks and Snowe know that their days are numbered. The influence of r(h)ino intellectuals and politicians is coming to an end. All they see is a bleak future of right-wing extremism. Fine, just move along. You’ve done enough already. We’ll take it from here.

EMD on February 29, 2012 at 6:02 PM

Hey guys, just want to point out that at least 4 posts on Hotair have you used the “First they came for the…” trope, on topics as important as truck nuts, fake dog poo and basketball hoops. People use the phrase all the time (whether they should is another thing) without intending to accuse people of being Nazis. It’s ridiculous to claim that Brooks was calling grassroots activists Nazis.

Chunktronic on February 29, 2012 at 6:30 PM

Brooks is a “conservative”? Who knew, besides Brooks.

GarandFan on February 29, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Afterseven on February 29, 2012 at 6:01 PM

You are going off on a tangent to what I said, what Brooks said, and the central problem. Read any thread here. The problem isn’t that people want to stick to their principles, or stand up to the Democrats, that’s all fine. The problem is, as Brooks said, too many in the Republican base are treating politics as political theater, not as a practical matter of governing the nation. There are many, many here who say they are content to lose the election as long as their preferred candidate — right now, Santorum — is the one running. Politics, to them, is about feelings — the feeling that they did the right thing and *they* can’t be blamed for anything bad that happened next, even if it’s the fall of the Republic.

That way of thinking is fundamentally narcissistic. I see the same sentiment on left-wing webboards. It’s the psychology of the Nader voter. It ignores the reality that the perfect is the enemy of the good.

Bartrams Garden on February 29, 2012 at 6:53 PM

The prospect of Santorum getting the nomination is scaring a lot of Republicans back to the middle. If he’s the face of conservatism, who wants it? That’s what a lot of people, including myself, are thinking. Make up all the excuses posing as facts you want, but Romney was 15 points back in MI and won by 3. That’s an 18 point turnaround once the public got to see Santorum and Romney face to face at the AZ debate.

jan3 on February 29, 2012 at 7:05 PM

That’s an 18 point turnaround once the public got to see Santorum and Romney face to face at the AZ debate.

jan3 on February 29, 2012 at 7:05 PM

I don’t buy that. They were “face-to-face” in 31 other debates this primary season; including 3 where there were only 4 candidates left.

Money = votes; and Romney outspent Santorum 6-1. Just like he outspent Newt 5-1 in FL and turned a deficit into a win.

We’ll see how Romney does on Super Tuesday; where the money advantage plays a smaller role. If Romney wins OH, OK and GA, you will have a point. But I doubt it.

Norwegian on February 29, 2012 at 7:10 PM

NAZIES are on his side of the political spectrum.

lilium479 on February 29, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Hey guys, just want to point out that at least 4 posts on Hotair have you used the “First they came for the…” trope, on topics as important as truck nuts, fake dog poo and basketball hoops. People use the phrase all the time (whether they should is another thing) without intending to accuse people of being Nazis. It’s ridiculous to claim that Brooks was calling grassroots activists Nazis.

Chunktronic on February 29, 2012 at 6:30 PM

I just want to point out that you like others are clueless if you think a professional writer uses such a quote and has no intention to use it for what it actually means.

A person who makes a living from writing uses such phrases for exactly that purpose, otherwise they will further clarify the intent. When a professional writer does not add clarification then the common usage is exactly what was meant. It appears many here need some real work on comprehension and nuance.

So like the rest please tell us exactly who was the allusion intended to represent if not what the phrase is typically used for? This crap of everything I say is only meant literally but everything everyone says must be taken with the maximum inference is childish to play, seems though we have many her who like that particular game.

Skwor on February 29, 2012 at 7:21 PM

I don’t buy that. They were “face-to-face” in 31 other debates this primary season; including 3 where there were only 4 candidates left.

Norwegian on February 29, 2012 at 7:10 PM

They were on the stage together, but Santorum was stage right, no where near Romney, and rarely got a chance to talk. Plus Santorum’s religion began to emerge as an issue about the same time as the AZ debate.

jan3 on February 29, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Those damn wingnuts just don’t crease their pants like President Dreamy, eh, Brooksy?

HeckOnWheels on February 29, 2012 at 7:32 PM

Brooks/Will 2012! /

Bmore on February 29, 2012 at 7:48 PM

The NAZI’s (National Socialists) were Leftwingers. Leftwingers, Socialists, who hated Communists as much as they hated everyone else. Leftwingers run rampant, fascinated with their snappy uniforms, excellent gluttony and great big egos: Leftwingers.

Lourdes on February 29, 2012 at 8:42 PM

The NAZI’s (National Socialists) were Leftwingers. Leftwingers, Socialists, who hated Communists as much as they hated everyone else. Leftwingers run rampant, fascinated with their snappy uniforms, excellent gluttony and great big egos: Leftwingers.

Lourdes on February 29, 2012 at 8:42 PM

What I meant there was that TO THEM their gluttony was “excellent”. Finest of everything, taken from everyone, as much as they could manage, all the time, to them that was an excellent way of life.

Not to me, not to most the rest of the world, but to Nazis, that was “excellent” and they were filled with pride about how excellent they believed themselves and their beastly, gluttonous perspectives were.

Lourdes on February 29, 2012 at 8:44 PM

But Brooks is no Republican. I think he maintains that he is for the purpose of then feeling entitled to condemn Republicans as he is doing here, or trying to do.

Lourdes on February 29, 2012 at 8:46 PM

1. We have tried ‘trimming’ and ‘coalition building’ it hasn’t worked. Fair enough?

No, actually. Who and what are you talking about?

Priscilla on February 29, 2012 at 8:53 PM

AIN’T DA INTERNET GRAND…… da hacks in da media see da jig is up and the sheep have eyes and ears. Hope the tar is plenty hot and feathers itchy, itchy, itchy ….. when their day comes.

roflmao

donabernathy on February 29, 2012 at 8:59 PM

The big difference is that the protesters don’t believe in governance. They have zero tolerance for the compromises needed to get legislation passed. They don’t believe in trimming and coalition building. For them, politics is more about earning respect and making a statement than it is about enacting legislation.

I tend to be a fan of gridlock, the less laws Congress can pass, the better off we are. David is confusing passing legislation with actual governing. One can govern without passing dozens of new laws every year. He seems to think that Congress is only working when they are passing laws. Republican compromise means giving the democrats whatever they want, since it’s a rare occasion when the dems will compromise on their agenda. Case in point, look out how the dems handled obamacare. I didn’t notice a lot of the “my friends talk” and compromise when the dems had all the power. It’s amazing that so called reporters seem to always miss the obvious when it comes to dems and their lack of compromise and civility. Notice too, how he says we don’t believe in governance. So does that mean that the Republican Party is no longer the small government party? Are they now the boot licking party for big Governance!

Ibanez Lotus on February 29, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Sorry – been at a PTA mtg.
Or as some of you may think of it, a gathering of socialists and nazis.

You claim I made a leap, so what is the alternative interpretation I’m missing?
Karl on February 29, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Oh, come on. He was just riffing on something that has been used many many times…almost to a point of being a cliche.
You are doubling down here, really?
Yes or No – You think Brooks was calling you (in essence it seems by your concern) a nazi?
Are you so incapable of responding to the substance of his essay/remarks?
The Brooks/RINO thing…sure. Red meat for your round table. And it seems it gets under Brooks’ skin. You could have had so much more to say had that been your angle…but you go with nazis.
Sorry, it’s just really lame.

Skwor –
Alluded…
So, let’s say I make the remark ‘Gingrich will be President’ – and you reply with ‘To be or not to be…that is the question’.
Are we now talking about Shakespeare?
Hint: No we are not.

Come on guys…you can twist this all you want, but Brooks wasn’t calling anyone a nazi.

verbaluce on February 29, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Maybe re-think and re-write your post?

verbaluce on February 29, 2012 at 5:16 PM

I agree. It should be re-titled: “Pretentious Jackass Calls GOP ‘Meanies’.”

squint on February 29, 2012 at 5:31 PM

I’d say that seems fair enough.

verbaluce on February 29, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Methinks the crease wasn’t the only thing he was checking out in Obama’s pants. ha ha ha…now that’s funny right there

crowmangler on February 29, 2012 at 9:50 PM

The big difference is that the protesters don’t believe in governance. They have zero tolerance for the compromises needed to get legislation passed.

Written like a true aspiring tyrant. Passing legislation is always an end unto itself. Must be seen to be doing something.

fitzfong on February 29, 2012 at 10:24 PM

Comment pages: 1 2