David Brooks - he has reached Peak Cluelessness

Instead, he did not mention, not once, any of the fake scandals that his party has promulgated about her for 25 years.

Can he really not be aware, is he lying, or is he actually this stupid?

I know a lot of people kind of like Brooks as being a "reasonable" conservative. OTOH, hatred for him is frequently and wisely expressed in the politics threads.

I personally will never spend one more second reading anything he writes.

If you need a corrective for this massive stroke of stupidity, read this excellent profile of Hillary in Esquire.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a44169/hillary-clinton-esquire-profile/

The yin and yang of political commentary.

drummerboy said:

I personally will never spend one more second reading anything he writes.

I came to the same conclusion years ago.  I've come to the conclusion that he's one of those guys who's kind of intelligent, but not terribly insightful, and woefully lazy.  He'd rather muse about something for a few minutes, consider the conventional wisdom, and then churn out a shallow analysis.  It seems it might be too much work for him to do some actual research and serious analysis.

oh, and he's disingenuous.  I can't believe he's not aware of his own and his party's role in all the circumstances he's criticizing.  But God forbid he ever write a mea culpa.

In order to achieve "Peak cluelessness" one must have been less clueless before and expect to become more clueful moving forward. We may have witnessed a minor bump on David Brooks' plateau of cluelessness, nothing more.

He's certainly an improvement over Paul Gigot ( on the NewsHour) but I find he is wistfully superficial in his analysis ( too strong a word?)

That was the piece where he said that everybody hates Hillary because she doesn't have a hobby? I thought he was just getting warmed up with that point and kept reading to the end expecting a bombshell, but ... that was it.

kthnry said:

That was the piece where he said that everybody hates Hillary because she doesn't have a hobby? I thought he was just getting warmed up with that point and kept reading to the end expecting a bombshell, but ... that was it.

he should write a column about why people hate David Brooks.

I still find him worth reading. Sometimes he is a supreme jerk, but I find that sometimes he is insightful. It's weird how he's all over the place.

OK, I just read the piece you spoke of. You're right. It's total trash. Politicians have to have hobbies? Since when?

I know that George H.W. Bush was a runner and George W. Bush is a cyclist. That's cool. But so what?

David Brooks has more intellect in his little toe than most of the pontificators here have in their entire body.  I have been a registered democrat for more than four decades and can not stand Hillary Clinton.  I will never vote for her for any office other than Essex County Executive where all the dishonest phonies end up.  Any woman who would stand by a man who deserves the title "fornicator in chief" deserves to be relegated to the trash pile.  And lest any of yo think I will vote for the Donald, you have to be kidding.

Why exactly do you feel so strongly about Hillary? Just because of her relationship with Bill? Or other reasons?

kthnry said:

Why exactly do you feel so strongly about Hillary? Just because of her relationship with Bill? Or other reasons?

I'm more surprised that someone feels strongly that Brooks is an intellectual heavyweight.

ml1 said:

kthnry said:

Why exactly do you feel so strongly about Hillary? Just because of her relationship with Bill? Or other reasons?

I'm more surprised that someone feels strongly that Brooks is an intellectual heavyweight.

Yeah, I'm letting that go. But I'm baffled by the level of Hillary hatred and I'd like to understand it. I think a lot of it is because she's a woman, and nobody will ever convince me otherwise. It's like Obama Derangement Syndrome.

I think it's overly simplistic to describe Brooks as all bad. He's just more nuanced than that. Sometimes, for example, he does a very good job of criticizing some heavyweight Republicans and conservatives for ignoring community values and over glorifying egotistical individualism.

Jasmo said:

I think it's overly simplistic to describe Brooks as all bad. He's just more nuanced than that. Sometimes, for example, he does a very good job of criticizing some heavyweight Republicans and conservatives for ignoring community values and over glorifying egotistical individualism.

He's not "all bad."  If he wrote for some minor newspaper or was a commentator on local TV in a small city, he'd be fine.  But the lazy hackishness of someone who occupies a perch on the NYT editorial page, and is called upon as a commentator on national TV is inexcusable.  His critiques are typically facile and superficial, without any bite.  And he doesn't take any responsibility for what conservatism and the Republican party have become, when he's been an enabler for decades.

Overall, people like Brooks bear a responsibility for what our politics has become.  And instead of mea culpas, Brooks points fingers outward at vague targets like societal "values."

thechamp said:

David Brooks has more intellect in his little toe than most of the pontificators here have in their entire body.  I have been a registered democrat for more than four decades and can not stand Hillary Clinton.  I will never vote for her for any office other than Essex County Executive where all the dishonest phonies end up.  Any woman who would stand by a man who deserves the title "fornicator in chief" deserves to be relegated to the trash pile.  And lest any of yo think I will vote for the Donald, you have to be kidding.

so, you're angry because the Clinton's remained married?  Because she was able to forgive the one she loved his transgressions?  

I can see actually not liking her because of her politics, but I can't understand how her family relationships and how she deals with it is anyone's business but hers.

hoops said:

thechamp said:

David Brooks has more intellect in his little toe than most of the pontificators here have in their entire body.  I have been a registered democrat for more than four decades and can not stand Hillary Clinton.  I will never vote for her for any office other than Essex County Executive where all the dishonest phonies end up.  Any woman who would stand by a man who deserves the title "fornicator in chief" deserves to be relegated to the trash pile.  And lest any of yo think I will vote for the Donald, you have to be kidding.

so, you're angry because the Clinton's remained married?  Because she was able to forgive the one she loved his transgressions?  

I can see actually not liking her because of her politics, but I can't understand how her family relationships and how she deals with it is anyone's business but hers.

Yep.  I don't know why she remained with Bill.  Not really my business or the business of anybody else.

kthnry said:

 I'm baffled by the level of Hillary hatred

Wow, MOL really is its own bubble.

I will probably vote for her given the alternative, but it will be the most distasteful vote I have ever, and hopefully will ever, cast.

We are all in a bubble. It does not explain the strong hatred of Hillary Clinton. To me there are politicians who are far more guilty than she of the things for which she is hated.

LOST said:

We are all in a bubble. It does not explain the strong hatred of Hillary Clinton. To me there are politicians who are far more guilty than she of the things for which she is hated.

Right? For example, the MOLers who hate Hillary seem to hate her with much more passion than they hate Christie, who (it seems to me) is much more deserving of passionate hatred.

If you look at politicians who are in the same ideological position as Clinton, they do not inspire such vitriol - for instance Gore, Kerry, or Biden. So it's not her stance on the issues. And when you look at the various "scandals," they're a whole lot more smoke than fire. Politicians who've actually been found guilty of scandal (as opposed to simply being accused) don't inspire the same hatred. Heck, Bill Clinton gets less hatred for having had an affair than Hillary does for not leaving him!

If Hillary had a hobby that was publicized,  the media and political pundits and politicians would pounce on her for being weak, or for spending too much time doing it(the hobby) instead of working, or some such nonsense.  

With the opposition, Hillary cannot win.  Doesn't matter what she does or doesn't do.

Brooks is a weenie.  Always has been.

PVW said:

Politicians who've actually been found guilty of scandal (as opposed to simply being accused) don't inspire the same hatred. Heck, Bill Clinton gets less hatred for having had an affair than Hillary does for not leaving him!

Difference there is charisma.  Bill had/has it in spades.  She doesn't.

I think part of the problem is that Hillary is demonized as an archetypal Evil Woman, in the same way Blacks, Mexicans, Muslims, are stereotyped and scapegoated as the all-bad Dangerous Other. All such targeted minority groups are perceived as threats, as if they have some concealed power to take away safety and security, unless they are defanged and controlled.  Women, particularly, are often perceived through the lens of the "Madonna-whore" complex, where if they are not totally pure and nurturing, they are perceived as ruthless and dangerous whores (or at least political whores).  

Jasmo said:

 perceived through the lens of the "Madonna-whore" complex, where if they are not totally pure and nurturing, they are perceived as ruthless and dangerous whores (or at least political whores).  

And the flip-side, if they ARE viewed as pure and nurturing, then they are weak.

It's been about anti-woman from the get-go with Hillary because she is smart, forceful, confident.  All those qualities in a man, no one would blink an eye.

The problem with Hillary is very simple.

1) family dynasties in the White House are a bad idea

2) no matter how one slices it, she is simply not to be trusted

3) as evidenced by her position on TPP, she like the Trumper has no fixed compass on  any issue

4) no matter how hard one tries, Bill Clinton's behavior in the White House was inexcusable and I for one do not want him in charge of economic policy or anything

5) I will not vote for her or the Trumper, who is definitely despicable.

I doubt Hillary will ever advocate violence toward people based on their ethnicity or religion. I doubt she will publicly call for the use of torture or the summary execution of relatives of terrorists. 

I perceive Donald Trump as an extremely serious threat to minorities and to the stability of the country. 

Not only will I vote for Hillary Clinton to stop Trump, I would vote for John Edwards if that was the only other choice.

^^^yes

LOST said:

I doubt Hillary will ever advocate violence toward people based on their ethnicity or religion. I doubt she will publicly call for the use of torture or the summary execution of relatives of terrorists. 

I perceive Donald Trump as an extremely serious threat to minorities and to the stability of the country. 

Not only will I vote for Hillary Clinton to stop Trump, I would vote for John Edwards if that was the only other choice.

+1 million

The NY Times is a complete and total disaster.  Brooks is only the start.   It's a must read if you want your daily serving of crony status quo propaganda.