Tuesday, March 3, 2009

'Those of us who consider ourselves moderates . . .'

". . . are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was."
-- David Brooks, New York Times

Meanwhile, those of us who consider David Brooks a useless son of a bitch are forced to confront the reality that the New York Times is still paying him $300,000 a year to annoy us with idiotic self-promoting drivel like this:
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.
The first task will be to block the excesses of unchecked liberalism. In the past weeks, Democrats have legislated provisions to dilute welfare reform, restrict the inflow of skilled immigrants and gut a voucher program designed for poor students. It will be up to moderates to raise the alarms against these ideological outrages.
Smitty, Dave and an army of Internet commenters can fisk Brooks point-by-point. I'm just pissed off that I got up this morning with the idea of blogging some real news and instead found myself confronted by another David Brooks column. Eight hundred and fourteen words, exhibiting no apparent effort at reporting. Let the reader calculate the cost-per-word of Brooks's annual output. Compare and contrast.

With American newspapers in meltdown mode -- my old boss at the Rome (Ga.) News-Tribune, Pierre-Rene Noth, was recently put out to the pasture of semi-retirement -- why is Brooks still on the NYT payroll?

Because he's a stylish writer? Stylish writers are a dime a dozen. Because he brings to bear incisive reporting? Make me laugh. Given access to the resources and awesome prestige of one of the world's most important news-gathering organizations -- please don't accuse me of succumbing to Tucker Carlson Syndrome -- Brooks adamantly refuses to gather any news, opting instead for the posture of the Platonic archon, deciding which "noble lies" are acceptable for utterance by those who aspire to lead the ignorant masses.

The New York Times continues to pay Brooks to produce his elaborate nonsense, and the idiot (he is not even a useful idiot) doesn't realize that there are people among the readership who remember his past idiocies and are capable of doing a quick compare-and-contrast that exposes him for the posturing sham he is. Ladies and gentlemen, liberal blogger John Cole:
Moderate? What happened to worshiping Edmund Burke and Hayek and Oakeshott and all those other guys? What happened to kicking it in Gstaad with William F. Buckley?
What concerns me most is the very real possibility that Brooks will now dig up some long forgotten hero of moderation and begin quoting him as if we all were supposed to know who he was. Are there any moderate intellectual writers I should start boning up on right now?
If there is one thing that the blogosphere has accomplished, or will eventually accomplish, it is to expose the likes of David Brooks as vestiges of the golden age of journalistic excess, a Darwinian remnant of an obsolute appendage, a luxury that newspapers could arguably afford when ad revenues were growing and newsrooms were crowded.

Those days are over, and now ad revenue losses are requiring news organizations to excise the bone and sinew of their core news-gathering operations. Lean-and-mean will be the newsroom of the future, and the day is soon coming -- not soon enough, but nevertheless soon -- when the city editor of the New York Times will be told he'll have to lay off another reporter. And there will be an angry shouting match in someone's office at 620 Eighth Avenue:
Hell, no! Why the f--- should I lay off a reporter when that g--d--- piece of s--- David Brooks is collecting $300,000 a year to produce two columns of nothingness a week? You can fire me if you want to, or I'll just quit right here and now, because I'll be g--d----d if I'll lay off one more reporter as long as that useless motherf----r David Brook is on the payroll!
It is possible to argue that Brooks never should have been hired for that job in the first place. He is the Chauncey Gardner of American journalism, a man elevated by circumstance to a position beyond his aptitude or capacity.

Brooks reminds me very much of a couple of staff writers I encountered in 1987 after I was hired as sports editor of the Douglas County (Ga.) Neighbor. One spring afternoon, in transit from an afternoon track meet to a night baseball game, I stopped by the office to get film for my camera (I did most of my own photography) and overheard these two guys talking amongst themselves. One of them was overjoyed that the local amateur theatre outfit had agreed to produce his one-act play, which prompted congratulations from the other writer, who complained that his latest poem had been rejected by whatever literary magazine he'd sent it to.

That overheard conversation has stuck in my mind for more than two decades. As I hopped back in my '84 Chevette that afternoon, I cussed a storm and peeled out of the parking lot. Here I was, wearing out my tires and clutch en route from one event to another, working the phones late at night to get complete results for events I couldn't cover in person, writing into the wee hours, doing my own photography, layout and paste-up. And there were those two useless sons of bitches, required to contribute a mere eight bylines a week, and using their ample leisure to write poems and plays.

"F--- them," I said to myself. Oh, I had my own original ambitions, but the rock-star thing wasn't working out, so I was happy to get a job as a sports editor, even if it did take everything I had to keep up with the pace, as I was required to produce not only the sports pages of the Douglas County Neighbor, but also the geographically adjacent Paulding County Neighbor.

I vowed that day never to become one of those useless sons of bitches. Wherever I worked, I'd work -- I would produce, over and above the minimum requirements -- and when I finally got pissed off enough to walk out the door, my absence would be felt. Curious minds may inquire of Pierre-Rene Noth if I made good on that ancient vow, and if my talents were missed after the day in 1997 I left the Rome News-Tribune.

Yesterday, a blog reader sent me an e-mail alleging shady doings at the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. The e-mail, including transcripts of testimony before a congressional committee, ran to 10 pages. I was too brain-fogged from Post-CPAC Syndrome to make heads or tales of what it was the tipster was alleging, and I got up this morning at 6:30 with the intent of finding out, or at least trying to blog about some actual news.

Instead, I found myself noticing (via Memeorandum, Rule 3) this ridiculous ode to moderation by David Brooks. So I've wasted time telling my few hundred regular readers what they already know, that David Brooks is a useless son of a bitch. And in recompense for my labors, I pray for only one thing: That someone will call this to the attention of the city editor of the New York Times, so as to hasten that angry shouting match at 620 Eighth Avenue.

ADDENDUM: OK, so I lied. Additional recompense is always welcome, if anyone wants to hit the tip jar. It's a long way from the occasional Google Adsense check to $300,000 a year, and every $20 helps.

UPDATE: I would be remiss if I failed to link Russ Smith's farewell to the Rocky Mountain News. When venerable newspapers like the Rocky are going belly-up and hard-working journalists everywhere are dreading the next round of newsroom pink slips, the continued employment of a useless SOB like David Brooks reeks to high heaven as an insult to the profession.

If you're one of the New York Times employees reading this via the electronic water cooler (SiteMeter sees all), allow me to offer a suggestion: Somebody compose a small note, with four words in red 72-point Arial Bold:
NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE!
Let these notes begin to appear inconspicuously in your newsroom cubicles, so that you will know who your comrades are. John Galt. Tyler Durden. You get the idea.

UPDATE II: Michelle Malkin:
What an unbelievable waste of time and real estate is David Brooks. It’s profane. Which is why Robert Stacy McCain’s expletive-filled smackdown is the only appropriate and satisfying response.
Glad you enjoyed it, ma'am. I always aim to please.

47 comments:

  1. John Cole's comment gave me chills: that is EXACTLY what these 'intellectuals' do. They 're-discover' some long forgotten/obscure nobody 'thinker' and... oh I don't wanna talk about it...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Can I also add:

    Note that he says "those who consider ourselves moderates..."

    Reminds me of those pre-op trannies who "consider themselves" female. Brooks really has absorbed the 'acceptable' left-liberal way of speaking and doesn't even realize it.

    He "self-identifies" as a moderate the way Obama "self-identifies" as black.

    Yuck. Brooks is beyond hope.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Meanwhile, those of us who consider David Brooks a useless son of a bitch are forced to confront the reality that the New York Times is still paying him $300,000 a year to annoy us with idiotic self-promoting drivel like this:"

    You are truly "John Wayne" McCain!!!

    Where all else on the blogosphere can I find Palin loving, RINO bashing and smokin' hot blondes on the side bars? LOL

    Great post buddy!

    ReplyDelete
  4. The only thing I can think of is that this is Brooks' way of secretly taking down the NYT.

    I still had not rebounded from last night's shocking revelation that there are Palin fans out there that have read Hildebrand. Shocking! :) No. Scandalous.

    Mr. McCain it was a pleasure to meet you at CPAC.

    Thanks for cussing him out good so I don't have to.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "The first task will be to block the excesses of unchecked liberalism."

    So Brooks' brilliant strategy for blocking unchecked liberalism was to vote into the White House an Alinksy-loving socialist because he didn't like Palin's accent?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I liken Brooks to David Blaine. A second rate magician, who cribbed a bunch of tricks that people forgot long ago and passed them off as "new and exciting", in this case he's going to dig up some lost knowledge that the Greeks probably discovered 8000 years ago and pass it off as if it's the bees knees.

    ReplyDelete
  7. So this is another instance of attacking if you don't agree - the Liberal mantra.

    It makes you nervous that Brooks speaks some real truths.........buyers remorse.

    ReplyDelete
  8. David Brooks' next books will be headed for the spiritual shelves at Barnes & Noble:

    "ACHIEVE EMPTINESS...THE DAVID BROOKS WAY!"

    "THE ROAD LESS TRAVELED...OVER AND OVER AND F***ING OVER AGAIN."

    "OBAMIAN MYSTICISM FOR DUMMIES."

    ReplyDelete
  9. "So I've wasted time telling my few hundred regular readers what they already know, that David Brooks is a useless son of a bitch."

    As one of said regular readers, let me assure you, putting the smackdown on David Brooks is NEVER a waste of time.

    ReplyDelete
  10. As the British are wont to say, Brooks is "too clever by half."

    ReplyDelete
  11. Tell you what, I'll do Brooks' job for half. A quarter, even, as long as I don't have to move to New York.

    No, wait: I'll do it for 10% less than whatever Robert Stacy McCain would want.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Brooks would have been more accurate in saying," This is not the Obama we blew."

    ReplyDelete
  13. "It makes you nervous that Brooks speaks some real truths.........buyers remorse."

    No, it's not that we're nervous. I believe the word(s) you're looking for are: disgusted and pissed off.

    Had these so-called "elites" actually bothered to look past the thin paper trail of Obama (oh look, a Harvard degree), they'd have seen exactly what they were supporting.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This GOP Confederacy idea you righties have come up with is some of the greatest (unintentional) comedy I've ever seen! Limbo! Steele! Malkin! Beck! Hannity! Jindal! Palin! CPAC!

    So many assholes, so much stupidity!

    Keep it up! We need the laughs!

    ReplyDelete
  15. To Kathy Shaidle: Obama "self-identifies" as black?

    News flash: Obama IS black.

    Got it?

    ReplyDelete
  16. When was Hamilton ever considered a moderate? In his day the two extremes were Jefferson on one end and Hamilton on the other, and the debate wasn't big or small government, it was federal or state control of government. I wonder if David Brooks has even read the Federalist Papers...

    ReplyDelete
  17. Great post, but the sad truth is that Brooks will be one of the very last "reporters" the Times fires as it slowing slides down the drain.

    He is one of the MSM's tame conservatives that they trot out whenever they want to show how "fair and balanced" they are. Brooks probably doesn't even know what a show pony he is.

    When the press wants a “conservative” mouthpiece, they call Brooks. When they want to prove that all conservatives are maniacal Nazi mouth-breathers, they call Pat Buchanan.

    ReplyDelete
  18. As a Paulding County resident I wish you were still writing here so I would have a reason to subscribe to a paper...any paper. I refuse to pay for that liberal rag of refuse known as the AJC. Perhaps one day when I finally get to Galt's Gulch, i'll find that you are the editor of the local paper?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Sorry Sherry, the only people that
    bought Brooks words are libs in the first place.
    BO told him everything. He chose to ignore those words. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
    Buckley, Noonan and the rest of the NRO loons will be busting the closet door down next.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "...Barack Obama is not who we thought he was."

    We, actual conservatives, knew who Obama was; a red-diaper baby who attended all the most liberal schools and worked as an activist. All that took was knowing how to read. But David Brooks, who believes people should pay to have his opinions, couldn't figure that out. Mr. McCain you understate Brooks' worthlessness.

    I think what we are seeing here and will see much more of in the near future is the evacuation of the rats. The "conservative" columnists who slammed Palin and equivocated the horrid leftism of Obama are beginning to see the consequences of their dishonesty and are running for the life rafts. We're going to hear more and more about how they were taken and mislead and simply couldn't have known. Next on deck; Kathleen Parker.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I'm over from MM. I'll be baaaack.

    Good work. For some things only profanity is appropriate.

    Carl Hoffman

    ReplyDelete
  22. damn... thought I swore a blue streak.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "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."

    David Brooks is a complete idiot. Anyone who examined what Barack Obama did prior to being elected is not surprised at all by what he has done since being elected. Too many people ignored those facts and focused instead on the candidate's inspirational words. Even in retrospect, Brooks cannot admit his error; he seems to assert that he was misled ("But his actions betray..."), but continues to describe the President's words as "responsible" and his character as "inspiring." If his words were misleading, how can they be responsible? And if a candidate chose to mislead to get elected, why is his character inspiring?

    "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." I can understand why moderates do not want conservatives to weild power, but it why is that alternative more scary than President "Obama's experiment?" Conservatives represent the past: limited government, fiscal restraint, strong national defense. Why isn't the past better than the future we now face?

    Conservative policies did not give rise to our precarious future, Dem talking points aside. It was Leftists and moderates that advocated the government interventions (in housing and banking, anyway) that led to this crisis. Conservatives don't bail out anyone, believing that recessions are natural and should be allowed to occur precisely so they don't become depresssions.

    Brooks is no moderate, and frankly he doesn't appear to be very pragmatic either. Thanks to "moderates" like him who voted for our President, moderates now have no power. Like conservatives, moderates will have to wait until the devastating effects of the President's policies are felt and affect his popularity before they will be in a position to make their pitch. In other words, it is too late now.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "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."

    David Brooks is a complete idiot. Anyone who examined what Barack Obama did prior to being elected is not surprised at all by what he has done since being elected. Too many people ignored those facts and focused instead on the candidate's inspirational words. Even in retrospect, Brooks cannot admit his error; he seems to assert that he was misled ("But his actions betray..."), but continues to describe the President's words as "responsible" and his character as "inspiring." If his words were misleading, how can they be responsible? And if a candidate chose to mislead to get elected, why is his character inspiring?

    "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." I can understand why moderates do not want conservatives to weild power, but it why is that alternative more scary than President "Obama's experiment?" Conservatives represent the past: limited government, fiscal restraint, strong national defense. Why isn't the past better than the future we now face?

    Conservative policies did not give rise to our precarious future, Dem talking points aside. It was Leftists and moderates that advocated the government interventions (in housing and banking, anyway) that led to this crisis. Conservatives don't bail out anyone, believing that recessions are natural and should be allowed to occur precisely so they don't become depresssions.

    Brooks is no moderate, and frankly he doesn't appear to be very pragmatic either. Thanks to "moderates" like him who voted for our President, moderates now have no power. Like conservatives, moderates will have to wait until the devastating effects of the President's policies are felt and affect his popularity before they will be in a position to make their pitch. In other words, it is too late now.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I am so glad to see this well written disembowelment of Brooks. Excellent rant!

    One example of his worthlessness. He's always going on about "human capital", e.g., stating that Sarah Palin is lacking in it. (Right. The successful governor of a huge land mass with vast mineral resources and unique challenges.)

    And where is the proof of the extraordinary "human capital" displayed by Obama during his many years as community organizer and representative of the south side of Chicago? He never left a mark. Enough said.

    ReplyDelete
  26. We know who we are supporting in President Obama and we feel damn good about it.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Leave it to the current band of nationally unelectable GOP Confederates to freak out about a tepid David Brooks piece. It's a good thing your shepherds like Michelle "I bulge out and roll my eyes on FOX News because nobody's let the air out of my head" Malkin comment on New York Times articles, because aren't you Neanderthals under strict instructions not to read it from Party Leader Rush "Big & Sweaty" Limbo? Didn't he tell you that it would make you go blind?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Brooks reminds me of those '60s peaceniks who still won't admit that their ideas led directly to those camps in Cambodia where two million human beings were murdered. Obama reminds me of those who ordered those murders.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "David Brooks is a complete idiot."

    Yes he is. Like many of his ilk, he makes the assumption that if "I don't get it, NOBODY does." Geez.

    How could anyone who pays the slightest attention miss that this administration's performance is right out of the Alinsky manual -- turn the world upside down -- use it to ramp up central control.

    Transparency? forget it. Transparency implies at least a shot at some truth. This group creates justifications only after a goal has been reached. The fabrication generally has no relationship to the actual facts of a situation, right?

    Obama's campaign months were exactly the same -- a clear and obvious preview, so Brooks can't even confess to buying a pig in a poke, can he?

    Yes, David Brooks is useless. Thanks for saying so in such clear terms.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I am truly Aghast!

    Barack Obama may not be who he once thought?

    Could it be that those of us knuckle-dragging troglodytes called conservatives saw this coming?

    It's uncanny to think that some of us went to good schools, have more than just undergraduate degrees and have read myriad books and dare I say some of us have have read the likes of F. Scott Fitzgerald, Tolstoy, Vonnegut, Steinbeck and Hemmingway?! - and were able to comprehend such works and be Sarah Palin fans simultaneously! I'm simply Flabbergasted.../Sarc.

    As they say in the Little Prince: "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly, what is essential is invisible to the eye." (Integrity, Character, Morals and Ethics for those not of the "right" mind)

    What a wonderful write-up and synopsis. It was also nice meeting you at CPAC Mr. McCain (I'm that "low brow" (by Mr. Brooks' evaluation) financial analyst of a biodefense company)

    ReplyDelete
  31. I've always considered Brooks to be a useful idiot. However, you might be right, it's entirely possible he's just a run of the mill idiot.

    Garden variety idiot or not, I still think he's useless.... as useless as a set of teats on a bull.

    ReplyDelete
  32. JohnnyRussia said... We know who we are supporting in President Obama and we feel damn good about it.

    Johnny: Let's see you say that with a straight face. You're either uninformed or an idiot, or both. We're laughing at you, not with you.

    ReplyDelete
  33. As Brooks sits now in the back of the bus, he thinks nostalgically of how he slapped down passengers who protested that the driver smelled of booze. Brooks had so much FUN pointing out they were really protesting that the driver was black.

    Yeah, that was fun. But now? Hmm, not so much. As Brooks slides to the side of his seat because the bus is lurching violently to the left, as he sees the empty booze bottle sliding around on the floor where the driver tossed it, and smells the driver's breath, Brooks is starting to get just a teensy bit worried. You see, the view through the windshield shows that the bus is heading straight towards a cliff. And as the abyss comes closer, Brooks turns to his fellow leftie and asks 'how did this happen?'.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Why is it that all the so called moderate intellectuals effusing about Obama's mellifulous voice and dynamic aura are now expressing shock and awe that Obama is a a big government liberal who is prone to enacting a far left agenda?
    Us rubes in the trenches were arguing that from the get go, as Obama's history, his affiliations and his rhetoric would suggest to anyone who wasn't a retard. Apparently the literati, like Brooks are exempt from such basic common sense.

    Meanwhile, Brooks and Frum were pronouncing that Sarah Palin was not intellectual enough for the conservative movement, yet she apparently was able to see Obama for what he was, and didn't have to write mea culpas after the fact about what idiots they were not to see that 2+2=4.
    Yes, Brooks, and yes Buckley, and yes Frum, you are those idiots.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Useless David Brooks?
    Agreed.

    And add the perpetual teenager Maureen Dowd.

    -Mikey NTH

    ReplyDelete
  36. Was Brooks not aware of Obama's voting record?

    Did Brooks simply believe what he heard Obama say? Did he not recognize Obama's campaign rhetoric as "just what politicians do"?

    Late in the campaign, Obama gave what was billed as a major address on education. He proposed to double funding for charter schools and increase teacher accountability. I dismissed his words out of hand, of course, as would any sensible person, and was quite surprised to see the speech covered as straight news.

    I recently saw (on C-Span, I think) an interview with a Washington reporter who considered himself fortunate early in his career to have worked for Robert Novak. Novak told him (I am quoting from memory), "In this town, don't go by what people say. Go by what they do. Words are easy, deeds are hard."

    Paging David Brooks...

    ReplyDelete
  37. Dammit, the one day I don't visit you you write this masterpiece.

    Anyone who paid any attention should have seen Obama for who he was, all you had to do was look at what legislation he supported as a state senator, or the way he handled his opponents, by kicking them off the ballot!

    You have been Digged and Yahoo Buzzed by yours truly.

    Carlos

    ReplyDelete
  38. David Brooks is to the NY Times as Arlen Specter is to Barack Obama and the Democrats: the conservative they're willing to let hang around and talk to.

    ReplyDelete
  39. "A Darwinian remnant of an obsolete appendage"

    "Atavism", if memory serves.

    "Moderates"... as in milquetoast, compounded with pleading to membership of a group to avoid direct personal culpability.

    That gutsy New. York. Times.

    ReplyDelete
  40. While "moderate" Brooks complains about Rush and Palin, the "moderates" on the left... complain about Rush and Palin, but have no problem siding with a nasty, illtempered clown like Al Franken, to give just one example. And that´s the pattern. They have no enemies on the left.

    ReplyDelete
  41. "Appealing to moderates..." I like that. Does he mean 'moderate' like "moderate Muslims?" The definition of moderate these days is a RINO who will abandon his/her principles and bend over.

    Brooks is just a tiresome, ponderous tool.

    ReplyDelete
  42. The way the New York Times is going, I'll be surprised if it's still there next year. The company is almost bust and keeping people like Brooks on the payroll will only hasten its demise. Rest in Peace, New York Times. You only have yourselves to blame.

    ReplyDelete
  43. To JohnnyRussia(and your name says it all )
    NEWS FLASH !!!! Barack Obama is HALF WHITE !

    ReplyDelete
  44. "Let the reader calculate the cost-per-word of Brooks's annual output."...hmmmm...

    OK. Brooks wrote 814 words this time, and does so twice a week, maybe 50 weeks of the year...
    Lessee... $300K/yr, hunh?...

    Whaaaat? That's $3.68 per word, or exactly $3000 to write that pile of cat-gag he calls a column.

    "It's a good job, isn't it"

    'Nuff said...

    ReplyDelete
  45. Fastforward 6 months:

    "Obama isn't the natural born citizen that he said he was."

    As Barry Soetoro is frogmarched out of the people's house.

    ROFL....can't wait...let's roll.

    ReplyDelete
  46. David Brooks reminds me of an old Monte Python sketch. John Cleese is giving the daily radio news update, and masked gunman break into his office and whisk him away, desk and all. Cleese continues with his drivel, though, undaunted. The masked men load him up onto a flatbed truck and drive to the pier while Cleese continues to speak into a mic on his desk. With Cleese still in his chair at his desk with a mic and the news sheets in front of him (completely oblivious to what's going on), the bandits push him down the pier and into the water. His final words before hitting the water: "And this has been the news."

    ReplyDelete
  47. Why is there always some paid Huffpo/moveon dick-breath like johnnycommunist on posts by the right? Go back to your troll sites little johnnie, your Mommas rent-free, ammonia and urine smelling basement room and insert your head back up your ass where it deserves to be. Idjit

    ReplyDelete