Tuesday, June 9, 2009

David Brooks shovels Democratic
talking points on Sotomayor

Just what we needed, a "conservative" columnist pushing Democratic Party agitprop for a woman he admits is a "poster child for identity politics":
More than any current member of the Supreme Court, she worked her way up through the furnace levels of the American legal system. . . .
She is quite liberal. But there’s little evidence that she is motivated by racialist thinking or an activist attitude.
As I said, I'm not apoplectic about her Jet-All-The-Way "wise Latina" shtick, but the fact that Brooks is pro-Sotomayor should be all the reason anyone needs to be anti-Sotomayor.

A basic life principle: Always do the opposite of whatever David Brooks says, and you can't go too far wrong.

Via Memeorandum, more at Michelle Malkin and Legal Insurrection. And please hit the tip jar, either for the "David Brooks Fisking Fund," the "Emergency Fireworks Fund" or to help NTC "bloggregate" the news.

It's For the Children!


  1. Why would any genuine conservative apply a
    "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard to judge her intentions, considering her background educational history and connections? This is not the time to be shy about insisting on a nominee who at least appears to be impartial. I don't see what the GOP risks by making an issue of her affirmative action bent at the hearings. She may be confirmed, but the chance to mobilize public opinion is priceless.

  2. I thought that was the Tom Friedman rule?

  3. “”””I thought that was the Tom Friedman rule?”””

    I thought that Tom Friedman and David Brooks was the same person. He just swaps glasses for a mustache. Has anyone seen both of them in the same room at the same time?

  4. Friedman, Brooks...what's the difference?

  5. the most interesting man in the worldFri Jun 12, 12:09:00 PM

    What's sad is that Brooks replaced Safire as the token conservative on the NYT. It must be Stockholm syndrom.