"There is something wrong with his appearance;
something displeasing, something downright detestable."
|
That's David Brooks, conservative New York Times columnist, bitterly clinging to the ragged scraps of his tattered media-centrist regalia.
|
Still hoping to pull off that "disillusioned with the GOP" bit, Brooks ostensibly castigates the Republican Party for being naive. Predictably, the column descends, rather quickly, into GOP smears.
|
Ok, so now, in addition to his being a stone-visaged, Gandhi-like Terminator2™ liquid-metal uber-creature, Obama now possesses a Jekyll/Hyde split-personality, this is a fun game, let's try it out on Brooks:
But as recent columns have made clear, David Brooks is the most split-personality political pundit in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Bobo, the woolly-headed, Buckley-quoting, faux-anthropologist, sallying forth in pith helmet and gaiters to study the rituals of simple folk living dozens of miles away in Red-state Virginia. But then on the other side, there’s Mr. Toady, the talking-points spewing, hollowed-souled, conservative propagandist for a political party that'd drive a truck over your grandmother to keep her from voting.
¡Ay, que divertido! ¡It works!
Next, Brooks lists a few of the things which, I am sure, have been such deal breakers for his support of Obama. Since he used to be such a big fan, and all.
|
Blah, blah, bah, same to you, buddy:
Dr. Bobo could have eschewed the incivil attacks that might pollute our precious political discourse in favor of right-of-center wonkism. But how is one going to get paid if one doesn't get in those talking points? Mr. Toady dehumanizes democratic political candidates by referring to them over and over as ruthless, inhuman, machine-like creatures.
Okay, look; Ciertamente, it would have been a whole new kind of politics if Obama had agreed to campaign with one hand tied behind his back, agreed to give up millions of dollars that he'll need to fight off attacks from this year's swift-boaters and voter-suppression efforts, and raise the standing of his republican opponent merely by appearing with him on the same stage, in a format more forgiving to said opponent, but who could say that it would have been good politics, or winning politics?
Otherwise, por dio, how could Obama's candidacy have possibly changed presidential campaigns, right?
It's unnecessary to deal with Brooks's whole column, most all of his pointed criticisms have already been debunked. Obama never promised to use public financing, and watching all the Republicans crying "no fair!" is a rare and derision-inducing treat. You can ask President John Kerry about the marginality of Republican 527s, and oh yeah, John McCain is in violation of FEC guidelines and is breaking the very same campaign finance law which he pushed so diligently, and which bears his name.
But half-assed GOP smears are all that Bobo has right now, so I don't think he's bothered by such factual contra-indications. At the least, his closing doesn't lend itself to such an interpretation.
|
Dr. Bobo, on the other hand, isn't even smart enough to successfully push dehumanizing GOP smears while pretending to disown the GOP.
Pfui. Frotacíonado gigante.


Comments