Tuesday, May 26, 2009

David Brooks = Oprah wing of GOP

Daivd Brooks described himself as a member of the "Oprah Wing" of the "Conservative" movement on ABC's This Week:

BROOKS: If I could just speak up for the Oprah wing of the conservative movement...


... I am, sort of, pro-empathy. I don't think we can have automatons. I don't think there are automatons in the universe. People make decisions based on emotional reactions, even people wearing black robes.

My suspicion is that the other panelists weren't laughing with, but at, Brooks. Basically, Brooks feels that the GOP shouldn't support strict constructionism & should just throw out the US Constitution as a mere distraction to Obama's domestic agenda. Donna Brazile(presumably, a member of the Oprah Wing of the liberal movement)points out another perceived minor distraction of housing terrorists in people's backyards:

BRAZILE: I think the Democrats should have known that the Republicans were going to use the entire issue of Gitmo Bay to -- to, sort of, put the Democrats on the defense.

We saw it in the House and then, every day, McConnell went out there, the minority leader, and hammered the president: no plan, no plan, where is the plan? And clearly the Democrats were caught without a plan, as something to say, hey, we have a response to this.

So the president was forced to go out there and regain the moral higher ground. But the Democrats really can go home this week and tell the American people that they are still dealing with the economy, dealing with the issues that they care about. Meanwhile, the Republicans are looking for distractions. And, clearly, this week the Republicans found something to chew on.

Brooks, as is his wont, then went into full court press mode in attacking "fellow" Republicans & defending Obama:

BROOKS: You know the old line that, when two guys fight over a girl, it's the fight they want, not the girl.


That's what this week reminds me of. We have a bipartisan anti- terror policy in this country. If you take the anti-terror policy of the last four years of the Bush administration and stack it up with the first four months of the Obama administration, you have the same policy, with some adjustments on renditions, on secret prisons, on habeas corpus, even on Gitmo.

STEPHANOPOULOS: President Bush said he wanted to close Guantanamo, just didn't have a plan.

BROOKS: Right. And Condi Rice and people in that administration went around Capitol Hill, went to country after country saying, we want to close Gitmo, please take the prisoners. It never occurred to them they could announce the closure first and then figure out what to do with the prisoners later.

My impression is that GWBush never was serious about shutting down Gitmo. He asked other countries to take the detainees in a Kabuki theater exercise to highlight the critics' utter hypocrisy. That's because GWBush was serious about protecting the security of the US, unlike the current crop of idiotic sycophants:

DIONNE: A friend gave me a solution to this last night, California needs a bailout. And none of the states want the Gitmo prisoners. California agrees to take all of the prisoners and then it gets its bailout.

BROOKS: Hotel Bel Air.



WILL: California is going to release prisoners.


BRAZILE: To save money.

Har dee har har....releasing Al Qaeda terrorists into the US...such a topic of HI-LAR-I-TY!!!

Brooks then proceeds to attack the concept of term limits, paving the way for the US to emulate Venezuela & Cuba with our own dictator for life:

BROOKS: There's one other issue George may not like. Term limits. If you're only in the legislature for a short period you don't care about the out years. That's been a big factor here. Frankly, if we want to reach a compromise I'll give you a short-term bailout if there is fundamental reform, if Obama leans on them and they really do fundamental reform. I think most would accept that.

Finally, to top it off, Brooks advocates corporate fascism:

Business lies down with government. Management embraces labor. You call it what you will; I call it beautiful.

I'm calling it delusions from Dr. Utopia's Kool Aid & incredibly ugly:


  1. Great post...and one of my favorite cartoons.

    Levin: "If the Constitution’s meaning can be erased or rewritten, and the Framers’ intentions ignored, it ceases to be a constitution but is instead a concoction of political expedients that serve the contemporary policy agendas of the few who are entrusted with public authority to preserve it."

  2. Why does Brooks bother to call himself a conservative? He's not a social conservative. He's not a fiscal conservative. He typically doesn't support the US military. He doesn't believe in strict constructionism. Does pretending to be a self-loathing Republican just make it easier for him to get a job?