• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

One of our two political parties is a cult whose leader admires Vladimir Putin.

Never give a known liar the benefit of the doubt.

It’s a good piece. click on over. but then come back!!

Dear Washington Post, you are the darkness now.

Lick the third rail, it tastes like chocolate!

With all due respect and assumptions of good faith, please fuck off into the sun.

Nothing worth doing is easy.

The revolution will be supervised.

People are complicated. Love is not.

Of course you can have champagne before noon. That’s why orange juice was invented.

Tide comes in. Tide goes out. You can’t explain that.

Is it negotiation when the other party actually wants to shoot the hostage?

They want us to be overwhelmed and exhausted. Focus. Resist. Oppose.

Republicans: “Abortion is murder but you can take a bus to get one.” Easy peasy.

Too often we confuse noise with substance. too often we confuse setbacks with defeat.

Republicans: The threats are dire, but my tickets are non-refundable!

If you voted for Trump, you don’t get to speak about ethics, morals, or rule of law.

Republicans: slavery is when you own me. freedom is when I own you.

Every reporter and pundit should have to declare if they ever vacationed with a billionaire.

“Facilitate” is an active verb, not a weasel word.

It’s always darkest before the other shoe drops.

The willow is too close to the house.

We know you aren’t a Democrat but since you seem confused let me help you.

The Giant Orange Man Baby is having a bad day.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Bedtime for Bobo

Bedtime for Bobo

by DougJ|  March 16, 20101:56 pm| 107 Comments

This post is in: Good News For Conservatives

FacebookTweetEmail

Jim Sleeper reminds that we have always been at war with David Brooks:

Why do we still have to do this? In 2004, in the Washington Monthly, Nicholas Confessore eviscerated Brooks’ opportunism forever, I thought. Last month, the blogger driftglass assailed him brilliantly, though viciously. Why aren’t any of us getting through?

One reason is that Brooks goes down well with some liberal readers of upper-middling intelligence who want – no, crave – to be beguiled out of their uneasy consciences.

I don’t agree with Sleeper’s explanation of why tote-baggers cling to the myth of Brooksian reason. I believe that the reasons are as follows: (1) liberals like to say they respect some conservative pundits the same way white people like to say they have black friends and (2) Brooks is well-spoken, well-dressed, and refers to thinkers many tote-baggers may be familiar with (Burke, Hume, Niebuhr, etc.).

In short, David Brooks is sort of like the Will Smith character in “Six Degrees of Separation”, if the Will Smith character had helped promote torture, wire-tapping, a disastrous war, and trillions of dollars of tax cuts for the wealthy. Sure he’s a liar, but he’s charming and eager to please, unlike those bratty kids Rachel Maddow and Paul Krugman.

I doubt that Brooks’ column today will hurt him much with people who watch the Snooze Hour. But maybe it will at least make Jon Chait, Ezra Klein, and Andrew Sullivan stop taking him seriously. And that’s a start.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Smoking Grass
Next Post: Mississippi Goddam »

Reader Interactions

107Comments

  1. 1.

    licensed to kill time

    March 16, 2010 at 2:06 pm

    I just love the term tote-baggers. Should be in the lexicon! You write definition now.

  2. 2.

    DougJ

    March 16, 2010 at 2:07 pm

    @licensed to kill time:

    I will.

  3. 3.

    Librarian

    March 16, 2010 at 2:09 pm

    The thing that makes Brooks so attractive to some liberals is that he seems to be so much like them- intellectual, professorial, well spoken, as well as so sane, rational and reasonable. And, he’s willing to admit that there are crazies on the right, too- that’s important.

  4. 4.

    Belafon (formerly anonevent)

    March 16, 2010 at 2:09 pm

    I don’t think Chait has taken him seriously for a while. Otherwise I don’t think we would have had the statement about Brooks’ piece being the Platonic ideal of all of his other pieces.

  5. 5.

    jibeaux

    March 16, 2010 at 2:11 pm

    I just don’t know why we have to have this affirmative action program to bring in conservative views. If they can’t win on the merits, they should sit it out. I’m tired, in other words, of the soft bigotry of low expectations. We’re really not doing these conservatives any favors by sheltering them like this.

  6. 6.

    RareSanity

    March 16, 2010 at 2:11 pm

    liberals like to say they respect some conservative pundits the same way white people like to say they have black friends

    Ok.

    That made me actually laugh out loud at work…

  7. 7.

    Violet

    March 16, 2010 at 2:11 pm

    I don’t agree with Sleeper’s explanation of why tote-baggers cling to the myth of Brooksian reason. I believe that the reasons are as follows: (1) liberals like to say they respect some conservative pundits the same way white people like to say they have black friends and (2) Brooks is well-spoken, well-dressed, and refers to thinkers many tote-baggers may be familiar with (Burke, Hume, Niebuhr, etc.).

    There’s another simple explanation – he’s in the New York Times. The casual reader figures that the NYT is a “reasonable” newspaper and must be fact-checking and so forth. Oh, sure, there was that Jayson Blair kerfuffle a few years ago, but they sorted that. And it was an unusual situation, right? A paper like the NYT wouldn’t allow mistakes happen on a regular basis.

    Shorter: If he’s in the New York Times he can be trusted. It’s about the brand.

  8. 8.

    cleek

    March 16, 2010 at 2:12 pm

    Brooks can be reasonable. he’s on NPR all the time, and he was part of PBS’s election coverage. he can be thoughtful, reasonable, well-spoken, all that good stuff. for the most part, he’s a respectable moderate Republican. but he likes to dabble in the rough stuff now and then. it makes him feel alive.

    most people know enough to keep their kinks behind closed doors. Brooks likes to get his strange on in the pages of the NYT. he just lets it fly. woohoo, ya’ll! look how wingnutty i can be!

    then, when NPR calls so he can have his chat with EJ Dionne, it’s back to sober, reasonable ol button-down Brooksie.

  9. 9.

    Quiddity

    March 16, 2010 at 2:12 pm

    Is Hume some sort of conservative hero?

  10. 10.

    cat48

    March 16, 2010 at 2:13 pm

    I don’t always read Bobo’s columns any longer since he has started writing about teabaggers in a favorable manner. He does seem really reasonable though compared to someone like Krauthammer.

  11. 11.

    DougJ

    March 16, 2010 at 2:13 pm

    @cleek:

    That’s not a bad explanation.

    My issue with him is that he writes things that aren’t accurate.

  12. 12.

    Mike E

    March 16, 2010 at 2:14 pm

    Brooks goes down well with some liberal readers of upper-middling intelligence who want – no, crave – to be beguiled out of their uneasy consciences

    Why take personal responsibility for your asinine worldview with so many easy marks out there, and Spring in the air?

    Bobo needs the Pie Of Understanding. With brick topping.

  13. 13.

    jibeaux

    March 16, 2010 at 2:15 pm

    @DougJ:

    Clearly, you missed the new journalism memo. If it’s in an op-ed, it’s an opinion. If someone later introduces evidence of an inaccuracy, then that’s just another opinion that you can weigh against the first opinion, and take it or leave it. That way it stays all fair and balancedy.

  14. 14.

    cyntax

    March 16, 2010 at 2:17 pm

    (1) liberals like to say they respect some conservative pundits the same way white people like to say they have black friends

    Both points are good; I think this one’s the main driver. Also, it’s supported by his veneer of ratonality and the fact that he’s the one conservative tote-baggers are consisitently exposed to. It’s just cause Brooks comes pre-packaged for them on the snooze-hour and in the NYT that anyone pays attention to him.

    If any tote-baggers were to compare one of his columns to Larison’s, I gotta think they’d realize that Brooks has nothing to do with conservatism and everything to do with the status quo.

  15. 15.

    Cat Lady

    March 16, 2010 at 2:18 pm

    Brooks is shiny. Literally. That’s my theory on why Ali Velshi is also on my TeeVee.

    Bobo serves to assure the tote-baggers that the tea-baggers wouldn’t march him into the oven the first chance they get. NPR (Nice Polite Republicans) also serves that purpose now. They would be wrong.

    ETA: BTW, the time stamp is so last week.

  16. 16.

    cfaller96

    March 16, 2010 at 2:20 pm

    But maybe it will at least make Jon Chait, Ezra Klein, and Andrew Sullivan stop taking him seriously. And that’s a start.

    They took/take him seriously? That’s disappointing and disturbing. All three just dropped a notch in my book. Pity.

  17. 17.

    me

    March 16, 2010 at 2:21 pm

    @Quiddity: Brit, yes. David, probably not so much although I could be wrong.

  18. 18.

    robertdsc

    March 16, 2010 at 2:21 pm

    My issue with him is that he -writes things that aren’t accurate- lies.

    Let’s call it what it is. The man is a fucking liar.

  19. 19.

    K. Grant

    March 16, 2010 at 2:21 pm

    Slightly OT – I am planning on not reading any blogs except BJ this week (maybe Benen). The angst has reached a fever pitch this week and my blood pressure (pharmacologically controlled, as I have atrial fibrillation) is doing dangerous things whenever I read most of the left-leaning blogs and sites – Talkingpointsmemo is particularly given to the worst form of paranoid kremlinology in every word uttered by congress-critters.

    I have sent my missives and made my calls to my congress person down here in the Valley (Hinojosa – a very solid yes), and will now sit back and wait for the vote (whenever it will happen and in whatever form).

    It is Spring Break – I may even break Baldur’s Gate II out of the archives, as I actually have time to do something that is not related to work.

  20. 20.

    DougJ

    March 16, 2010 at 2:25 pm

    @K. Grant:

    TPM gets a little too excited at times like this, it’s true.

  21. 21.

    DougJ

    March 16, 2010 at 2:26 pm

    @Quiddity:

    Apparently. I don’t understand why.

  22. 22.

    Downpuppy

    March 16, 2010 at 2:28 pm

    The Times commenters can be counted on to utterly shred Brooks, calmy, eloquently, & without naughty words.

    The Times will ignore such comments, until the suits there have free time in their job searches to wade through the archives wondering where they went wrong.

  23. 23.

    Bill E Pilgrim

    March 16, 2010 at 2:28 pm

    @cleek: I don’t know, this may be how he looks now, but I think it’s the other way around. Brooks is the real thing in Wingnut land.

    Here’s what he wrote about Colin Powell’s address to the UN and the European, and especially the French, response, in 2003:

    The politicians responded to Powell’s address as if it had never taken place. They simply ignored what Powell said and repeated that there is no evidence that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and that, in any case, the inspection system is effective. This was not a response. It was simple obliviousness, a powerful unwillingness to confront the question honestly. This made the politicians seem impervious to argument, reason, evidence, or anything else. Maybe in the bowels of the French elite there are people rethinking their nation’s position, but there was no hint of it on the evening news.

    It gets worse:

    Or suppose we are confronted with a problem of character? Perhaps the French and the Germans understand the risk Saddam poses to the world order. Perhaps they know that they are in danger as much as anybody. They simply would rather see American men and women–rather than French and German men and women–dying to preserve their safety

    This, I submit, is not some befuddled moderate conservative writing a goofy column whose thesis “The Democrats shouldn’t be mean, otherwise the Republicans might note vote with them anymore!!” is some laughably silly toe-dangling into wingnuting for amateurs.

    This is a serious right-wing asshole, and arrogant as they come.

  24. 24.

    KCinDC

    March 16, 2010 at 2:30 pm

    OT, but Sarah Palin seems to have started tweeting her dreams. Does anyone on earth believe this actually happened?

    Brought to Pelosi’s attention that her Obamacare “process” is unconstitutional,she replies: “But I like it.”This takes America’s breath away

  25. 25.

    Chyron HR

    March 16, 2010 at 2:41 pm

    @KCinDC:

    Brought to Pelosi’s attention that her Obamacare “process” is unconstitutional

    What are the quotation marks meant to indicate? Does Sawah doubt that Pelosi is engaged in “a particular course of action intended to achieve a result”?

  26. 26.

    schrodinger's cat

    March 16, 2010 at 2:44 pm

    Brooks as wingnutty as the best (worst?) of them, but is doubly dangerous because of his demeanor, calm and polite, spouting Republican talking points while being seemingly oh so reasonable.

  27. 27.

    Ash Can

    March 16, 2010 at 2:46 pm

    @KCinDC: I have no idea what she’s talking about, and I doubt she does either.

  28. 28.

    Jay in Oregon

    March 16, 2010 at 2:46 pm

    @Chyron HR:

    Maybe she thinks the “blog” of “unnecessary” quotation marks is a style guide?

  29. 29.

    licensed to kill time

    March 16, 2010 at 2:48 pm

    @Chyron HR: I imagine la Palinista is referring to the reconciliation process. The Evil Reconciliation Process talking point has spread far and wide.

    That tweet also put an evil song into my brain.

  30. 30.

    Liz

    March 16, 2010 at 2:49 pm

    The thing that makes Brooks so attractive to some liberals is that he seems to be so much like them- intellectual, professorial, well spoken, as well as so sane, rational and reasonable. And, he’s willing to admit that there are crazies on the right, too- that’s important.

    He does seem really reasonable though compared to someone like Krauthammer.

    these.

    I guess I haven’t read enough of his stuff to make me think he’s evil. Plus he’s about the only conservative that I can even partially stomach. I feel like I need to give the other side equal time, and he’s about all I can handle. :(

  31. 31.

    Rick Taylor

    March 16, 2010 at 2:51 pm

    (2) Brooks is well-spoken, well-dressed, . . .

    __
    And articulate.

  32. 32.

    geg6

    March 16, 2010 at 2:53 pm

    @DougJ:

    My issue with him is that he writes things that aren’t accurate.

    Well, DougJ, that seems to be a rampant issue everywhere in wingnutland:

    http://inklake.typepad.com/ink_lake/2010/03/the-librul-universe.html

  33. 33.

    cmorenc

    March 16, 2010 at 2:53 pm

    You leave out a significant reason why Bobo has at least a mildly friendly following among many people who think of themselves as progressive-leaning, but tempered with sensible moderation.

    BOBO IS THE MOST RATIONAL, SENSIBLE-SOUNDING conservative-leaning pundit out there, and he seemingly acts like he’s tempered with sensible moderation. Unless you dig behind the surface of his reassuringly civil, seemingly sensible-sounding comments to um, you know do some fact-checking and fill in some accurate background knowledge, it sorta makes soothing sense even if you mildly disagree with it.

    THE BOTTOM-LINE PROBLEM IS that Bobo’s like the character in those classic scenes in mental hospitals where someone sane is unjustly locked up among the inmates, and they momentarily think they’ve found a sane person in an authoritative position (Bobo) to help them out of their situation, and then discover when Bobo turns around that Bobo is wearing a hospital gown and is as delusionally insane as the rest of the inmates who deservedly belong there. Trouble is, too many people don’t look behind Bobo to see that he’s one of the insane inmates himself, even though he can sustain a convincing front for a little while.

  34. 34.

    Darkmoth

    March 16, 2010 at 2:54 pm

    I think it’s at least partly the fact that he’s willing to call Palin “a cancer on the GOP”. Thus placing him to her Left, where a ruthlessly binary political process lumps him with us. It’s the same shit that gives Frum and Douthat liberal “cred”.

    Two things are demonstrated here:

    1) Enemy of my enemy thinking is ingrained, and

    2) Sarah Palin really does move some sort of Overton Window. When a Republican admits she’s crazy, we think he’s a nifty guy.

  35. 35.

    DonBelacquaDelPurgatorio

    March 16, 2010 at 2:54 pm

    So, who is the rightwing commentator or pundit today who is worthy of being taken seriously?

    And that field has to be left blank, what is the point of picking out one or two of these and obsessing over them all the time?

  36. 36.

    aimai

    March 16, 2010 at 2:55 pm

    Liz,
    I think if you click on the links above you will discover just how truly horrible Brooks is, as a political thinker and as a person. Its just that he seems so white bread and reasonable. Its true that its impossible to imagine Brooks actually killing anything that he eats–or physically squaring up to another human being–but that doesn’t stop him from chowing down on an expensive steak when someone else is paying, or from supporting the mass bombing of innocent civilians because his superiors told him it was a good idea. He’s the very definition of the banality of evil–one can no more imagine Brooks taking a sincere moral stand against any powerful person, or on behalf of victims or the poor, than one can imagine Eichmann doing so. His whole focus is in turning out tiny, perfectly formed, incredibly mendacious apologies for the Republican party. He’s like a guy who spends his time whittling splinters for the fingernails of torture victims and who prides himself on his workmanship and ignores the results.

    But in a way I think that’s unfair to Brooks. He clearly cares very much what polite society says and thinks about him. He’s a classic authoritarian follower. I think we could flip brooks, or break him, by having respectable, well dressed, white people who are in his own social circle, follow him everywhere with pictures of dead Iraqi children, men and women who have died for lack of health care in this country, embarrassing things like that. The suffering of other people isn’t real to him unless its a topic of conversation in his social setting.

    aimai

    aimai

  37. 37.

    Pangloss

    March 16, 2010 at 2:56 pm

    BoBo has mastered his role as the pseudo-intellectual, bend-but-don’t-break apologist for the worst excesses and outrages of the Neocon Jihad.

  38. 38.

    geg6

    March 16, 2010 at 2:58 pm

    @Liz:

    If you’re interested in semi-reasonable conservatives (not “conservatives”), then stop reading Bobo. Read Larison, or Conor Friedersdorf, or even, FSM help me, Sully. But Bobo is not a reasonable conservative. He’s a fox in sheep’s clothing, meant to seem “reasonable,” and “sane,” and all. But he’s not. He’s a lying, insane, violent, murderous monster, just like all the rest of the right.

  39. 39.

    NonWonderDog

    March 16, 2010 at 3:01 pm

    @Ash Can:

    Apparently there’s talk about introducing the reconciliation bill under a rule that says that a vote for the reconciliation bill counts as a vote for the senate health care bill as well, and that if the reconciliation bill passes the House then the senate health care bill also passes. They apparently bundle small stuff all the time, so it isn’t that unusual. The fact that they are potentially considering a vote for a bill that amends a bill that isn’t law yet as a vote for the amended bill does seem a bit weird, though.

    The republicans are, of course, spinning this as Pelosi claiming dictatorial powers and decreeing that the health care bill will be “assumed” to pass without a vote on it.

  40. 40.

    Darkmoth

    March 16, 2010 at 3:01 pm

    @DonBelacquaDelPurgatorio:

    That’s a really interesting question. Surely there’s someone – McArdle? If I ever get to the point where I think everyone Right of me is a complete idiot, I might start to wonder what makes me think I’m the Leftmost Edge of Sanity.

  41. 41.

    Xenos

    March 16, 2010 at 3:01 pm

    Coming in late to the thread, but I agree that ‘tote-bagger’ is bloody brilliant. I am not worthy.

  42. 42.

    JGabriel

    March 16, 2010 at 3:02 pm

    DougJ:

    My issue with him is that he writes things that aren’t accurate.

    My issue with Brooks is that he’s a lousy writer. Almost every column Brooks writes commits almost every sin listed in Orwell’s Politics and the English Language.

    It’s kind of amazing – or would be if one could get through the execrable soporificness of Brooks’s columns without passing out.

    .

  43. 43.

    Ash Can

    March 16, 2010 at 3:03 pm

    @NonWonderDog: I figured it had to do with this, but that she garbled the facts beyond recognition due to sheer ignorance.

  44. 44.

    DonBelacquaDelPurgatorio

    March 16, 2010 at 3:05 pm

    @Darkmoth:

    That’s a good point. If everyone on our right is just a nutcase or pathological liar, which does not appear to be an unreasonable assessment right now, then …. what is the check on the left? Not in terms of veracity or sanity, but in terms of any quality control on our policy views, our politics, our ideas, our basic assumptions?

    We could be the party that says the sun is coming up tomorrow morning, and the right would be out there pimping darkness in time for the evening news cycle.

  45. 45.

    The Moar You Know

    March 16, 2010 at 3:07 pm

    @DonBelacquaDelPurgatorio: You may want to give Larison a try. I have some real problems with his worship of the Confederacy (doubly amusing when you realize that he’s a no-good goddamn Yankee) but aside from that glaring flaw he is, bar none, the most reasonable guy on the right, and as a bonus, an exceptionally good writer. I usually don’t agree with him, but he is most assuredly worthy of being taken seriously.

  46. 46.

    lamh31

    March 16, 2010 at 3:08 pm

    OT, but I just read over at politico that some Dem congressmen are saying that Obama should delay his Asia trip AGAIN!!!!

    WTF! At what point does it not become evident to certain people, that President Obama has never been the problem. The real problems have always been some of the members of Congress.

    Do they literally need Obama to walk them hand in hand towards this HCR vote.

    This is getting ridiculous!

  47. 47.

    Sentient Puddle

    March 16, 2010 at 3:08 pm

    Hey, guess what? Strategic Vision released a new poll!

    You may remember Strategic Vision as the polling firm that Nate Silver reamed. Hard. Since then, they’ve felt too butthurt to go back into polling. Until now.

  48. 48.

    geg6

    March 16, 2010 at 3:09 pm

    @The Moar You Know:

    Friedersdorf can be mildly interesting, too. Though I usually end up at Larison if I’m planning on torturing myself by reading a conservative.

  49. 49.

    Menzies

    March 16, 2010 at 3:10 pm

    @Pangloss:

    BoBo has mastered his role as the pseudo-intellectual, bend-but-don’t-break apologist for the worst excesses and outrages of the Neocon Jihad.

    This, pretty much. I suppose it can’t hurt that he’s made some moderate gestures, mostly on social policy, and I get that he “seems reasonable” or that he’s “sensible-sounding,” but given the substance of his arguments Brooks was always more dangerous in my view than many of his outwardly crazier brethren.

    He’s dangerous because unlike a Tancredo-style ideologue prone to opening his mouth and sticking his foot as far down it as it will go, he calculates his responses. It makes him incredibly useful to the right wing and equally corrosive to the left.

  50. 50.

    geg6

    March 16, 2010 at 3:11 pm

    @Sentient Puddle:

    Jeebus. Still not meeting a single requirement to be taken seriously, I see.

  51. 51.

    kay

    March 16, 2010 at 3:14 pm

    @NonWonderDog:

    We’re doomed to hear three days of misinformation on it, though, because Sarah Palin tweeted something stupid, and no one in media knows enough to correct her.

    They never “got” reconciliation, and they’ve had a solid month.

    Kent Conrad spent three days explaining reconciliation and the “side car” over and over and over and then gave up.

    The day he gave up his editorial started like this: “A lot of misinformation has been spread about the reconciliation process…”

    It didn’t make a bit of difference. They still don’t get it.

  52. 52.

    wobbly

    March 16, 2010 at 3:15 pm

    What proof is there that Brooks “goes down well” with liberals?
    The fact that he is read or viewed quite widely does not mean that “he goes down well” with anyone.

  53. 53.

    Bill E Pilgrim

    March 16, 2010 at 3:16 pm

    @JGabriel: Hear hear.

    This one by Brooks started off by breaking the well-known rule: “Don’t create pompous over-written essays that make people want to laugh.”

    There are a handful of people writing professionally who bafflingly receive regular praise from commenters like “Well, I don’t always agree with him, but he’s a brilliant writer”, which is fine until I discover that the commenter is referring to Thomas Friedman, or Christopher Hitchens. Or David Brooks.

  54. 54.

    Sentient Puddle

    March 16, 2010 at 3:16 pm

    @geg6: I think they’re just hoping time dulled the senses and that we all forgot. Which, y’know, ain’t going to happen.

    I’ve got 538 on refresh, waiting to see Nate’s head a splode.

  55. 55.

    les

    March 16, 2010 at 3:19 pm

    @The Moar You Know:

    he [Larison] is, bar none, the most reasonable guy on the right, and as a bonus, an exceptionally good writer.

    Well, he’s a good writer and not exceptionally crazy on modern politics; but keep in mind that the last society that met his criteria for a good society was Russia under the Czars, after the Russian Orthodox Church got established.

    It’s not possible to be more authoritarian than Larison; it’s just that (unlike all the others, I’m sure) he’s convinced that his authorities are the good ones.

  56. 56.

    Quiddity

    March 16, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    @DougJ

    First of all, we are talking about David Hume (not Brit).

    Hume was a major philosopher (and one I admire) who took reason and skepticism to the limit, where it broke down. But he performed a worthwhile service overall. Okay, inductive reasoning can’t be logically justified, but without it we can’t do much, so let’s use it and benefit from it. And we have.

    Hume was a Tory of some sort and wrote a History of England that might be considered conservative. But that’s not much.

    Considering Hume’s approach to religion and miracles, he comes off as someone solidly in the Enlightenment tradition which nowadays would put him on the liberal side of things.

    My guess is that libertarians claim Hume as one of their own, and from that, he’s deemed a conservative hero.

  57. 57.

    Michael D.

    March 16, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    Since there is no open thread, I’ll put this here: Conservatives want to replace Grant on the $50 bill with…

    Can you guess?

    Raygun!!

  58. 58.

    DonBelacquaDelPurgatorio

    March 16, 2010 at 3:23 pm

    @The Moar You Know:

    I will do that.

    As a lifetime progressive-obsessive, I find myself craving some sane rightitude once in a while. It’s like the vegan who just has to have a big greasy burger every so often.

  59. 59.

    elm

    March 16, 2010 at 3:24 pm

    @Darkmoth
    That’s a really interesting question. Surely there’s someone – McArdle?

    That’s a joke, right?

    I’ll third, fourth, or fifth Larison.

  60. 60.

    ricky

    March 16, 2010 at 3:30 pm

    OT, but Sarah Palin seems to have started tweeting her dreams. Does anyone on earth believe this actually happened?

    Brought to Pelosi’s attention that her Obamacare “process” is unconstitutional,she replies: “But I like it.”This takes America’s breath away

    Perhaps Palin thinks Pelosi is her black friend and this is a comment on coiffure.

  61. 61.

    bayville

    March 16, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    But maybe it will at least make Jon Chait, Ezra Klein, and Andrew Sullivan stop taking him seriously.

    What does that tell you about our famous, fightin’ Libs in the MSM, if they take a hack like David Brooks seriously?
    The guy is lazy, a piss-poor writer of the Douthat-variety and probably hasn’t held a one-on-one conversation with anyone making less than six-figures in 25 years.

    Fuchim.

  62. 62.

    JGabriel

    March 16, 2010 at 3:33 pm

    @Michael D.: Why is it no surprise that Conservatives, when looking for someone Reagan can replace as a denominational figurehead, settled so quickly and with such alacrity on the General who beat the South?

    It’s almost like they still carry a grudge over the Civil War.

    .

  63. 63.

    kay

    March 16, 2010 at 3:36 pm

    @lamh31:

    Not good news, I don’t think, asking for an extension of the deadline.

    Democrats in Congress are going to have to fully accept the idea that they are dead if health care fails. There is simply no good reason to keep a Democratic majority in Congress if they can’t function as a majority anyway. Really. I’m stumped. I don’t know why anyone would go out of their way to keep them in the majority, Obama aside.

    Maybe they’re just doing their usual really helpful and productive incessant whining and blame-shifting.

  64. 64.

    D.N. Nation

    March 16, 2010 at 3:41 pm

    Sure he’s a liar, but he’s charming and eager to please, unlike those bratty kids Rachel Maddow and Paul Krugman.

    Krugman is more like Bobo than many liberals care to admit, I’m afraid. Though, he certainly has more good days than the hacktacular Brooks.

    Did the NYT ever run a correction on that Applebees nonsense?

  65. 65.

    Xenos

    March 16, 2010 at 3:41 pm

    @JGabriel: Someone ought to introduce a bill to replace Grant with Sherman. That ought to get their attention.

  66. 66.

    Dee Loralei

    March 16, 2010 at 3:42 pm

    Jim Sleeper links to Driftglass in his column and I gotta say Drifty is one of the most acerbicly funny, well-sourced, incredibly passionate left wing bloggers on the entire interwebs. And he does some damned fine photoshops. So if you haven’t visited castle driftglass do go. NOW. Go for the take-downs of DavidFuckingBrooks, stay for the Sunday Morning Coming Down pieces. He’s some sort of cross between HML Menken and IF Stone ( hi aimai!) And he does for Chicago politics what Molly Ivins did for Texas’s. Go read.http://driftglass.blogspot.com/

    Also. Too.

  67. 67.

    geg6

    March 16, 2010 at 3:43 pm

    @lamh31:

    Now, I wonder…who could those Dem congressmen be? Does Politico even say who they are? Do they mention if they are senators or representatives? Do they mention if they are friends of Bart Stupak, perhaps?

    Inquiring minds want to know and it would be irresponsible not to speculate, after all.

  68. 68.

    freelancer

    March 16, 2010 at 3:44 pm

    @JGabriel:

    Uhm, J, this was in my fucking email alerts yesterday:

    When the North invaded the South during the 1860s, it was to deny the southern states the ultimate expression of their sovereignty – the ability to withdraw from a union they had voluntarily joined. Interestingly, secession was a right that the northern New England states had contemplated using themselves in the 1804 Hartford Convention when they felt the national government had become too oppressive.
    …
    Nevertheless, Lincoln’s views on government were clearly expressed in his famous “House Divided” speech when he articulated to the south that he would not allow different states to take different sides on different issues. We would, “become all one thing, or all the other.” With all due respect to Mr. Lincoln, this was a radical departure from the Founders’ view of federalism and good government. And as a consequence, things got really ugly.
    …
    So what does any of this have to do with our current situation? As it turns out, more than you might think. For instance, in light of our current situation, consider the following words:
    …
    “Who, then, Mr. President, are the true friends of the Union? Those who would confine the federal government strictly within the limits prescribed by the constitution; who would preserve to the states and the people all powers not expressly delegated; who would make this a federal and not a national Union…And who are its enemies? Those who are in favor of consolidation; who are constantly stealing power from the states, and adding strength to the federal government; who, assuming an unwarrantable jurisdiction over the states and the people, undertake to regulate the whole industry and capital of the country.”
    […]
    It continued in the mid 1800s with the nullification crisis and Civil War. FDR extended it in the 1930s by his radical revolution of nationalizing virtually every industry he could get his hands on, followed by LBJ doubling down on those efforts some forty years later with his Great Society. And now in 2010, their heir apparent – Barack Obama – is administering the largest federal government power grab in the nation’s history.
    […]
    Will the current Tea Party patriots and other liberty loving individuals eventually meet the same fate? Perhaps. But thankfully, Barack Obama and his cohorts are meeting a wall of opposition not seen in well over a century. To this point, 37 states have taken up legislation to essentially resurrect the nullification doctrine and void the enforcement of the blatantly unconstitutional individual mandate should ObamaCare pass.
    …
    It’s been a long time since three-fourths of the states in this country have been on the same page regarding anything, much less such a critical issue.
    …
    Yes, the spirit of the South is rising again, but this time it’s different. This time it’s all over the country.

    Yes, lone wingnut birfers propose wingnut legislation in 37 statehouses, and suddenly that means that 3/4th of the country is ready to break out the Confederate flags.

  69. 69.

    El Cid

    March 16, 2010 at 3:44 pm

    @Xenos: Frederic Douglass.

  70. 70.

    Rob Roser

    March 16, 2010 at 3:44 pm

    David Brooks can eat my dick…and I do have black friends.

  71. 71.

    The Grand Panjandrum

    March 16, 2010 at 3:46 pm

    @lamh31: Just what the D’s need, go home for another break BEFORE voting on the bill. It has really worked well for them, especially last August. Pelosi and Reid better keep them here until they vote on the bill or they can kiss that mother goodbye.

  72. 72.

    geg6

    March 16, 2010 at 3:50 pm

    @D.N. Nation:

    Wait, Kthug lies and uses completely fact-free statements to make his points? Kthug has a resume as free of actual accomplishments in life outside the Village as Bobo? Kthug was a former editor for The Nation and Mother Jones, just like Bobo was op-ed editor for the WSJ and the senior editor at founding of the Weekly Standard? Seriously? You wanna back that up?

  73. 73.

    The Grand Panjandrum

    March 16, 2010 at 3:50 pm

    @El Cid: I personally would like to see Harriet Tubman on a bill. She was a bona fide Civil War hero.

  74. 74.

    El Cid

    March 16, 2010 at 3:50 pm

    @The Grand Panjandrum: If Democrats are too fucking stupid to pass this bill, then many of them really did prefer their dozen years in the wilderness 1994 – 2006, since evidently some conservaDems find it easier to take.

  75. 75.

    Ash Can

    March 16, 2010 at 3:50 pm

    And in other news, via the GOS, Barack Obama is shrill:

    The president will refuse to make fund-raising visits during November elections to any district whose representative has not backed the [HCR] bill.

  76. 76.

    Bill E Pilgrim

    March 16, 2010 at 3:51 pm

    @D.N. Nation:

    Krugman is more like Bobo than many liberals care to admit, I’m afraid

    Yes, they share the characteristic that they both write for the New York Times. Dead ringers.

    David Brooks and Paul Krugman?

    Oy. Where does one start…

    Never mind. Good night.

  77. 77.

    freelancer

    March 16, 2010 at 3:53 pm

    @Ash Can:

    YES!, That is awesome! The only way that could be better is if he visited to endorse primary challengers of people who voted no.

  78. 78.

    DonBelacquaDelPurgatorio

    March 16, 2010 at 4:02 pm

    @JGabriel:

    Well, they absolutely do still mourn the loss of the Civil War.

    Just go to Gettysburg and visit the Lee memorial over there on Seminary Ridge. The red staters are there as we speak, weeping.

    I’m serious.

  79. 79.

    Midnight Marauder

    March 16, 2010 at 4:04 pm

    @D.N. Nation:

    Krugman is more like Bobo than many liberals care to admit, I’m afraid. Though, he certainly has more good days than the hacktacular Brooks.

    That is the silliest thing I’ve seen written on this site since John Cole wrote the following the other week:

    I kinda like [Senator Tom] Coburn. At least you know where you stand with him, and while I disagree with almost everything he believes in and think his ideas would be disastrous, I get the sense he is an honest broker and if he actually agreed with you on something, would follow through on it.

  80. 80.

    D.N. Nation

    March 16, 2010 at 4:05 pm

    Wait, Kthug lies and uses completely fact-free statements to make his points?

    Has he in the past? Yes. Has he subsequently ignored all responses from interested observers like, say, me? You know, la la la, I can’t hear you, it’s just a column, whateverrrr? Yes.

    To the extent of Bobo? Well, no, of course not. But he’s hardly immune from the epic outbreak of bullshit that infects pretty much anyone penning anything for the NYT opinion page. I don’t for a second pretend like Pauliekins isn’t a Villager, and neither should you. A ClintonBot Villager, but a Villager.

  81. 81.

    JenJen

    March 16, 2010 at 4:06 pm

    Dave Weigel has a, how you say, interesting post up:

    Tea Partiers Working With Firedoglake on HCR Whip Count

  82. 82.

    D.N. Nation

    March 16, 2010 at 4:08 pm

    KthugBots: Save your advanced weaponry for something more worthwhile. Krugman spouts horseshit from time to time. He over-/mis-analyzes the minutia of Obama’s every word from time to time, like a Hiatt or a Douchehammer. It is what it is. All things considered, I’m glad he (mostly) speaks for me.

    But c’mon. De-kneel yourselves of that altar.

  83. 83.

    DonBelacquaDelPurgatorio

    March 16, 2010 at 4:13 pm

    I kinda like [Senator Tom] Coburn. At least you know where you stand with him

    Too funny by half.

    Just plug in any name, this kind of pablum still works:

    I kinda like Charles Manson. At least you know where you stand with him.

    I kinda liked Tim McVeigh. At least you knew where you stood with him.

    I kinda like Representative Massa. At least you knew where to stand for him.

    etc

  84. 84.

    kay

    March 16, 2010 at 4:17 pm

    @geg6:

    Clyburn is named, or I wouldn’t have bothered with it.

    There’s a really whiny member who complains that asking them to vote on something is “ridiculous”, but he can be ignored.

    At some point I think you have to get fatalistic. If they can’t muster the nerve, they fail, and they lose.

    They’ll blame Obama, or Republicans, or both, but it isn’t going to fly, simply because they have nothing to point to as an accomplishment.

    I’ve tried it, and I can’t come up with anything. “Keep the House in Democratic hands because….”

    What? Why? I got nuth’in. I guess retaining a majority would slow appointment of an independent prosecutor. Maybe.

  85. 85.

    Fern

    March 16, 2010 at 4:19 pm

    @JenJen: Oy.

  86. 86.

    gwangung

    March 16, 2010 at 4:19 pm

    To the extent of Bobo? Well, no, of course not.

    Quantitative analysis is, um, different than qualitiatve analysis.

    You might be right, but without numbers and analysis, your statement is as useful as the old cant about the liberal mass media.

  87. 87.

    kay

    March 16, 2010 at 4:20 pm

    @JenJen:

    Wow, “Union thuggery” now, from the firebaggers?

    I remember when they were all het up about the excise tax “on behalf” of their friends in labor.

    Labor comes out for the bill, and now they’re “thugs”?

  88. 88.

    Cacti

    March 16, 2010 at 4:20 pm

    @DonBelacquaDelPurgatorio:

    Well, they absolutely do still mourn the loss of the Civil War.

    The South’s greatest act of revenge against Lincoln was hijacking his political party.

  89. 89.

    JenJen

    March 16, 2010 at 4:21 pm

    Speaking of shitty media figures, Mark Knoller has one helluva tweet up:

    It took Pres GWBush 4 years to run over $2-trillion on his watch. It’s taken Pres. Obama 420 days.

    See how he did that?

    @Fern: @kay: Wasn’t it just yesterday that Jane was saying the White House sent MoveOn.org to intimidate Dennis Kucinich? Today, she writes that Obama is threatening pro-choice Democratic women for standing up for choice. And yes, she employs those words.

  90. 90.

    jayackroyd

    March 16, 2010 at 4:34 pm

    I was talking about this with CultureOfTruth last Sunday. I know plenty of folks who see Bobo as a sagacious, thoughtful commentator. I think this has a lot to do with his teevee demeanor. He is very unthreatening, very calm, very reasonable in tone and style. That his writing doesn’t stand up to any scrutiny doesn’t seem to matter to these folks. It is comforting, and seems to be moderate, even when it is bat shit crazy, or, like today, simply wrong.

  91. 91.

    JenJen

    March 16, 2010 at 4:39 pm

    Just to add on to my post #81: As far as I know, Dave Weigel doesn’t yet have a quote from Jane Hamsher denying or confirming what the tea party member told him, but he states he has inquired by email. So, grain of salt, for now, but it’s a provocative charge.

  92. 92.

    cfaller96

    March 16, 2010 at 4:42 pm

    @lamh31

    Do they literally need Obama to walk them hand in hand towards this HCR vote?

    Yes. This has been another edition of…

  93. 93.

    JenJen

    March 16, 2010 at 4:54 pm

    And, update to posts #81 and #91: Jane Hamsher hits back at Dave Weigel here.

    Jane says Weigel is a “smear-mongerer,” so I imagine Weigel’s response is going to be interesting, too.

  94. 94.

    kay

    March 16, 2010 at 4:54 pm

    @JenJen:

    I think she’s wrong about Moveon pressuring Dennis K. They may be, but that isn’t what matters.

    Unions are pressuring him, as they should. Have unions been incredibly subtle and shifty and dishonest, and I somehow missed it?

    They may be the only people at the health care table I have any respect for when the dust settles here.

    They’re right out there. No confusion about what they wanted, and what they want now. If there’s anything they know how to do, it’s negotiate.

    We need them in the Senate. This would have been passed 6 months ago.

  95. 95.

    gwangung

    March 16, 2010 at 5:05 pm

    Unions are pressuring him, as they should. Have unions been incredibly subtle and shifty and dishonest, and I somehow missed it? They may be the only people at the health care table I have any respect for when the dust settles here. They’re right out there. No confusion about what they wanted, and what they want now. If there’s anything they know how to do, it’s negotiate.

    Why is this a problem? And why aren’t other folks on the progressive front emulating their tactics? Isn’t that what progressives SHOULD be doing?

  96. 96.

    demo woman

    March 16, 2010 at 5:08 pm

    @JenJen: How low will she go… Pretty low I guess. I still miss Christy’s voice though.

  97. 97.

    Makewi

    March 16, 2010 at 5:10 pm

    What’s a tote-bagger?

  98. 98.

    demo woman

    March 16, 2010 at 5:11 pm

    @JenJen: I loved this quote..

    I know Katherine, we were on MSNBC together and we’ve spoken about working on the pot legalization measure in California in the future.

  99. 99.

    JenJen

    March 16, 2010 at 5:15 pm

    @demo woman: Dave Weigel’s latest tweet:

    I’m disappointed that @JaneHamsher would make up quotes from a conversation I have on audiotape.

    First thing I thought when I read Jane’s response? “Oh, I bet Weigel taped that conversation with her denying, teabagging friend.” :-)

  100. 100.

    kay

    March 16, 2010 at 5:17 pm

    @gwangung:

    I’m sorry I wasn’t clear. I don’t have any problem with it. I think it’s great.

  101. 101.

    SiubhanDuinne

    March 16, 2010 at 5:21 pm

    @aimai #36

    I think we could flip brooks, or break him, by having respectable, well dressed, white people who are in his own social circle, follow him everywhere with pictures of dead Iraqi children, men and women who have died for lack of health care in this country, embarrassing things like that.

    What are we waiting for?

  102. 102.

    gwangung

    March 16, 2010 at 5:21 pm

    @kay: Actually I wasn’t clear. Isn’t this what the so-called hippie punchers are advocating? Why do people have problems with that? To me, gathering the low-level support to be able to do this is what people should be doing anyway.

  103. 103.

    kay

    March 16, 2010 at 5:23 pm

    @gwangung:

    As to why others don’t emulate their tactics, I suspect it’s because unions lobby in majority-led groups on issues they’re interested in, they know where members will compromise before they state a position, and they vote and negotiate constantly, on everything.

    They’re better at working in a group. It takes practice.

  104. 104.

    gwangung

    March 16, 2010 at 5:30 pm

    @kay: Which, of course, suggests the question of why other groups don’t try to learn how to work as a group. (And I think that a lot of folks on the progressive front either a) don’t realize they have to learn to work together as a group or b) think they don’t need to work together as a group)(which is one of my positions in the periodic flare-ups about hippie-punching–the nuts and bolts and logistics of getting issues made into law is sadly neglected by a lot of folks….).

  105. 105.

    celticdragonchick

    March 16, 2010 at 5:45 pm

    One reason is that Brooks goes down well with some liberal readers of upper-middling intelligence who want – no, crave – to be beguiled out of their uneasy consciences.

    Actually, Brooks is a zombie…and we all know that there is only way to to kill zombies. Since that is not a feasible option unless Brooks reverts to form and starts eating brains at the NYT, it will be impossible to get rid of him any time soon.

  106. 106.

    Suzan

    March 16, 2010 at 6:23 pm

    Ah.

    Agreed.

    Wingnutty Professor

    This, I submit, is not some befuddled moderate conservative writing a goofy column whose thesis “The Democrats shouldn’t be mean, otherwise the Republicans might note vote with them anymore!!” is some laughably silly toe-dangling into wingnuting for amateurs.

    This is a serious right-wing asshole, and arrogant as they come.

    S
    _____________

  107. 107.

    DougJ

    March 16, 2010 at 8:18 pm

    @JenJen:

    Yeah, it’s pretty amazing how low Hamsher has sunk. Weigel has a serious body of work as a reporter. What does she think she is accomplishing with this smear?

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - Mike in Oly - Woodard Bay Natural Resources Conservation Area
Image by Mike in Oly (5/24/25)

Recent Comments

  • Professor Bigfoot on Late Night Open Thread (May 24, 2025 @ 12:23pm)
  • Sure Lurkalot on Saturday Morning Open Thread (May 24, 2025 @ 12:23pm)
  • Ruckus on Late Night Open Thread (May 24, 2025 @ 12:15pm)
  • WaterGirl on New Angel Match for the PA Supreme Court Effort by The Civics Center (May 24, 2025 @ 12:13pm)
  • Anyway on Saturday Morning Open Thread (May 24, 2025 @ 12:09pm)

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
War in Ukraine
Donate to Razom for Ukraine

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Meetups

Upcoming Ohio Meetup May 17
5/11 Post about the May 17 Ohio Meetup

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Hands Off! – Denver, San Diego & Austin

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!