In case you didn’t check DougJ’s link earlier, the Brooks piece is even worse than I imagined:
I’ll be writing a lot about the presidential election over the next 16 months, but at the outset I would just like to remark that I’m opining on this whole campaign under protest. I’m registering a protest because for someone of my Hamiltonian/National Greatness perspective, the two parties contesting this election are unusually pathetic. Their programs are unusually unimaginative. Their policies are unusually incommensurate to the problem at hand.
You could always find another line of work, asshole. Look for something that contributes to society, maybe. Although with your limited skill set, you might find “Would you like fries with that” a little unfulfilling.
Love the “both parties” stuff. They just can’t help themselves, can they?
Jim Pharo
I find the sanctimony stomach-turning, but I’m not sure I don’t agree with him. We’ve made real progress on DADT, but otherwise I’m not sure why the Dems get us to a better outcome than the GOP.
balconesfault
I had the pleasure of answering a phone survey last week asking about some of the OpEd writers our local paper carries. It almost made me late for the UT-Az State Superregional game to stay on the phone through the whole damn thing, but I did get to register my opinions that Krauthammer, Douthit, Parker, and Brooks gave me virtually no reason to read the paper whatsoever.
Is it possible to watch Brooks on a TV appearance without feeling like grabbing him and slapping his little smug smile off his face?
And I’ll bet that this opinion is largely bipartisan.
kdaug
Don’t mean we gotta read it.
(Or quote/link to it, BTW)
Just sayin’.
MikeJ
@Jim Pharo: Then you’re a moron.
When Dems run Washington, every day isn’t devoted to destroying the safety net. Every day isn’t devoted to telling women what they can do with their bodies. Every day isn’t devoted to raising taxes on the poor and cutting them for the rich.
harokin
Stumbled last night on him talking to Charlie Rose about his new book, and within two minutes they had me ready to go all Baader-Meinhof. He just revolts me. A horrible, horrible person.
Ash Can
::headdesk::
My first thought upon reading that Brooks blockquote was, “He sounds like some of the posters here who insist there’s no difference between the Dems and GOP.” Really.
Villago Delenda Est
I think “mucking out stables” is one that Bobo might be qualified for.
Trurl
If there is an Obama policy that is commensurate to the problem at hand, I can’t think of it off the top of my head.
Martin
Shorter Bobo: Why won’t these guys do something insane so I have material to write about? I hate them because they make me work.
cleek
@Villago Delenda Est:
or, perhaps a Gong Farmer
balconesfault
@Jim Pharo: Seriously?
As a thought experiment, imagine a 70-seat Democratic majority in the Senate since 2008. Then imagine a 70-seat GOP majority int he Senate since 2008.
The problem with the Democratic caucus is that when there were 40 GOP Senators, it gave too much power to the 5 or 6 recalcitrant Dems who either wanted to burnish their Blue Dog credentials, or to serve some particular lobbying group with a lot of power in their state – forcing a lot of potentially great bills to get turned into good or even marginal bills.
A 70-seat majority would have essentially solved that problem.
On the other hand, a 70-seat GOP Senate would produce a lot of bills that would look a lot like what the House is producing with Boehner as Speaker.
If you really don’t believe that the Dems give us a better outcome, imagine every piece of crap produced by the House in the last 5 months reaching Obama’s desk.
Then imagine it reaching Romney’s desk.
Martin
@Ash Can: Heh. You’re right.
JPL
@balconesfault: UGH……
Georgia Pig
Go fuck yourself. That’s from my “I’d like to see David Brooks’ pinstripe ass selling blowjobs in an alley for food” perspective. What a pretentious asshole.
Comrade Javamanphil
@Martin: I would have gone with: My party is insane. OTOH, Hippies. Now watch me dance!
Chris
“Let’s be honest: today’s politics are unworthy of a pen as fine and distinguished as my own, a pen that would be better employed chronicling the life of a Founding Father. With an admirable sense of duty and honor, I am nevertheless going to cover them. But I wish you all to observe and note how selflessly I choose to lower myself, noblesse oblige, to grace you all with my presence. Accept the gift of my existence with humility and gratitude.”
Brachiator
He should volunteer to write for free. I mean, since it’s such a burden for him, and he can’t seem to come up with anything unpathetic to write about.
Or they could pay people to read his crap. Though it would take a boatload of money for me to even scan his crap.
And “Hamiltonian/National Greatness perspective?” Wow. That’s even more stupid than Burkean. I guess he’s trying to outdo Sully here.
boss bitch
@John Cole: Read Steve Benen’s take where he points out that Brooks basically endorses Obama.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_06/david_brooks_accidental_obama030250.php
rob!
Wow. Just…wow.
Maude
@Villago Delenda Est:
What do you have against horses?
Mike in NC
Surely nobody will object if he goes Galt?
Warren Terra
The only way you could possibly know this is by reading the damn thing. You have only yourself to blame.
Danny
The article was so ridiculous. Basically, Brooks whines about his job for a while and then makes up a wish list which includes…. a bunch of stuff Democrats want to do. If only there were a party that could possibly cater to his needs!
My favorite part was when he complained that Democrats won’t acknowledge that America is broke. When will these asshats realize that America is the richest country in the history of the world?
BGinCHI
Shorter Bobo: Why don’t my own ideas excite me anymore?
Why can’t Bob have a sex scandal?
Mike Kay (Chief of Staff)
Obviously, I like mocking people as much as the next guy, but there are also occasions when ignoring a person is the way to go.
For example, I always thought it was better to ignore Sully, Politico, and Huffington Post, and finally people came around to that position. Shouldn’t we do the same with Bobo. I mean why aggravate yourself and the readers.
Alex S.
As far as I can tell, America’s greatness was strongly correlated to the strength of liberal/progressive philosophy. America became the ‘greatest’ nation of the world during the Roosevelt and Truman administrations, the greatness peaked in the late sixties (Great Society, and America’s greatest moment in historic terms, the moon landing) and declined from then on. In fact, in retrospect, America might have lost its Nr.1 position in the aftermath of the financial meltdown, right at the end of movement conservatism.
Comrade Dread
I feel like I’m living in the last days of Rome some days.
And the pundits are talking about sex scandals in the Senate and whether or not Caesar is sufficiently concerned with national greatness, all the while people are starving, their coin is increasingly worthless, and they’re starting to wonder if maybe living under the barbarians wouldn’t be all that bad.
Violet
What else could David Brooks do if he weren’t being paid a ridiculous amount of money to be a pundit, write hilariously awful books, and lecture at the Aspen Institute? Seriously, what else could he do? Fries-with-that, obviously, but what else? What in the world is our pundit class skilled enough to do? Nothing, as far as I can tell.
Odious boils on our society.
scav
@BGinCHI: I think he is having one, with himself, and with himself as awestruck audience too.
ETA: and yes, that was a very tricky sentence to write.
MonkeyBoy
Remember – add or vote up snark on his Amazon tags page.
Downpuppy
Imagining Brooks infamous math skills, I went to the nice, clean wiki on Hamiltonians
I’ll be chuckling over dinner.
Stefan
I’ll be writing a lot about the presidential election over the next 16 months,
The horror. The horror…
MobiusKlein
You know who was in to National Greatness?
Nazi’s!
Screw that, I want national Goodness.
PaminBB
And he gets paid to write such crappy prose. There is no justice.
Warren Terra
@Jim Pharo:
Your mental defects are perhaps clinically or academically interesting, and if widely shared are quite disturbing, but hardly reflect an accurate reflection of the world around us.
In no particular order, off the top of my head, and just from the last thirty months:
The Affordable Care Act
The Lily Leadbetter Fair Pay Act
Extension of unemployment insurance
Payroll tax cuts
Increased regulation of wall street
FCC backing of Net Neutrality
EPA moves towards regulating CO2 emissions
Reinstatement of the Estate Tax
The Bush tax cuts on the top 5% are still term-limited, though sadly extended
Rescuing American automakers
Reduced credit-card interchange fees
… I’m pretty sure I’m missing quite a few things here …
fasteddie9318
Why, oh, why, can’t Zombie Alexander Hamilton rise from his grave and kick the ever-loving mother-fucking shit out of David Brooks?
WTF “National Greatness” is he talking about? From where I sit, we’re middle of the pack at best on anything that matters apart from number of wars currently being fought, and it’s douchebags like Brooks with their “National Greatness” bullshit that won’t let us fix what needs to be fixed.
kindness
Brooks wants David Broder’s crown so bad he’s ready to dig up the coffin and steal it from him.
Two peas in a pod really. Brooks and Broder were both republican rooters who said as much in a Village Elder code that everyone understood. Morons.
Kathy in St. Louis
Perhaps he can trade off with the theater critic, since things theatrical seem to roll off his tongue. By the way, I found his complaint unusually fatiguing, unimaginative, and, shall I say it, self-involved.
He’s helped to make the mess with his less than honest reportage of how the repugs have sabotaged every attempt to get the country moving again. It seems more than a little disingenuous of his to complain about a situation he helped create.
aimai
Anyone else remember who ran on a “National Greatness” platform? Why, that would be “Good for me” John McCain. The whole Hamiltonian/National Greatness thing reminds me of the scene in Zoolander when Fabio thanks the assembled models for voting him “the greatest model slash actor and not the other way around.” Brooks knows for a fact that the label “Hamiltonian” means absolutely zero, its worse than calling yourself a wobbly or a whig so he tacks on “National Greatness” to qualify it and make it explicable. But it just another dog whistle and garbage phrase. Who doesn’t want national greatness? We live in a fucking nation state. Obama is at least as good an exemplar of nationalism and national greatness as any of the twelve or fifteen moral dwarves running on the GOP ticket. To imply otherwise is itself a dogwhistle.
aimai
Quicksand
@fasteddie9318:
I’ve gotta coupla Hamiltons right here that I would gladly donate to support that effort.
Violet
Since Bobo clearly feels so strongly about this campaign, I think we should support his desire to avoid opining on it at all. That means no columns in the NYT, no appearances on Sunday shows or Charlie Rose or even guest lecturer jobs at the Aspen Institute. Nothing. Take a break, Bobo. Live your principles!
Chris
@Alex S.:
Well, yeah. Being willing to embrace and integrate modern ideas, that work, has been good for the U.S. and is good for any country in general.
OTOH, history isn’t kind to countries that gaze at their own navel while longing for the past and fanatically proclaiming that ALL WE NEED TO DO is remain absolutely faithful to their fictionalized version of what happened centuries ago. Which is what we’ve become.
Captain Goto
Way OT…but in honor of Pittsburgh Pride, our local alt-weekly had some frothy fun on the cover.
I dunno about you, but I think he looks simply *fabulous*.
Alex S.
@Violet:
Bobo goes Galt because no one else does?
piratedan
well I can tell you that David Brooks has no fucking clue about what he is talking about and it’s a damn shame his ass hasn’t been downsized to the street so he can actually see what it’s like looking for a job rather than being a full time literary fluffer.
John Weiss
@Captain Goto: “* Friday, June 10: Pub Crawl…we’ll do the driving as you visit all the hot bars all around town.”
That is certainly something to be proud about. /s
BGinCHI
@scav: Victimless crime, and under a minute!
Bobo would make a perfect Erectile Dysfunction pitch man.
Kathy in St. Louis
I know I shouldn’t be sending these back-to-back, but I just read through all the comments on this thread. I have to say, once again, that this site get some of the most intelligent and witty comments on the political sites I frequent. I always feel a little dumb after reading some of the insights provided by posters here. I mean this seriously…there are some very bright folks here at BalloonJuice.
kdaug
@Mike Kay (Chief of Staff):
Reckon I said the same upthread.
Violet
@Alex S.:
I’d be happy if our entire pundit class went Galt. Imagine if people had to figure out what they think all by themselves.
ET
Well Brooks would know about “unusually pathetic” and “unusually unimaginative” considering he is both. Sadly he doesn’t recognize this OR the fact that he is part of the problem of a political system that seems/is broken.
The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik
You see…I’ll actually agree that both the GOP and the Dems kinda suck ass. However, there’s a nice distinction as to why they suck ass.
The GOP sucks ass because they’re regressives who continue to sell an Alger-esque idea that ‘you work hard enough and you can be rich like me!’ while piling on institutional bullshit that makes that kind of ‘bootstrapping’ social advancement impossible, and as a sideorder, scapegoat all sorts of minorities as the Real Evil of the Nation, and when they’re proven wrong about anything, they double down and somehow get it even more accepted after failures.
The Dems suck because too many of them enable the GOP.
Enabling is awful and frustrating, but it also can’t be done unless you have horrible behavior that would require enabling. In other words, we wouldn’t have sucky Dems on this level if we didn’t have abhorrent GOPers. If the GOP wasn’t such a waste, I’m sure we’d still have Dems who sucked, but in different ways. But the degree and reasoning why are quite relevant here.
jl
Another miserable column by Brooks.
This statement is straight up obvious false:
“Democrats dream New Deal dreams, propose nothing and try to win elections by making sure nobody ever touches Medicare.”
Health care reform DID touch Medicare, one of the supposed third rail of US politics. And the GOP beat up the Democrats for making any changes to Medicare at all.
Later in the column, Brooks vaguely waves through a list of programs that ARE on the timid Obama and Democratic ideas, and tries to claim them as his own. While falsely claiming nothing like this is in the Democratic agenda.
The following statement is also straight up false, if ‘Hamiltonian’ means anything other than what Brooks needs it to mean in order to churn out 750 words on deadline:
” If there were a Hamiltonian Party, it would be offering a multifaceted reinvigoration agenda. It would grab growth ideas from all spots on the political spectrum and blend them together. ”
Exactly when did Hamilton blend together Jeffersonian, reactionary Patrick Henry ultra anti Federalist, ultra nationalistic James Wilson programs into some ungodly melange. Hamilton proposed programs that he thought were best from a moderate nationalistic perspective, gathered evidence and logic to support them, fought hard for them, and won some and lost some. I do not remember the first US National Bank being some unworkable mish mash compromise of Jeffersonian ideas about banking and his own. For better or worse, it was Hamiltions vision of what the bank should be.
This is fantasy.
” The Tea Parties are right about the unholy alliance between business and government that is polluting the country. ”
What evidence that the Teabaggers have any real interest in that at all? The only Teabaggers with money are the corporate shills who love the current system.
Can Brooks produce anything other than superficial misleading vague drivel? Signs not looking good.
I hope Krugman and Klein and DeLong keep calling him on his nonsense. Brooks will eventually have to do something other than act the “pundit under protest’ (like provide some evidence) or lose credibility. He surely will never lose his NY Times position as long as he minds his stwesttering.
danimal
Bobo is not a patriot. Not at all. If he truly believes that Hamiltonian remedies are needed and there are no Hamilton heirs running in either party, should he not organize his fellow Hamiltons to nominate a candidate for president in either of the existing parties or a neo-Hamiltonian party? If the great ideas that he espouses are popular, the Hamilton Party candidate may just win the thing. Certainly, Bobo would have a candidate to back without reservation.
Or perhaps he’s just wanking because the Republican candidates suck ass and he can’t admit that Obama has a pretty decent policy agenda.
Gonna take me a while to figure this one out…
Captain Goto
@John Weiss: consider the Coors ad as a “bonus.” Hey–ya see one disgusting frothy mixture, you’ve seen ’em all, amirite?
kdaug
@Kathy in St. Louis:
Don’t ever feel dumb, Kathy. Not here.
We do sort of self-select for smart (i.e., we slam the shit out of stupid folks).
But (and this is wholly my opinion, and in no way representative of Cole, BJ, or any contributors therein), if you’re genuine, are willing to argue your case, and are open to having your opinion changed, there’s few better watering holes on the tubes.
danimal
@The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik: Honestly, my “GOP candidate suck ass” comment was written before I saw your comment. That means it must be true.
Violet
@jl:
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. As if pundits ever really have to provide actual evidence. A pithy anecdote from a taxi driver, a few sweeping generalizations, observations based on what their fellow Hampton-weekending friends have said, and a bit of pouting when anyone calls them out. Those are the things of highly paid punditry.
wasabi gasp
Erica is giving him shit.
acallidryas
I don’t know that I’ve ever read a line that made me immediately want to punch the author in the face quite so badly.
bryanD
It sounds to me like David Brooks is pining for a new Pearl Harbor.
Violet
@bryanD:
I heard a bit of a BBC show on cyber attacks today on the radio. One of the panelists said the “next Pearl Harbor” would likely be in the form of a cyber attack.
Jeffro
So he supports ACA…or else he would like to replace ACA with single-payer?
But…but…austerity first!!!
(Although New Wave Industrial Policy could work as a band name)
NO. That is not what the Tea Party is about, thank you Mr. Brooks. Although it’s nice to see Brooks’ true passion rise up here – “simplifying” the tax code and “streamlining” regulations. Hmm…trying to think where I’ve heard that before…
Let’s see: the corporate rates couldn’t BE any lower w/ all the loopholes and offshore profiteering; never w/ the GOP; wtf (patents?); and again, where’s the more money for research supposed to come from?
Lemme see a Brooks column that starts and ends with, “Rich peoplez, it’s time to pony up”, and maybe I’ll think more charitably about this poor lost Hamiltonian.
kdaug
@Alex S.:
Would anyone notice?
cmorenc
Um…WAIT A MINUTE. Bobo is indeed often the walking paradox of well-spoken, articulate stupidity. However, except for his vapidly superficial criticism of the democratic party as “offering nothing” and [acknowledging] huge problems like wage stagnation and then [offering]… light rail! Solar panels!…for once, I hate to admit it, but for once, Bobo is dead spot-on about the huge structural dysfunction of the two existing parties and the need to find eclectic solutions that blend and go beyond the existing ideologies and entrenched interest groups/ideologues who stubbornly resist any change.
Frankly, you’re the one being blind and stupid here DougJ, just because you have such profound disrespect for Bobo for usually being the conservative version of Thomas Friedman, but more ideological and not as bright, who gets cred with the Village for being pleasant and articulate and able to hide his underlying ideologue in a superficial coating of reasonableness. But this time, he’s actually (mostly) right; I had to agree with much of his article, painful though that is to say.
TuiMel
@MikeJ:
Thank you for this. The Dems may manage to disappoint (and believe me, they do disappoint me at times), but don’t let theat convince you that the disappointment would not be much greater with Republicans running the electoral table.
TuiMel
@Villago Delenda Est:
Let him work a poultry line at Tyson or some other mass producer. I’m sure he’d have a lot to say after a few hours of that.
Jeffro
Speaking of “both parties”, check this out:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/outlook/votes-that-pushed-us-into-the-red/
Dems vote for stimulus and wars; Repubs vote for tax cuts and wars; combined, we are where we are. But, worth pointing out here (so that people don’t split the difference completely) – the Bush tax cuts have cost us as much as the stimulus + our wars COMBINED.
Everything gets better when the rich pay higher rates, THEN we cut out our wars, THEN we might not need so much stimulus, eh?
fasteddie9318
@cmorenc:
Yeah. First of all it was Cole who wrote this post. Second, “Bobo is dead spot-on about the huge structural dysfunction of the two existing parties and the need to find eclectic solutions,” and then he proceeds to uncork a laundry list of policy priorities that he’d like to see someone propose, somewhere around 80-95% of which have already been proposed by Obama at some point or another, only to be blocked by the Republicans.
But both parties are equally to blame. Or something. Yeah, Bobo is really on to something here.
Violet
@fasteddie9318:
This.
@TuiMel:
But don’t let him stop at a few hours. Make him work and live on that wage. For several months. Wouldn’t that be a great story. Maybe the NYT should send him out to do that.
Mike Kay (Chief of Staff)
@bryanD:
Only if serves as a pretext to invade Israel’s enemies.
fasteddie9318
@TuiMel:
Hell, I’d say they should put him in a poultry line, except that any turkey that big is bound to be gristly and disgusting.
TuiMel
@Violet:
I did not think his soft ass would survive longer than a few hours…
Comrade Colette Collaboratrice
I’ll take my good news where I can get it: Ruling overturning Prop 8 is upheld; idiotic contention that a gay judge can’t rule on a case involving Teh Gays is idiotic.
Cris (without an H)
…but doesn’t acknowledge it. And never will.
Kathy in St. Louis
Wikipedia says David was born in Canada and is a reformed liberal. One point for (Canada), one point against (reformed liberal who came to his senses). Pretentious ahole would be more like it. Player of both ends against the middle pretentious ahole. I’ve seen folks go from being conservative to liberal and it seems to work out nicely. Guys like this one, it’s usually about the money.
Bulworth
I think this “both parties”, “pox on both their houses” schtick from Brooks is just more of his typical Lucy-pulling-the-football-away routine. Once the campaign begins in earnest Brooks will “regretfully” support the GOP candidate.
Violet
@TuiMel:
Ah, but if he’s going to eat, and that’s the only job he has, he’ll have to make it work. It’s not too bad to do crappy work like that for a few hours. But day after day, week after week, and you have to live on the money you make…Bobo’s tune might change a bit.
The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik
@Bulworth:
The whole ‘pox on both houses’ deal is simply a way to diffuse blame so you can’t actually punish the folks really responsible for anything. Long as you can spread the blame around, no on has to suffer any consequences, especially those who shit in the bed.
Whiskey Screams from a Guy With No Short-Term Memory
OT: Target, undoubtedly encouraged by the current political climate, starts indoctrinating new employees with union-bashing videos.
Equal time, anyone? Thought not.
David Koch
@Violet: Yup. Supply-siders have never worked a day in their lives.
cpk
Well, if Brooks’ point was “I think the Democrats lack fortitude and imagination,” then I’d have to agree with that part. But I don’t think that’s what he said. I think, to use a worn-out cliché, it was sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Jay in Oregon
@acallidryas:
+1, QFT, et al.
Roger Moore
@aimai:
You know who else ran on a National Greatness campaign?
Jim Pharo
@MikeJ: I must be watching a different channel. It seems all I hear about is the ongoing war against women (Obama bending over backwards to make sure that no federal dime goes anywhere near an abortion), the need to get rid of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, and the inability of the government to do anything to help a middle class in free-fall.
It’s hard for me to believe that in 10 years time we won’t see this Obama period as a time in which our decline was slowed a little. But a decline it is, and turning over the reins to our nation’s richest bankers and CEO’s is unlikely to be a successful strategy.
Jim Pharo
@balconesfault: I’m from NY, and I cannot believe that Schumer and Gillibrand have much interest in a “progressive” agenda. They would be Republicans in a normal polity. All but a handful of Senate “Dems” have any interest in helping the voters.
I can imagine a 70 seat Dem majority — it looks a lot like the 60 seat one we had. And we’ve had 70 seat GOP majorities – every time they have 50+1.
Jim Pharo
@Comrade Dread: You feel like that because you are. This is what a crumbling society looks like. Read Gibbons.
trollhattan
O/T Non-teh ghey judge sez teh ghey judge can make ruling on anti-teh-ghey Prop 8.
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/06/14/3700330/gay-judges-same-sex-marriage-ruling.html
Suck on that, giant LDS bank vault.
Roger Moore
@MikeJ:
Not to mention Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Can you imagine what the Supreme Court would look like today if John McCain had been able to nominate justices instead of Obama?
Roger Moore
@Violet:
FTFY.
Mike Kay (Chief of Staff)
@Jim Pharo:
That’s false. He lifted the ban on stem cell research. He funding restored to groups that perform abortions on his 3rd day in office. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/23/AR2009012302814.html Just 12 days ago he rejected Mitch Daniels effort to defund Planned Parenthood.
I don’t know where firebaggers and PUMAs get this shit.
spark
@Violet: That’s so simple and genius it gives me chills!
Jim Pharo
@Warren Terra: Lot of assumptions there. Glad to see the FCC backing net neutrality — can you say you’re confident that that will be the policy of the US in two year’s time?
Can you say that Kennedy won’t chuck the ACA? That many of its most important provisions will never be funded? That we will have a lower percentage of uninsured in five years’ time?
I work in Wall St. I’m pretty sure that Dodd-Frank ain’t keeping anyone here up at night, nothwithstanding all the gnashing of teeth to the contrary.
Hurah! They overruled the Lily Ledbetter decision! Surely that will lead to higher wages to women relative to men, and not just to employers ginning up all kinds of notices and waivers to ensure that the act isn’t ever very helpful.
I wish I could say that I believe that all of these achievements are real and will make a difference. But I don’t see any basis for it. What the owners of the government they will get.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
Well I must say I’m deeply dissapointed to read the thorough deconstruction of Bobo’s Hamiltonianism in these parts. I really was hoping that he meant it in a much more literal fashion: that his life’s ambition was to pick a fight with somebody hot tempered and important in DC and get himself killed in a duel. Oh well, I guess Bobo missed his chance at that in the previous administration, when Cheney was VP. What a pity.
fasteddie9318
@Mike Kay (Chief of Staff):
The same place all shit comes from?
Patrick Morris
@Mike Kay (Chief of Staff): If you argue with them, or even mock them, it just means more traffic to their site/paper/channel. It’s true for Brooks, Palin, Beck, Limbaugh. They love it, it’s their job, and the only way to fire them is to ignore them.
That doesn’t mean ignore the ideas they are talking about, but pick a different place to argue them. Like here.
Similarly, Newt has no chance of being President, or even getting the R nomination, and he of course knows it. But running is his current job, and he’s doing well at it, even if his campaign is heavily in debt. Again, the only way to not support him is to ignore him.
When I see Palin or Newt on my teevee, I can’t change the channel fast enough. In the new digital cable systems, do they keep track of how many people are watching what?
Bruce S
A David Brooks column is usually the exact opposite of what they say about Wagner’s music. It’s actually worse than it sounds…
Jim Pharo
@TuiMel: Yes, when George Bush was President we HAD to stop the wars. Now they’re ok. Why, we even have a new one that the Dems in general seem OK with.
The pitter-patter narrative changes slightly depending on who’s in office, but the bottom line results don’t much change over time, except that the powerful accrete power until they go, at last, too far…
Steve
@jl:
Exactly right. Hamilton was the Federalists’ big thinker. The Jeffersonians basically defined themselves by opposition to Hamilton’s pro-federal agenda. Hamilton was not some moderate seeking good ideas from both sides; in fact, some of his proposals (like a coordinated national manufacturing policy) were too ambitious for even the rank-and-file Federalists to support. Hamilton was basically unelectable on a national level because his bold ideas were considered radical and extreme by too many people.
But I see Brooks’ point. Sure, the Democrats want to do almost all of the things Brooks proposes. But when the Democrats have a majority, the Republicans filibuster those things and nothing gets done – which proves that neither party is doing the things Brooks wants, you see?
fasteddie9318
@Jim Pharo:
Wait…so the possibility that the Republican majority on the USSC might overturn the ACA and the likelihood that corporate criminals will try to find new ways to keep engaging in criminal behavior regardless of whatever laws are passed, these things are evidence that there’s no difference between the two parties?
trollhattan
@Violet:
Brilliant! Assign Brooks to “star” in the next Morgan Spurlock movie. Take one of his “30 Days” scenarios out to a year.
Violet
@Whiskey Screams from a Guy With No Short-Term Memory:
Oh, wow. I’m in the middle of watching the video. It’s HORRIBLE. I wish this would get a lot of attention. It’s uber-cheesy and full of “Unions are Teh Debil!” type of scaremongering. Target must be afraid its employees are looking to organize.
Mike Kay (Chief of Staff)
@Jim Pharo:
When Bush was president, firebagg icon Anthony Weiner cheerled the invasion and firebagg icon John Edwards co-authored the invasion resolution with Joe Lieberman.
Clean up your own house before throwing mud at others.
ppcli
I’ll be reading a lot about the presidential election over the next 16 months, but at the outset I would just like to remark that I’m following this whole campaign under protest. I’m registering a protest because for someone of my Swiftian/Menkenian/Clear Thought and Compelling Style perspective, the
writerstypists cataloguing this election are, as usual, unusually pathetic. Their columns are unusually unimaginative. Their interminable high Broderite fog and confusion is unusually incommensurate to the problem at hand.EDIT: Oh, yeah, and that goes double for that intellectually dishonest shill David Brooks.
Violet
@trollhattan:
I enjoyed those “30 Days” shows. I especially liked the one where he lived on minimum wage and then injured himself or got sick and needed emergency care and couldn’t afford food or rent.
I’d love it if David Brooks went and did something like that. Maybe we should start a movement: Send David Brooks to a Poultry Farm! We could register a website, point out that he said he’s only doing his current job “under protest” and suggest he go find out what a real day’s work is like by working on a poultry farm. Cluck, cluck, cluck.
Villago Delenda Est
@ppcli:
(applause)
Cris (without an H)
Okay, I need some background on this one. I knew that Hillary was the focus of the “Party Unity My Ass” crowd, but was Edwards as well? I don’t know, I’m asking.
Culture of Truth
I read Bobo under protest, because for someone of my Jeffersonian/Pundit Greatness perspective, he’s vomit inducing.
Jim Pharo
@Mike Kay (Chief of Staff): Um, I think I ma have gotten it from the article you linked, which says, “Lifting the Mexico City Policy would not permit U.S. tax dollars to be used for abortions.” So, no, lifting the gag rule did not permit government funding of abortion. And Obama has gone along with restricting the right of the citizens of DC to spend their own tax dollars for abortions. And he signed a memorandum of understanding that actually expanded the Hyde amendment (at least arguably.).
Yeah, good times for women’s (human) rights.
Tonal Crow
@balconesfault:
Palin’s desk.
Tonal Crow
@Culture of Truth: Jefferson? Why do you hate America so deeply?
Mike Kay (Chief of Staff)
@Cris (without an H): The Edwards dead-enders weren’t PUMAs, but as Naderies the see no difference Dems and Republicans, and therefore they scrape to create a false narrative (ie no difference btwn Gore and Bush/ Obama hates abortion rights).
Jim Pharo
If the S.Ct. upholds ACA, and if it goes into effect, and if we are paying less in the future, I’ll be thrilled and surprised.
We like to think the Dems are better, but I’m not sure I’m seeing the evidence for it. Obama adopted the employer-deductability idea from McCain, and the rest of the ACA from Romney (and Hillary, who actively campaigned on mandates, which Obama mocked). This is supposed to show two parties?
trollhattan
@Violet:
That episode haunts me still. Like everybody I’ve had crappy, minimum wage jobs but always knew I was biding time until the next rung in the ladder. What if there’s no rung, no ladder?
But, but…luckie duckies, parasites, users…how many tens of millions of Americans are doomed to this existence?
Tehanu
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ:
I really was hoping that he meant it in a much more literal fashion: that his life’s ambition was to pick a fight with somebody hot tempered and important in DC and get himself killed in a duel.
Me too. “someone of my
Hamiltonian/NationalGreatnessperspective“… Yeah, right, Bobo, Your Greatness, Your Astounding Magnifitude, Your…Steve
@Jim Pharo: This was a painful comment to read, particularly the part where you said there’s no difference between the two parties because the Supreme Court might overturn the Democrats’ health care law anyway.
Progress is slow in this country, often maddeningly so. People like you make it worse, not better.
Violet
@trollhattan:
Yep. Which is why someone like David Brooks should go do a minimum wage job. And live on how much he earns. Nothing more fun than a conservative living their beliefs.
Culture of Truth
@Tonal Crow: Ever since he moved up to East side he has drawn my ire
Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal
@BGinCHI:
i shot my rhetorical wad last night after reading the column per dougj’s post, but pretty much.
i mean the thing absent all of brook’s musings about how the system doesn’t have room for his brand of conservative elitism, is the fact that he spent his entire career trying to make exactly what he pines for, disappear.
he has tried on every mask for conservative country clubbers and how they are more real than their libby counterparts, now he regrets that they are gone? fuckin a, mission accomplished asshole,amirite?
Duckest Fuckingway: Ask not for whom the Duck Fucks. . .
Steve: Yep. Progress always comes at the hands of timid centrists and former Republicans. And, of course, anyone who departs from the narrow bounds of acceptible discourse should be shunned and insulted.
KG
This is the one that jumped out at me:
I’ve read a lot about Alexander Hamilton and would probably consider myself something of a Hamiltonian. I’m going to go out on a ledge and say that Bobo’s idea of Hamiltonian and what was actually, you know, Hamiltonian are two different things. Hamilton was an ass (I say this as a fan of his) – he was usually the smartest guy in the room and had no problem letting everyone else know he was the smartest guy in the room. He pissed off Congress as Secretary of the Treasury because he’d write “reports” that were really “bills” and basically said “do this, damn it.” He was a Federalist and loathed the Anti-Federalists (he definitely didn’t like Jefferson), he wasn’t some non-ideological compromise maker. This is the sort of thing that you could learn by reading, you know, any biography of the man.
JCT
@Georgia Pig:
He’s probably suck at that too.
Uncle Clarence Thomas
.
.
Mr. David Brooks is a parasitic pipsqueak of a poltroon who does not yet recognize the greatness of President Obama, who is a real, manly man who will never fiercely say that he welcomes the hatred of the malefactors of great wealth.
.
.
Suffern ACE
@Mike Kay (Chief of Staff):
I’m not certain what the point was. Edwards and Lieberman were rejected as candidates for office long before any sex scandals and for that matter, war promoter Hilary also lost in the end. It is difficult to argue that the “left” doesn’t get to feel a bit peeved about, say, Libya, or the thousands of troups still in Iraq, when they voted for the only candidate who was running for office who hadn’t voted for the Iraq war resolution.
Are the reps in congress who vote against continuing the war funding without changes (even when they lose those votes) now suddenly too “firebaggy” to be part of the Dem party?
NobodySpecial
@Cris (without an H): According to some people (the same kind of ‘some people’ Fox Nooz loves to talk about), the PUMAs were not a GOP astroturf creation that sucked in a few zealous “First Woman President” types, but an actual movement of anyone who desired to stop Barack Obama. Therefore, support of Edwards = support of Clinton = race baiting hatred of Obama, since guys like Larry Whatzizname with his ‘Whitey Tape’ have always been good progressives.
And don’t forget, these ev0l progressives are simultaneously both too small to be an actual constituency in the Democratic Party and the direct reason for any policy failure since 2008 or so.
This is the world Mike Kay inhabits.
General Stuck
These people are quitting America and it’s democracy, and even Brooks, who passes for an intellectual branch of the GOP, is simply talking nuttier with each successive column. Writings with undertones, and sometimes overtones that probably could be comparable to conquered Confederate columnists back in the day. They have quit an America with liberalism or any smidgeon of progress that is defined and measured as government creating less suffering and better treatment of the least among us.
And have entered some mythical wingnut pantheon of lords and servants in their own heads, and guess who the lords are in their fetid fantasies. The culprit in their eyes, are the combined works of liberal lions sneaking in a social safety net when pol conditions were right for it, in spite of their best efforts to keep us on track for the oligarchic bliss they pine for.
And target number one is medicare, largely because it is actually in some trouble money wise, at least in the near future, and tied to escalating health care costs across the board. And now the ACA. That they watch each day the polling of public approval on that law rise a little more.
I doubt it will control rising costs enough to fix medicare and overall health care, but the wingers don’t know that yet, either way. They do know the new regs are going to be popular and already are, as the bill settles more into daily American life.
It has them in an all out panic, and more and more, with loose talk from pols and pundits of the right, a subliminal message seems to be congealing that responsible politicking is not working and that maybe we need to destroy it to make it better . A very dangerous mentality for a major party to drift into from top to bottom.
Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony
@Jim Pharo:
And you are blaming Obama and the Dems for that? The enemy is the GOP. Tattoo that on your forehead. Repeat it over and over again, until it finally sinks in. Obviously, you don’t seem to be getting it, or you wouldn’t be criticizing people who are actually TRYING to do the right thing, because the other side is hellbent on wrecking this country.
Mike Kay (Chief of Staff)
@Suffern ACE: I don’t know why you’re defending Wiener and Edwards’ positions of Iraq. They were blood thirsty warmongers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY6BZgkI0kI
Georgia Pig
@General Stuck: Purely anecdotal, but we just got the yearly quote on our company plan — 35% increase. On top of 27% last year. I’m not big on conspiracies, but are things like this and the bullshit McKinsey study alleging that firms would drop coverage not-too-subtle attempts by insurers to undermine ACA and, by extension, Obama?
maus
Liberality is evil! No republican running is a true conservative!
dollared
@KG: Ah, but Hamilton was manly enough to advocate the Iraq War and agree that it had to be run “off budget” so the producing class didn’t have to pay for it.
Because Hamilton did not care about balancing the budget, and he was for tax cuts. Always.
Mike Kay (Chief of Staff)
@NobodySpecial: Obama has a 91% approval rating among self described liberal Democrats. by definition the PUMAs and firebaggers are statistically insignificant. I told you this before, but you’re too retarded to get it. If bloggers were significant then Edwards would have been the nominee, as was exposed in this infamous poll http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/01/03/429493/-2008:-1-2-straw-poll
Suffern ACE
@Mike Kay (Chief of Staff): I’m not defending anyone on Iraq. The candidates you site lost. Part of the reason they lost is that anti-war progressives voted for someone else. Because Edwards in 07…blah blah…firebaggers…blah blah…non-firebaggers who think the Presient has been a bit slow in wrapping up those wars must be Jane Hamsher clones.
If the troops in Afganistan don’t draw down because “we don’t want to give up any gains” does anyone get to speak up then? Or will it then be…blah blah firebaggers…blah blah Edwards, too. Blah blah Nader blah blah. Blah blah Henry Wallace. Blah blah Gus Hall.
General Stuck
@Georgia Pig:
Don’t know about your personal situation with a rise like that, but there is no doubt in my mind the Mckinsey report is rotten top to bottom and reeks of politics over reliable methodology, that that firm usually employs.
cat48
Ezra Klein says this is Obama’s agenda that Brooks wants:
“It looks to me like every single items in Brooks’s “targeted working-class basket” is also on Obama’s agenda. Early childhood education? It got a Race to the Top program — a program, incidentally, that Brooks admires — in the president’s 2012 budget. Same for technical education/community colleges. As for the infrastructure bank, Obama proposed it last year. Meanwhile, Obama’s State of the Union emphasized the exact sort of tax reform and R&D investment Brooks proposes, and he’s long supported high-skills immigration reform.”
dollared
@NobodySpecial: Bingo! And they kidnapped Lindbergh’s baby!
Tonal Crow
Christ on a crutch can’t we discuss Bobo’s stupidity without descending into the usual bullshit about “PUMAs”, “firebaggers” and “Obots”?
Omnes Omnibus
@Tonal Crow: No, apparently not.
Mike Kay (Chief of Staff)
@Suffern ACE:
The so called anti-war progressives in the blogosphere (which was the group I was referring to), supported St. John Edwards, and today, the same anti-war progressive blogosphere wildly loves St. Weiner.
One day you’re gonna have to deal with the fact that you were wrong for supporting Edwards and weiner. One day you’re gonna have to try to reconcile the contradiction of strongly opposing the iraq war and supporting strongly warmongers like Weiner and Edwards.
clearskies
@Kathy in St. Louis:
But that’s the entire republican election strategy!
Omnes Omnibus
@Mike Kay (Chief of Staff): I am sure it would help everyone out a lot if you would just tell us who we should support and when we should support them. Or you could be less of an asshole. Your choice.
4jkb4ia
@Downpuppy:
The Hamiltonian circuit clearly also has some applications to David Brooks and this column.
Yes, I was clearly put on this earth to annoy John Cole.
Mike Kay (Chief of Staff)
@Omnes Omnibus: well, I opposed the iraq invasion. I wish golden boy warmongers weiner and edwards would have listened to this asshole.
aisce
@Omnes Omnibus:
why? mike kay’s right.
isn’t it interesting that the professional left, keeper of the progressive flame and self-appointed moral authority of this great nation, always find it in their hearts to make any excuses for white male politicians that they’d never afford anyone else. least of all a certain black president, who’s you know, an actual good and wise and decent leader and human being.
odd.
but of course, white liberals could never simultaneously be white supremacists. it’s impossible. madness even.
Suffern ACE
@Mike Kay (Chief of Staff): Well dork, when Edwards’ support (which never actually materialized much outside the blogosphere, and never much beyond support levels that candidates who have “Former VP Candidate Now Runs for President” name recognition get) was the strongest – it was 2007 when the frontrunner was Hillary Clinton – the noted progressive darling and anti-war activist. Oh wait – both Hilary and John HAD THE SAME PRO WAR HISTORY? The same history that KERRY had? How, when they weren’t given much of a choice between candidates who voted for the war in the past, could they possibly choose Edwards, a candidate who spoke as if he reflected their values in his current form? I
2007 happened. Get over it. Edwards is not running any longer. From what I can tell, progressives who didn’t like Hillary voted for Obama.
Criminies. No one ever beats up Tsongas supporters this way. There’s reasons why we have primaries. You probably shouldn’t pay attention to them if you are going to hold a grudge four years after their issues have been decided.
OzoneR
@Jim Pharo:
high-speed rail
ban on rescission in HCR
Consumer Protection Agency
equal pay
no more defending DOMA (a decision I didn’t necessarily agree with btw)
Auto bailout
end of combat mission in Iraq
Dead Osama Bin Laden
I’m not sure why you think they haven’t?
NobodySpecial
@Suffern ACE: I have this feeling that Mike has hated Hillary for a LOT longer than four years. If you know what I mean.
OzoneR
@Suffern ACE:
funny how that seems to be a trend.
Mike Kay (Chief of Staff)
@Suffern ACE: you forgot to take your meds today, didn’t you.
Mike Kay (Chief of Staff)
@NobodySpecial: you really are retarded. I haven’t once mentioned hillary.
Jesse
@Jim Pharo: Okay, so you really don’t think the guy who refused to cut funding to Planned Parenthood is any different from the guys who (for instance) make your doctor tell you untrue things as a matter of law, compel frivolous ultrasounds, or (my personal favorite) want to define “personhood” as beginning at conception?
Wow. Okay then.
John Weiss
@Comrade Colette Collaboratrice: Yee-Haw! Nice to have some good news!
I’m not gay, but I won’t be free (in some ways) ’til those guys n’ gals are treated as equal to me. Damn! Another baby step forward.
NobodySpecial
@Mike Kay (Chief of Staff): THIS time….
John Weiss
@Mike Kay (Chief of Staff): How is incivility a service to anyone, yourself included?
Mongo
Oh, good christ; why bother parsing whatever Bucky The Beaver claims is his perspective, about anything?
Brooks was an unabashed PNAC supporter and cheerleader for the invasion of Iraq; he has blood on his hands. And nothing he has to say has any probity, gravitas, or value in it. At all. Not to put too fine a point on it or anything.
Mike Kay (Chief of Staff)
@NobodySpecial: you are one dumb mutherfucker. Hillary Clinton is a loyal Democrat, who unlike a handful of insignificant sore losers, did everything she could to beat the mccain in 2008. Plus, she’s been a splendid member of the administration. Now, you run along and eat your paste.
Suffern ACE
@NobodySpecial: He’s not against Hillary. He just hates her supporters. Like Edwards supporters. Its not the leaders, really. Operating under the assumption that the PUMAs weren’t a fringe group, but instead a powerful group that has taken over all progressives, he can’t get over 2008. Doesn’t matter that very few people stood by Edwards until the end. Nope. If you once toyed with the idea of Edwards when the media and the blogosphere said “think about Edwards now” your loyalty to the Democratic party as it is currently constituted needs to be questioned.
Not happy with the administration? Must be because Edwards happened in 2007 and because Jane Hamsher is insane and there were PUMAs four years ago who haven’t been heard from as a group since. Makes as much sense as going after Paul Simon supporters in 1992.
fasteddie9318
@OzoneR:
Apparently because someday GM might still go bankrupt, Republicans are obstructing the consumer protection agency, a future Republican president might decide to go to war with Iraq again or with some other country, the Republicans on the USSC might strike down HCR, and Republicans won’t fund high-speed rail. Oh, and, I guess, Republican scientists are working on trying to reanimate Zombie bin Laden. All of these things mean that Democrats are TEH SUCK and no better than the fucking Republicans.
NobodySpecial
@Suffern ACE: The worst part is, he’s driving a narrative that even casual surfers of this blog are too willing to buy into.
There WAS no great ‘PUMA’ upsurge or ‘Firebagger’ upsurge to stop the Obama nomination. Ever. PUMAs were a GOP astroturf function, period, aided and abetted by tools like Larry Johnson (that noted progressive who actually admitted he wasn’t a progressive as early as 2007 at the first fucking DailyKos Convention) and coopting folks who really really REALLY wanted a woman President like Hamsher, another one of his favorite targets.
You’ll note that he dings Edwards for his Iraq stance, but then lauds chickenhawk Hillary as ‘a loyal Democrat’, even though she’s never apologized for her Iraq vote. He’s a combination purity troll and wannabe Sherf who people actually occasionally take seriously for no good reason at all.
Mike Kay (Chief of Staff)
@Suffern ACE:it sounds like you have a real guilty conscience. don’t feel bad about stupidly falling for edwards and weiner. confession is good for the soul. I mean look at how Elizabeth Edwards turned states evidence against her St. John on her death bed. I’m sure helping to send St. John to jail alleviated her soul.
Svensker
@Mike Kay (Chief of Staff):
I was strongly anti-war and never liked Edwards or Wiener. Which strawmen are you talking about?
TuiMel
@Jim Pharo:
Think what you like. I happen to think that the matter of degree matter.
Mike Kay (Chief of Staff)
@Svensker: well then, you’re the exception to the rule. if you bothered to click on the link I provided in the post you would have seen that half of the anti-war blogosphere supported Edwards (the man who literally co-authored the invasion resolution). That a warmonger like edwards was so wildly popular in the blogosphere is sad.
Suffern ACE
@NobodySpecial: Yep. Both Hilary and Edwards voted for the war. In 2007, though, they were saying very different things. That might explain why some people considered Edwards. Seeing that there weren’t any “serious” candidates running who had voted against the war might think one needed to make decisions based on what they were saying 3 years later.
Considering Edwards’ support had dried up by Iowa, it seems quite odd to hold it against people four years later for supporting a candidate for a month back in 2007 when he was probably polling 15%. But hey, if you want to live that kind of life that never moves on, who am I to stand in the way of his happiness. Jane Hamsher lives her life the same way.
Triassic Sands
I can’t stand Brooks and I rarely bother to read his columns. However, skipping over all the introductory fluff about his reporting under protest, I have to agree — at some basic level — with his assessment of the two parties.
Now, the two parties are nothing alike. The Modern GOP is a collection of irresponsible lunatics with absolutely nothing to offer. Following their policy prescriptions will lead to national failure.
The Democratic Party just kinda sucks. The majority of its elected officials in Washington are spineless creeps beholden to business and the wealthy. They aren’t nearly as bad as Republicans, but they aren’t going to lead us to a just, prosperous society without some major changes. Very few Democrats can be counted on to stand up against the grave injustices in our society, but with leadership they might do the right thing. Unfortunately, that leadership is absent.
The Democrats’ willingness to compromise with Republicans is a sign that they don’t really have strong core beliefs, while the Republicans devoutly believe utter nonsense without any empirical support. The problem for Democrats is weakness of character; for the GOP it’s mass insanity.
If the Republican Party were a conservative analog of the Democrats, we might be able to muddle along and avoid a meltdown. Sadly, that’s not the case. Our Democratic Party is not up to the task of opposing a group as dangerous as the Modern Republican Party.
AAA Bonds
Perhaps he should commit suicide!
DanielX
“….my Hamiltonian/National Greatness perspective”…Imagine my surprise when I looked up “pompous ass” in the dictionary and found the picture of George Will above the definition had been replaced by one of David Brooks.
Mitch
@Jim Pharo:
There’s plenty to dislike about the Democrats; but if you want to see what kind of “outcomes” we can expect if the Republicans control all three branches of government, take a look at Wisconsin.
Mitch
@Jim Pharo:
There’s plenty to dislike about the Democrats; but if you want to see what kind of “outcomes” we can expect if the Republicans control all three branches of government, take a look at Wisconsin.
travis
Who gives a shit about Edwards? Are we meant to be chagrined by our support for Edwards? I remember kinda liking him but really cant remember hoping that he was president. As for his war stance, if we refused to vote for anyone who fucked the pooch on that topic, what are we left with? As for both parties being the same, I hope you never get to find out how horrific a wingnut ruled world would look like. Well, I wish you could without messing up my reality.
markg8
A little reminder of some Democratic accomplishments in congress during 2009 and 2010 in the face of unrelenting opposition from the GOP:
Health care reform (which Democrats have been trying to pass since Truman in 1948 and Teddy Roosevelt proposed in 1911) Financial reform (written in part by that traitor to the cause Barney Frank with Elizabeth Warren forming the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), DADT repeal, Obama saving approximately 4 million jobs in manufacturing industries by forcing GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy and within 6 weeks resurrecting them with union representation on the board (taxpayers are on track to make money on that one and GM has hired back just about everybody laid off in 2009), making sure all the TARP money is paid back and recycling it back it into the economy (with $26 billion in profit so far to the American taxpayer, raise your hand if you think George Bush would have pulled that off, or even tried), 2 more women on the Supreme Court, the Lilly Ledbetter Act, more private sector jobs created in 2010 than in the the entire 8 years of the Bush administration, expansion of: Medicaid, mental health care for veterans, and Pell Grants, the Recovery Act which by itself is the single biggest accomplishment by a Democratic president since FDR (not my opinion – Rachel Maddow’s) the START treaty, and in general dragging us back from the brink of another Great Depression, hmmm…what am I missing? Oh yeah Obama got Osama bin Laden.