Krauthammer Corrects 'Inside Washington' Host: David Brooks 'Is Not A Conservative'
Like so many members of the press, "Inside Washington" host Gordon Peterson wrongly thinks New York Times columnist David Brooks is a conservative.
When Peterson depicted Brooks this way on Friday, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer marvelously corrected him with surprising support from Politico's Evan Thomas (video follows with transcript and commentary):
GORDON PETERSON, HOST: Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader’s talking about conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks’ column on July 4th which he says the Republican Party is no longer a normal party. It’s been infected, Brooks says, by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical governing alternative. Its members, Charles, he says don’t accept the logic of compromise. What do you think of that?
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Well, forgive me, but I have to correct your copy again. Conservative columnist? He’s a great columnist, but he’s not a conservative.
PETERSON: You don’t consider him a conservative?
KRAUTHAMMER: No, I don’t.
NINA TOTENBERG, NPR: (Laughing off-camera.)
KRAUTHAMMER: I think he’s a moderate, and he straddles…
TOTENBERG: (Off-camera) He’s a moderate conservative.
EVAN THOMAS, POLITICO: (Off-camera) No, I think he’s a moderate.
KRAUTHAMMER: No, he’s not a conservative. He’s a moderate. He’s open to all views.
For the record, when I interviewed Brooks at the 2008 Republican National Convention, he confirmed that he was just slightly right of center and considered himself a moderate.
Unfortunately, any opinion columnist that's not a liberal is considered a conservative these days.
This, of course, is another one of the reasons the public isn't exposed to close the level of conservative opinion as they are liberal views: those brought on to give the conservative side are oftentimes moderates.
Bravo, Charles. Bravo.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Conservatives have drawn a line in the sand
Submitted by Texndoc on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 6:39pm.
And of course, David Brooks has called them insane and an "infection". And he swooned over Obama.
Krauthammer was pointing out the obvious.
Brooks, Kathleen Parker, Peggy Noonan - these days they can't even remember the guy's name ("Obama who?") let alone admit that during the prior campaign, he was their boyfriend.
The "insane and infected" were never fooled.
Touché
Submitted by Lakewood Ed on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 6:41pm.
Another fraud that must be exposed for what he is, a New York Times columnist. If you get quoted by Harry Reid to bolster an argument, you are not conservative. :Þ
Baaayummm!
Submitted by gmaniac1 on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 7:53pm.
That's right he said it!
I know how to settle this.
Submitted by NeoKong on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 7:53pm.
Who did he vote for in 2008....?
ARE YOU KIDDING
Submitted by cbeyer on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 11:57pm.
I don't need to have accompanied him in the voting booth to who who David Brooks voted for....OBAMA...of course. He is NOT A conservative. Not even a RINO...
Brooks Kooks
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 8:04pm.
"Moderate" is an meaningless word in political spectrum terms. The word is a comparative not an absolute.
Compared to Mao Tse Tung, I'm sure there were some in the Communist party who were more "moderate" than him. But they were all commie bastards.
Hess was more moderate than Hitler. Both Nazis though.
You catch my drift?
It does not even mean "open to all views" -- so Krauthammer is simply incorrect on that point.
From what Brooks actually says, he sounds like a big government tax more kind of guy.. What's MODERATE about that?
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Exactly
Submitted by GregE on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 11:24pm.
It's all relative. Over the years, those who are not very conservative have been painted as extreme right wing, by design, moving the entire ideological spectrum to the left, by design. The moderate is not really center because center has moved left. The moderate is left.
Someone who is a strict Constitutionalist is not called moderate. They're called an extreme right winger. That alone tells us how the entire spectrum has shifted well to the left. The Constitution is the document from which EVERY SINGLE federal law originates. Of course many of those laws can only live because someone "found" it to be Constitutional, regardless of reality.
Calling a Constitutionalist an extreme right winger is nonsense. The Left has moved the spectrum, period. Ask someone if a Constitutionalist is an extreme right winger and they'll say Yes. Ask the same person if the Founding Fathers were extreme right wingers, and they'll say No, immediately contradicting themselves. Then simply ask them if the Founding Fathers were Constitutionalists and then shut up and prepare for sputtering.
More people knew the federal limitations set forth under the Constitution, at a time when it was fairly new and government was very small, than understand it today, at a time where that federal government is massive and trying to assume more and more power daily. At at time we should all understand it better, we actually understand it much less, so the knowledge gap is widening, and the federal government is salivating with every inch it does.
What he said!
Submitted by jdhawk on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 2:18am.
What he said!
Brooks is the guy obsessed with Obama's pants
Submitted by Slyrr on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 8:05pm.
Brooks is a LIBERAL. He sides with liberals on every issue. He slams republicans, conservatives and anyone who isn't a liberal. Everyone knows that Brooks is nothing more than a liberal that the NYT hired to SAY that he's a conservative, so they can lie to their viewers and say they present 'both sides' of any issue.
And of course, Brooks is also the man who is carrying on a liberal 'bro-mance' with Obama. He slobbers and slavers over him at every turn. He was the man who said that Obama would be a 'great president' based on nothing more than looking at the crease in his pants.
That's Brooks' benchmark for a great president. Pants.
Ya know, I've got pants too, Brooky-boy. Does that mean I'd be a 'great president'?
Well, Slyrr, you don't have
Submitted by MikeB on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 9:27pm.
Well, Slyrr, you don't have any less executive experience than Obama, you have a better grasp of economics than Obama, you don't hate America like Obama does. Now, you might not be a "great President", but you'd be a damn sight better President than Ear Leader has been.
On the other hand, nearly anyone here, with the exception of our resident trolls, would be a damn sight better President than Ears has been.
Brooks is as close to a
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 8:29pm.
Brooks is as close to a conservative as the NYT can get, even while holding its collective nose.
"Its members, Charles, he
Submitted by tcm14 on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 8:55pm.
"Its members, Charles, he says don’t accept the logic of compromise."
Yeah, if the dems get their way then it is "compromise". If the conservatives get their way, then it is "terrorism, wahabbism, economic suicide bombing, fascism, etc. etc. etc."
I've never read this Brooks guy but he sounds like a lefty troll to me, acting like a Conservative when in reality scoring points for the left. With friends like him...
How shall I name thee?
Submitted by lgeubank on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 9:23pm.
David Brooks is by no stretch of the imagination a conservative. So let's see -- how can we label him?
You might call him a RINO. Or a WISC (wolf in sheep's clothing). Or an agent provocateur -- somebody who poses as a member of a group, in order to bring it into disrepute by acting like a jerk in its name.
Or you might call him a squishy, wishy-washy twerp, or a Quisling, or a sneaking weasel.
One thing is sure: on any important issue, when the rubber meets the road, Brooks will sell out the conservative point of view and sabotage the Right. He's a natural born tit, weenie and slimy reptile.
David (Benedict Arnold) Brooks
Submitted by neutron on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 10:20pm.
Benedict Arnold was a General in the Continental Army during our Revolutionary War. He was as "American" as you could get, but then he aided and abetted the British until he finally defected to their side and served in the British Army.
David Brooks may at one time have been a conservative, but he has aided and abetted the liberal / progressive camp so many times, he should just follow in Benedict Arnold's footsteps and join the other side.
Harry Reid is using Brook's words to spray conservatives and the Tea Party with acid-tongued shrapnel. Brooks probably loves this as much as he hates "The 11th Commandment" of Ronald Reagan -- "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican."
Oh, yeah, Brooks is not even a registered Republican, is he? He lacks the "R" so he's just an INO.
How can we label David Brooks? Good question.
Submitted by jawebster1 on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 4:04am.
All of the above works for me! His name brings an automatic groan to my lips. Rush was asked on his show today, who is more dangerous to Conservatives, Liberals or RINOs? His answer: RINOS, because they are really Liberals at heart and they infiltrate the Republican Party and end up spoiling the brand. Remember Arlen Specter? He was the worst!
Being a moderate himself,
Submitted by gadropout on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 9:32pm.
Being a moderate himself, Krauthammer should recognize Brooks' wishy-washiness.
Oh, for Pete's Sake
Submitted by Chris Norman on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 1:52am.
Just because Dr. Krauthammer doesn't scream, yell, and foam at the mouth doesn't make him a "moderate". Just because he questioned Christine O'Donnell's electability in Delaware doesn't make him a moderate. He was proven right. Hell's bells - Krauthammer is one of the most articulate conservative voices out there who regularly puts liberal whack jobs in their place on these shows. Have we gone so far off the deep end - the conservative equivalent of left wing kook Kossacks - that we shoot our own? These out-of-control "RINO" accusations have got to stop. I've been a conservative all my adult life and I've never seen anything like this in all my years. For some of you on these threads, there is NO ONE conservative enough for you not to call them "RINOS", "liberals", or "moderates" - except, apparently, maybe, Sarah Palin. Enough is enough.
Very thoughtful comment there CN. Occasionally...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 3:47am.
CK strikes a discordant note with me, but usually he is right on target. I, myself, supported Christine O'Donnell and, in fact, was happy to send her money. She would have been great for America! Only one I was sadder to see lose (because of Harry Reid) was Sharron Angle.
Chris.....I'm a fan of Charles Krauthammer, as you are.
Submitted by Rush Fan on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 5:00am.
Krauthammer is intelligent, insightful and articulate. But I wouldn't call him a conservative. Unless you believe that someone who believes in legalized abortion and supports embryonic stem cell research, among other things, qualifies as a conservative.
Rush Limbaugh has said he has profound admiration and respect for Charles Krauthammer, who as you recall, was a former speechwriter for Democrat Walter Mondale. Limbaugh has also said the following:
Rush also said this regarding Charles Krauthammer:
Krauthammer is often a critic of Sarah Palin. Limbaugh referred to a piece in the American Thinker by Tom Rowan titled Dr. Krauthammer and Gov. Palin: Analyzing the Analyst. Rowan's article reads in part:
Although many of us are admirers of Charles Krauthammer, we are also aware that, as a former Democrat, he has retained some of the Dems ideological beliefs. He may be correct quite often, but he is not infallible. Krauthammer may be closer to David Frum than Rush Limbaugh. One of his weakness, I believe, is that he is a Washingtonian, who believes that conservatives from Alaska, who don't have his (and Obama's) Harvard education, are unqualified to hold this nation's highest office.With all due respect, to say
Submitted by Chris Norman on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 10:00am.
With all due respect, to say that Charles Krauthammer is closer to David Frum than to Rush Limbaugh is just ridiculous. So, Krauthammer isn't a huge Palin fan - so what? Many good conservatives, like me, don't make support of Palin (who none of us, outside of Alaska, even knew much about before 2008) as a litmus test on what makes a true conservative". Is conservatism now about personalities? Not many people even knew who Christine O'Donnell was before 2008, but, apparently, if you want to be accepted as being "a true conservative", you'd better have kept quiet with any concerns about her candidacy. One should be able to talk realistically about candidates and their chances without getting verbal rocks thrown at them.
This is just like a revolution where at some point, the revolutionaries, after exhausting opposition characters to attack, start turning against themselves and purging those who aren't deemed "revolutionary" enough.
I agree that there are RINOs in the GOP, but when it is overused haphazardly it becomes meaningless - like "racist".
So Krauthammer used to be a Democrat - many good conservatives - like Ronald Reagan - were. There are strong conservatives on these threads who admit that they used to be liberal Democrats. Are they suspect also?
Even if Krauthammer prefers conservatives from the east coast with Ivy League educations (which I have never heard him state), then, again, so what? He's still a conservative. Krauthammer is a huge asset to the conservative movement. He represents our views intelligently. That's why his representation of conservatism with devastating results against the liberal goons in the media are documented here on NewsBusters so frequently. For that matter, I wouldn't be surprised if we begin to see comments here that NewsBusters and the MRC aren't conservative enough. It's getting out of control and as someone who has been a conservative for over forty years, it greatly concerns me. I'm not a Palin supporter (other than against those who smear her). I wasn't an O'Donnell supporter but not because of her political views. I thought she was weird and carried too much personal baggage. If, because I don't support others favorite candidates, someone accuses me of being a "moderate" or a "RINO", I'll go ballistic. This is the kind of infighting that destroys a movement.
Chris....I had a feeling that my David Frum comparison would
Submitted by Rush Fan on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 1:21pm.
stir some indignation. Actually, the more I think about it, comparing Charles Krauthammer to David Frum is quite a stretch. Some people would even call it ridiculous. After further thought I agree. The great Charles Krauthammer is no David Frum. I retract my previous ridiculous comparison.
You've made some good points, and I commend you for your ardent support of Charles Krauthammer. Since I am a Krauthammer fan as well, I have no enthusiasm for attacking him. I may have strayed from my main point, and that was only to point out the those who work inside the Washington beltway, even the magnificient Charles Krauthammer, have a tendency to eventually develop a case of elitism at the expense of us common folks, including Sarah Palin.
Conservatives, regardless of the degree, should refrain from attacking other conservatives, or go even further by, as Tom Rowan writes, "seek and destroy any true blue Reaganite".
Have a great weekend.
Krauthammer should know
Submitted by apodoca on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 9:48pm.
Since Krauthammer is himself a moderate, he ought to know about Brooks. Kraut has been slowly revealing his real colors, and we are reminded that he worked for Mondale.
See above.
Submitted by Chris Norman on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 1:52am.
See above.
cbeyer
Submitted by cbeyer on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 10:16am.
You are wrong...Krauthammer is not a moderate. He is a solid conservative when considered over a wide range of political philosophy and he does highly credible work busting liberals on cable talk shows. I find his commentaries insightful and sometimes brilliant. HE CERTAINLY IS NO DAVID BROOKS.
That's why I hate the MSM
Submitted by sherlock1 on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 10:11pm.
They think they have the right (and the duty) to tell us who our spokespeople are. I have the right to tell them too. My nomination for our conservative spokesperson to the media: Taa-daaaah- "Introducing my middle finger".
sherlock
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 10:15pm.
LOL!
Oh, Please Newsbusters
Submitted by andrew - des moines on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 10:31pm.
Trying to give the guy a pass because he doesn't claim to be a conservative? That is BS. He allows himself to be used by the NYT and most insidiously by NPR as a representative of the right half of the political spectrum. If one thing stood out in his most recent and misappropriated column -- it is that whatever his beliefs he neither respects nor understands fiscal conservative principles. Brooks is a charlatan. He and his enablers (i.e. taxpayer funded NPR) should be called out for pushing this fraud.
Neither NewsBusters
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 10:42pm.
nor Noel or a single commenter thus far has given Brooks a "pass". Although I'm considering it.
Jer
Really Jer?*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 11:09pm.
-1 pt for agreeing with Satchmo
-1 pt if you give Brooks a "pass".
Anybody who knows anything knows and has known...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 3:35am.
for a long time that Brooks is no Conservative. Calling him a Conservative is akin to calling Casey Anthony innocent of killing her own daughter. It just ain't so!
Brooks
Submitted by SLUGGO on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 9:13am.
From the side who argues RINOs aren't real republicans because they aren't conservative enough, now brings us this gem. I'm assuming this is because of his stance on gay marriage; that would get any conservative kicked out of the club.
Sluggo
Just exactly what would
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 11:24am.
you know about a Republican, or a conservative? Since you're neither, I really find your qualifications to address what being a conservative or Republican is, very lacking, indeed.
Yet
Submitted by SLUGGO on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 11:30am.
I'll bet you're an expert on Islam. You must be a Muslim if that is the prerequisite to posting.
Sluggo
Statement not germane, Sluggo---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 9:30pm.
as a reply to UpNorth's post.
Instead of addressing your bona fides to post on the subject he mentioned, you're just jerking off.
MD
It would seem, Sluggo,
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 9:38pm.
that you suffer from rectal-cranial inversion, sir. Where have I claimed to be an expert on Islam, therefore making me a Muslim?
Another reason lib's
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 9:49pm.
Suck, they dont know Geography. It's Up North, not Far East!
There aint nothing
Submitted by misterbee241 on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 9:35am.
in the middle of road except a yellow stripe. So much for moderates.
Are ANY of the other
Submitted by deerjerkydave on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 9:32pm.
Are ANY of the other columnists for the NYT ever labeled as "liberal columnists?"
------------------------
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. -James MadisonAfter reading the comments,
Submitted by amyshulk on Sun, 07/10/2011 - 6:12am.
After reading the comments, I'm surprised people didn't note that CK is in reality a realist. He sees clearly and says what he sees. That is neither right nor left.
Ronald Reagan
You're much too hard on
Submitted by michael lofrano on Sun, 07/10/2011 - 6:39pm.
You're much too hard on Brooks and his tough analytical style. . Have any of you taken a close look at the crease in his pants?