Perhaps it is time to award the New York Times house conservative, David Brooks, a kewpie doll for having at long last a very brief moment of mental clarity. Brooks, who has been making a habit lately of bashing conservative Republicans such as Sarah Palin, emerged ever so slightly from his comfortable conventional wisdom cocoon, and discovered that (gasp) "Barack Obama is not who we thought he was." If Brooks had been listening to Rush Limbaugh, whom he continues to detest, on a regular basis he would have made this "astounding discovery" long ago. Brooks begins his op-ed "discovery" by announcing his proud moderateness to the world:
You wouldn’t know it some days, but there are moderates in this country — moderate conservatives, moderate liberals, just plain moderates. We sympathize with a lot of the things that President Obama is trying to do. We like his investments in education and energy innovation. We support health care reform that expands coverage while reducing costs.
Yeah, we got it, David. You're a "moderate." You don't drive a pickup truck with a gun rack and you sip expensive wine with the glitterati instead of guzzling beer with the yahoos. Now that you've established your "civilized" moderate bonafides, you can safely continue on with your journey of "discovery."
But the Obama budget is more than just the sum of its parts. There is, entailed in it, a promiscuous unwillingness to set priorities and accept trade-offs. There is evidence of a party swept up in its own revolutionary fervor — caught up in the self-flattering belief that history has called upon it to solve all problems at once.
Gee! Great detective work there, Sherlock! You've just "discovered" what millions of the reviled dittoheads have long known.
So programs are piled on top of each other and we wind up with a gargantuan $3.6 trillion budget. We end up with deficits that, when considered realistically, are $1 trillion a year and stretch as far as the eye can see. We end up with an agenda that is unexceptional in its parts but that, when taken as a whole, represents a social-engineering experiment that is entirely new.
Brooks discovers the Obama deficits. Next he will be informing us that he has come to the amazing conclusion that water is wet.
The U.S. has never been a society riven by class resentment. Yet the Obama budget is predicated on a class divide. The president issued a read-my-lips pledge that no new burdens will fall on 95 percent of the American people. All the costs will be borne by the rich and all benefits redistributed downward.
Read my lips: Never take seriously anything written by a New York Times House conservative. Stand by now as David Brooks informs the peons of his astounding revelation:
Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was. His words are responsible; his character is inspiring. But his actions betray a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice. As Clive Crook, an Obama admirer, wrote in The Financial Times, the Obama budget “contains no trace of compromise. It makes no gesture, however small, however costless to its larger agenda, of a bipartisan approach to the great questions it addresses. It is a liberal’s dream of a new New Deal.”
Who's "we" kemosabe? Real, not "moderate," conservatives never thought Obama was what you thought he was. You might think this "revelation" by Brooks would be a good time for him to admit that Rush Limbaugh was right but he continues to fall back to his old habits with this attack:
Moderates now find themselves betwixt and between. On the left, there is a president who appears to be, as Crook says, “a conviction politician, a bold progressive liberal.” On the right, there are the Rush Limbaugh brigades. The only thing more scary than Obama’s experiment is the thought that it might fail and the political power will swing over to a Republican Party that is currently unfit to wield it.
A Republican Party currently unfit to wield power because of those nasty uncouth "Rush Limbaugh brigades" who are clearly unfit to hold David Brooks' champagne flute.
So having admitted that he was wrong, wrong, wrong about Obama, what does Brook suggest? Why that his fellow "moderate conservatives" set the agenda in the future despite proving themselves to be politically blind.
Those of us in the moderate tradition — the Hamiltonian tradition that believes in limited but energetic government — thus find ourselves facing a void. We moderates are going to have to assert ourselves. We’re going to have to take a centrist tendency that has been politically feckless and intellectually vapid and turn it into an influential force.
And perhaps Abraham Lincoln should have called James Buchanan out of retirement and turn the task of restoring the Union over to him? Such is the Brooksian logic: "I was wrong before but the answer is to allow me be wrong in the future."
The first task will be to block the excesses of unchecked liberalism. In the past weeks, Democrats have legislated provisions to dilute welfare reform, restrict the inflow of skilled immigrants and gut a voucher program designed for poor students. It will be up to moderates to raise the alarms against these ideological outrages.
But beyond that, moderates will have to sketch out an alternative vision. This is a vision of a nation in which we’re all in it together — in which burdens are shared broadly, rather than simply inflicted upon a small minority. This is a vision of a nation that does not try to build prosperity on a foundation of debt. This is a vision that puts competitiveness and growth first, not redistribution first.
Moderates are going to have to try to tamp down the polarizing warfare that is sure to flow from Obama’s über-partisan budget. They will have to face fiscal realities honestly and not base revenue projections on rosy scenarios of a shallow recession and robust growth next year.
Thanks for volunteering to lead the charge, General Brooks. Of course, you might have to attack yourself in light of this gem you produced less than a month ago on February 9:
Geithner’s plan is huge but also disciplined. It’s designed by someone aware of government’s limitations.
So before David Brooks and his "moderate" army lead any charges they might want to figure out which direction to attack first. They might get a clue on this by attending courses at the EIB Institute of Advanced Conservative Studies. Class times are from noon to 3 PM weekdays.
—P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
We lowly news junkies were smarter than Brooks
March 3, 2009 - 09:44 ET by ekslibSee this very short YouTube video uploaded in October
Obama is a Reckless Spender
http://www.youtube.c...
David Brooks is not Who We Thought He Was
March 3, 2009 - 09:44 ET by allanfEnjoy your new friends David.
What is it about radical community organizers that is unclear?..
March 3, 2009 - 09:46 ET by ThalpyWhat is it about radical community organizers that is unclear? We've only had since the 1960s to figure it out. What does this say about the rest of their insightful "analysis?"
Thalpy.. I agree. Obama's
March 3, 2009 - 11:12 ET by celatorThalpy.. I agree. Obama's game was transparent from the start, for most of us here. We are being proven correct in our assessment much quicker than we thought we would be.
Why are others so slow to see what is standing there in front of their eyes?
Mickey Mouse is one
of "Satan's soldiers" and must die, says Saudi Arabian cleric Sheikh
Muhammad Munajid. - Daily Telegraph (UK), 9/15/08
Because Celator....
March 3, 2009 - 12:40 ET by NavyBuckeyethese/those people who fail to see what is infront of them are still holding on to the "Change, they can believe in..." rhetoric.
They look at it this way (using my own analogy):
Its like being told not to go into the woods because a man eating bear lives there. But in your hands is a brochure put out by the park that has Yogi Bear on it. The brochure says come see the friendly creatures of the forest. Walk amongst them and be happy. It has pretty pictures and flowers with kids dancing and singing.So the verbal warning is ignored because the MSM has said that those of us warning of the man eating bear are just bear haters....we just don't like them because they are brown bears. So the individual enters the woods. With in hours they are confronted by a 12 foot tall 800 pound snarling man eating grizzly bear with saliva dripping from his showing teeth. Confronted with a reality that is actually worse than what was warned....they close their eyes and picture the nice little brochure they had in hand. They think if they picture hard enough once they open thier eyes it will be Yogi in front of them......but truth and reality will bite them.
That's they way I view it.
“Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter” - Thomas Jefferson
General Brooks and his Moderate Army
March 3, 2009 - 09:48 ET by TexndocYou sort of picture this tweeb in an army helmet on backwards leading his 4-5 platoon of moderates (Noonan, Parker and Frum) as they march in a big circle.
lol!!!!
March 3, 2009 - 09:57 ET by Eugenialol!!!!
Texdoc...and all wearing
March 3, 2009 - 11:16 ET by celatorTexdoc...and all wearing their clown shoes and with big smiles painted on their faces.... lol.
Mickey Mouse is one
of "Satan's soldiers" and must die, says Saudi Arabian cleric Sheikh
Muhammad Munajid. - Daily Telegraph (UK), 9/15/08
Here's one for Mr.Brooks
March 3, 2009 - 09:56 ET by sargex1Saying on bumber sticker, " you elected him COMRADE" so get over it.
Setting goals
March 3, 2009 - 10:03 ET by KC MulvilleBefore the election, many of us warned about Obama's lack of executive experience. Obama spoke of his style of leadership as emulating JFK; bold, visionary, etc. JFK set the mission, and everyone else scrambled to fulfill it.
Setting goals is easy.
Until now, Obama has shown a habit of setting goals, and then handing off the dirty details to others. He handed off the stimulus to Nancy Pelosi and David Obey. He handed off the banks to Timothy Geithner. He's completely handed off foreign policy.
For someone who's supposed to be so sophisticated, his management style and performance have come down to little more than exhortations to ... succeed. Go out there and win. And when the crowds shout "How?" Obama's answer is for them to figure it out. They go back to their chalkboards, and return with the same old answers that they've always given. Amazingly, Obama takes that and goes out to sell it.
He knows absolutely nothing about leadership.
How right you are, KC
March 3, 2009 - 13:51 ET by timothe"They go back to their chalkboards, and return with the same old answers that they've always given. Amazingly, Obama takes that and goes out to sell it."
This statement is absolutely golden. How true, how true.
Barack Obama Is Not Who We Thought He Was
March 3, 2009 - 10:03 ET by kefkaWell, Obama turns out to be EXACTLY who I thought he was. But David Brooks is way smarter than I am isn't he?
David Brooks a.k.a. Clark Griswold
March 3, 2009 - 10:04 ET by CarlosSTo David Brooks:
"Ain't never seen anyone so shit-all stupid as you driving off that road. You musta got manure for your brains"
2004 UCLA Study on The Great Depression
March 3, 2009 - 10:04 ET by PaulJamesIn comments I read on the web it is becoming quite clear there is a lot of "buyers remorse" over the election of this Socialist. I own a business and I don't feel very confident that we will survive the changes that are on the way.
In trying to forecast when to expect economic recovery, I came across this UCLA study.
After reading it I realize that we are looking into the abyss. While I don't think we will enter another Great Depression, we will experience 5-10 years of a shrinking economy. The current administration is taking a path once traveled before by FDR. As you will see in the article, most actions taken by the government actually hindered growth of GDP and created higher inflation.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx
"In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933."
"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."
Today the issue of Card Check Organizing by Labor Unions, if passed when brought before lawmakers this summer, will inflate wages (good for workers/bad for consumers) and continue to have a chilling effect on the economy. Higher wages will force all industries to raise prices. Some industries will just close the doors or move out of the country. This idea of evil corporate heads ruining our economy is smoke and mirrors to divert our attention from the real problem, politicians who want their palms greased. Every obstacle to doing business is the result of government intervention.
THIS WAS WRITTEN IN 2004 BY UCLA ECONOMISTS,
WAS ANYBODY LISTENING???
Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.
"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx
"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."
-UCLA-
I suppose these economist could be wrong but after reading the entire article I have come to the conclusion that the worst is ahead of us. So much for hope and change. Prepare for inflation like we saw in the Carter Era. I heard that someone in the Obama administration says "energy prices are too low", how about that, the only thing that has come down in price is seen as a bad thing by this bunch.
Good Luck To All
PaulJames
spot on PJ
March 3, 2009 - 10:12 ET by CarlosSHaving read some on The Great Depression I agree with you that this administration is deliberately pushing our country into another one..., heck they're trying to push the whole world into one with the latest "Global New Deal" announced last week :-(
Thanks CarlosS
March 3, 2009 - 10:21 ET by PaulJamesIn comparing the New Deal to the New Wheeler & Dealer, I find that the simularities are striking. I expect that the economic turbulance will last for years beyond the Presidency of "The One". He will be able to walk away with a golden parachute that, we the people, can only dream of. Let the revolution begin!
I've talked with quite a few
March 3, 2009 - 10:27 ET by SeashellI've talked with quite a few small business owners in my area and they ALL say the same thing. Many are already struggling with the bad economy and don't see how they will survive with the tax increases and insurance requirements the Obama adminstration will impose on them. It is crazy that Obama doesn't see what he is doing to small business.
Obamma's Eyesight
March 3, 2009 - 11:02 ET by NoJellyObamma sees what he's doing to small business just fine, and he's doing it intentionally. Small business is the heart and soul of this economy, what better way to "have to" rebuild it than to burn it to the ground in the first place.
Obamma and the unions are in a 69 position. The unions are and always have been far Left of socialist. American unions were fashioned after communist organizations of the 1910s, complete with the elite ruling class...
The Unions and Communist
March 3, 2009 - 11:20 ET by GeneralAlHey NoJelly,
Check your facts before you make such charges! I'm a retired Teamster and certainly disappointed regarding the direction it has taken. That said, this union fought off the Commies for years. It wasn't until the consent decree of 1989 that the Socialist came to power in this union and now dominate. That said the majority of members are conservative on most issues except labor. They do not trust the GOP because the GOP has been the leader in curtailling workers rights. The right to work law is one of the most detested acts that the Republicans have sponsored. It divides the work place at the expense of those who put their jobs on the line to organize. Furthermore, every member is using their union as their agent, similiar to your actors and sports stars. Its done collectively for the sake of cost. The majority of members are a far cry from some of the leaders that speak for them!
General...
March 3, 2009 - 11:35 ET by jdlybrandI mean no offense; but why the hell do ya'll keep electing them? Just curious.
Check your Facts General
March 3, 2009 - 11:47 ET by UtherpendThe regular workers kept the same greedy union bosses in power for the past 20 years. These people are responsible for cars costing more than some peoples homes. Fighting any form of modernazation or stream lining of the auto industry to save the jobs of people like my brother in law who made $60k a year after taxes to put in three bolts in the bed of a truck. When told he needed to learn a new skill in the compnay or face the loss of his postion he didn't care, his response was that the unions wouldn't let him get fired just because he wasn't qualified to do anything else. They would pay him regardless of whether he worked or not. Good work ethic and I heard it from all the people employed there. They didn't care that they were killing the Goose that Lays the Golden eggs, all that matters was that they get their money. Now they are laid off and collecting the last of their buyouts.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you."
Retired Teamster Here
March 3, 2009 - 12:56 ET by PaulJamesWhile I have enjoyed the benifits of higher wages and good healthcare thanks to Local 710 IBOT. I spent 25 years at the same trucking company and watched union members take no pride in their work. I worked for 19 years on the dock and saw things that no employer should have to put up with. About 40%+ of the workforce took advantage of the protection the union provided them. These people were the worst at producing a good product for their employer.
The general attitude was that the company sucked and management were all idiots. I noticed that every contract the Teamsters got huge increases in pension and health insurance contributions and we would get $1.50 @ hour over 5 YEARS.
The union reminded me of the mob, who I and the employer, had to pay for me to keep my job. As a good employee I never needed to file grievences or go begging to the union to keep my job. At the same time union officials reward themselves with multiple pensions and healthcare. They also collect huge salaries that rival the top dogs in the industry. There is no good insurance for those who retire.
The worst employees would be fired 2 or 3 times and always get their jobs back. Union companies have trouble competing with non union ones because the wage and benifit base is so much higher. I watched union outfits go out of business while others thrived. Why? I think it boils down to employees that care. That is hard to find at a union co. At least that was my experience.
Facts
March 3, 2009 - 12:43 ET by NoJellyMost communist/socialist countries you visit will have the same traits; A populace under the thumb of a handful of thugs. Yes, there are "good Joes" in any country, communist or no, but they have no bearing on how that country operates.
Sound familiar?
I stand by my historical facts.
"Spread the wealth" was just the tip of the iceberg
March 3, 2009 - 10:09 ET by krendler...a telling line that eeked out during the campaign.
That Joe the Plumber fellow was way out in front on this. And the media mocked and attacked him.
The most disturbing thing is something Obama said during one of the debates. He was asked "If elected president, who would be your #1 advisor?" His answer: His wife. Michelle "Never been proud of my country" Obama. You can bet she's 1000% behind Obama spending on every social re-engineering program imaginable.
Maybe Brooks just got an update
March 3, 2009 - 10:13 ET by katiejanefrom his financial advisor regarding how much the Obamameister is going to impact the taxes he'll be paying?
When you have your head...
March 3, 2009 - 10:16 ET by wnaegele...jammed firmly up Obama's backside, it IS difficult to see clearly.
Hey Dave, Screw
March 3, 2009 - 10:19 ET by USA4freedomHey Dave,
Screw u.
Ronald Reagan, 1962: I did not leave the Democratic party, the party left me.
Insert: your name, 2008, and the Republican party.
First off.....Who the HELL
March 3, 2009 - 10:19 ET by oldArmyFirst off.....Who the HELL did you think he was?...all most people knew about Pres.Obama is that he could give a good speech (that he read off a teleprompter).....other than that?...nothing with ANY substance was ever mentioned within the MSM.
Judging a book by it's cover.......remember that one?
Damage has been done....
now....let's get back in the game with REAL CONSERVATIVES....vote out the RINO's....and make the ONE and ONLY Ronald Reagan (aka) The Great Communicator PROUD!!!
Voting "Present" for Sen. Specter's re-election
Hear! Hear!! Ronald
March 3, 2009 - 10:19 ET by USA4freedomHear! Hear!!
Ronald Reagan, 1962: I did not leave the Democratic party, the party left me.
Insert: your name, 2008, and the Republican party.
Thank God for David Brooks
March 3, 2009 - 10:22 ET by nwahsHe's proof you can be smart, read books ( other than Rush's and Coulter's) and still be conservative. And he doesn't whine.
He's most likely the future of conservatism.
Beware of a crazy woman throwing a hash pipe.
"He's most likely the
March 3, 2009 - 10:58 ET by R D Helm"He's most likely the future of conservatism."
Then conservatism has no future.
-Dave
Our clueless political leaders are about to drive us all over a cliff. The time to HITM is now-before we go over.
Future of Conservatism?
March 3, 2009 - 11:07 ET by GeneralAlHey Shawn spelled backwards, if your idea of conservatism is this guy Brooks, you are smoking the very hash pipe the lady is throwing! There is no such thing as a moderate conservative or liberal. You're either on the left, the right, or in the middle. If Brooks is a conservative, I'm a liberal!
I said he was a conservative
March 3, 2009 - 12:10 ET by nwahsHe's a conservative, not a dittohead. There's a difference. Conservatism right now is like a park taken over by loud teenagers. Eventually, they're going to move along or pass out.
Beware of a crazy woman throwing a hash pipe.
right now?
March 3, 2009 - 12:37 ET by candanceDo pray tell when you felt otherwise about conservatism. Was it back in the early 90s when Rush had his own TV show and obnoxious right wingers turned on Bush Sr for no reason? Was it in the mid 90s when Newt was called "the Gingrich who stole Christmas" and Clinton lackeys mocked his "contract on America" all the while saying Republicans were hateful?
Maybe it was in the late 90s when conservatives were on a witch hunt against BJ Clinton and the left complained about Ann Coulter controlling Congressional Republicans.
Or maybe it was the turn of the century when Republicans stole the election and the vast right wing conspiracy was being controlled by Fox News and Karl Rove.
Or maybe it was four years ago when racist Republicans left poor blacks to starve in New Orleans on purpose.
Surely somewhere in that timespan you thought conservatism was a legitimate movement.
But acts of kindness and generosity must be free and voluntary; no man has a right to compel another to follow his conscience. This is a concern which lies between a man and his God.
-Richard Fuhrman, pro slave advocate, 1823
Its a legitimate ideology right now
March 3, 2009 - 13:57 ET by nwahsConservatism is legitimate right now, but its being bastardized for a dime. Now its like a bunch of baboons banging on a table ( but in a cool way).
Beware of a crazy woman throwing a hash pipe.
you're just repeating yourself
March 3, 2009 - 13:58 ET by candancePlease name a time in the last 20 years when you did not believe the right sounded like baboons banging on a table.
But acts of kindness and generosity must be free and voluntary; no man has a right to compel another to follow his conscience. This is a concern which lies between a man and his God.
-Richard Fuhrman, pro slave advocate, 1823
Babbling Brooks
March 3, 2009 - 14:12 ET by Jack BauerNo -- he's not a conservative.
His columns are empty vessels completely untethered from any mooring in a discernible conservative philosophy. He displays no penetrating conservative analysis, and zero relationship to conservative solutions.
Pace: His Obamagasms on a man who is so far removed from conservative thought, he rivals Chavez. And you know, it's hardly as if real conservatives weren't telling him this pre-Nov 4.
But why should you know -- you're pretty ignorant. I blame the teachers' unions.
really backwards shawn??
March 3, 2009 - 12:27 ET by candanceIn the beginning of his article he openly admits to being a moderate. Time to work on your reading comprehension skills - your government education is showing.
But acts of kindness and generosity must be free and voluntary; no man has a right to compel another to follow his conscience. This is a concern which lies between a man and his God.
-Richard Fuhrman, pro slave advocate, 1823
Again, you can't discuss
March 3, 2009 - 12:33 ET by nwahsYou have to make personal attacks.
He said "Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case"
I think if you are going to question another's comprehension skills, you should exhibit some.
Beware of a crazy woman throwing a hash pipe.
OIC
March 3, 2009 - 12:41 ET by candanceSo he is a moderate who leans to the right and that makes him the future of conservatism. Can we then say Joe Leiberman is the future of the left?
But acts of kindness and generosity must be free and voluntary; no man has a right to compel another to follow his conscience. This is a concern which lies between a man and his God.
-Richard Fuhrman, pro slave advocate, 1823
Yes, I think moderate conservatives are the future
March 3, 2009 - 14:14 ET by nwahsYes, I think moderate conservatives are the future of conservatism. I know Limbaugh would call me a blasphemer and burn me, but I think conservatism will moderate, mostly in social aspects. For the bleeding to stop, and the GOP remain a relevant party, its going to have reject the polarizing antagonism of The Almighty Limbaugh. Yes they will immediately lose 22 million dittoheads. But the GOP is going to lose more seats in 2010 anyway. They have to stop the bleeding, and the only way to do that is to dethrone the antipope. It is necessary for the GOP to rebuke Limbaugh to move on to a future. For there to be a future, new people have to come to the party and thats not going to happen by calling them deranged losers. My opinion of course. You have yours.
Beware of a crazy woman throwing a hash pipe.
No -- you're a liar. You
March 3, 2009 - 14:31 ET by Jack BauerNo -- you're a liar. You are not a conservative of any hue.
And by the way -- I listened to the Rush Limbaugh's entire speech, and while it had a wide-ranging sweep that covered the philosophical foundations of the superiority of conservative thought, it was greatly centered on fiscal policy. And demonstrating the amoral and immoral underpinnings of liberals.
If anything, Rush (then and on his radio show) constantly displays a rather more libertarian view on social policy -- as when he say he doesn't give a DAMN what people get up to in their own homes.
But then, you haven't listened to it, have you. Which part of Rush's opening declaration that he passionately wants EVERY AMERICAN TO SUCCEED, do you not agree with?
You simply parrrot the demonizing Democrat cariciture. You haven't an original thought in your head.
More enemies of the state
March 3, 2009 - 14:38 ET by nwahsYou can continue to rant on enemies of the state here..
http://newsbusters.o...
Beware of a crazy woman throwing a hash pipe.
And you can continue to lie
March 3, 2009 - 19:57 ET by Jack BauerAnd you can continue to lie anywhere but here. Go on admit you never even listen to Rush Limbaugh. LIAR.
Admit that you're not a conservative. LIAR.
You are one angry puppy
March 3, 2009 - 20:18 ET by nwahsYou're going to get ulcers.
Beware of a crazy woman throwing a hash pipe.
Let me guess -- you're not
March 4, 2009 - 05:18 ET by Jack BauerLet me guess -- you're not really a liar -- you just play one on Newsbusters. You play it so well. LIAR.
Oh -- and you mistake contempt for anger. We have plenty of diversity of conservative thought on Newsbusters -- and a few liberals.
But they are honest about their views which makes it intersting to parry with them.. Why you have to lie about being a conservative has to do with your own pathology. And that's contemptible IMHO.
Here's a tip -- real conservatives do not waste time and effort finding fault with Rush Limbaugh for espousing classic conservative thought and philosophy. They are more concerned about the socialist spending-lust of the current administration.
Pretending to be a "moderate" conservative is utterly bogus. Maybe if you actually listened to the Rush Limnbaugh Show you could make some substantial observations that are not based onthe shallow taklking points you picked up from left-wing hate sites.
Link a few posts
March 4, 2009 - 10:18 ET by nwahsLink a few posts where you were civil with someone you disagree with. I trust that will be the end of this branch. Get you some Maalox.
Beware of a crazy woman throwing a hash pipe.
you know Jack
March 3, 2009 - 14:46 ET by candanceI love how these guys never call on Democrats to rebuke Keith Olberman or Mike Malloy. They never complain about the left being too far left. They never criticized Nicholas DeGenova for openly wishing Iraq would turn into Mogadishu. They never called on Obama to boycott the Daily Kos. They never call for Obama to distance himself from Planned Parenthood even as we get mounting evidence that they routinely break the law.
So apparently governing from the fringe is just fine as long as it's from the left.
But acts of kindness and generosity must be free and voluntary; no man has a right to compel another to follow his conscience. This is a concern which lies between a man and his God.
-Richard Fuhrman, pro slave advocate, 1823
candance...
March 3, 2009 - 21:54 ET by JerWho are "these guys" to whom you refer? And perhaps if and when Olberman and Malloy have viewing or listening audiences in the tens of millions, are wined and dined in the White House and invited for sleepovers by the President, deliver keynote addresses to freshmen congressmen and made honorary members of their House caucus, are labeled a "national treasure"by party leaders and have politicians who dare to criticize them follow up with groveling pleas for forgiveness, they will be accorded attention similar to that generated by Limbaugh, including a potential need for the occasional rebuke.
Jer
BTW...please spare me the crocodile tears for the poor mistreated Newt of the early 90's--the Newt who had accused Democratic congressional leaders of twenty years of treason, and had claimed Democrats were "sick" and not "normal" people. When such statements were challenged, Republicans howled that Newt was being "picked on". Ironically, as Gingrich became more of a statesman, he seemed to lose more and more favor with the Limbaugh wing of the GOP. Rush's problem is not his view of politics as a "blood sport" or a supremely important contest between right and wrong, but that the very act of governance itself is a war between good and evil.
oh I'm sorry Jer
March 3, 2009 - 22:11 ET by candanceYou'll have to forgive me for getting the wrong idea about Democrats cowtowing to Daily Kos and Planned Parenthood when they routinely attend events sponsored by those groups, beg for those groups to endorse them, and refuse to criticize them even when they break the law.
But acts of kindness and generosity must be free and voluntary; no man has a right to compel another to follow his conscience. This is a concern which lies between a man and his God.
-Richard Fuhrman, pro slave advocate, 1823
Well, I recall Bill
March 3, 2009 - 22:25 ET by JerWell, I recall Bill Clinton, for example, criticizing Sister Soljah and defending Newt Gingrich, but the instances have been exceedingly rare where politicians of any persuasion have deliberately boycotted a significant event sponsored by a reliable component of their base.
BTW, what exactly are these law-breaking activities engaged in by dKos and PP of which you speak? I'm not aware.
Jer
Of course Bill Clinton defended Newt Gingrich
March 3, 2009 - 22:39 ET by PopularTechThey are both in the same club.
Gingrich Had Affair During Clinton Probe (The Washington Post)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Right Pop...I always
March 3, 2009 - 23:00 ET by JerRight Pop...I always wondered why the "liberal media" seemed to give Newt more of a pass than it did the Slickster in that area at least..
Interestingly, I think Clinton and Gingrich wound up "liking" each other--or maybe it wasn't so odd, since they were in many ways opposite sides of the same coin. I remember an article in Parade in the mid-90's concerning the two and there were many similarities in background and personality. There were also pictures of each as a young boy dressed in a cowboy outfit sitting on a pony from which one could almost conclude they were twin brothers. [Except Newt, but not Bill, was toting a toy pistol--whatever the implications of that may be.]
Jer
Why they gave him a pass
March 3, 2009 - 23:08 ET by PopularTechThe liberal media did a good job trying to brush off Clinton's affairs but it was the impeachment trials that made it impossible to ignore. Gingrich's affair would have just brought up Clinton's again and I believe they did not want to digg up the baggage with Hillary running and needing Bill to campaign for her.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Thats not true
March 3, 2009 - 23:13 ET by nwahsI think the Star report with all it lascivious details came out before the trial. Its been a while, maybe I'm wrong. Anyone remember if the Star report was released over the internet before the senate trial?
Beware of a crazy woman throwing a hash pipe.
Yes, nwahs, it was
March 4, 2009 - 00:01 ET by JerYes, nwahs, it was released and immediately disseminated over the internet prior to impeachment, at (I believe) the behest of Gingrich. I read somewhere the Star report mentioned the word "sex" approximately 500 times, and "Whitewater" twice.
Jer
to what end?
March 3, 2009 - 14:31 ET by candanceWhat is the point of having two parties if one is just a tag-along version of the other? Given a choice between a fake Democrat and a real one, moderates will take the real thing every time.
The Whig party tried such a tactic of avoiding controversy and it backfired on them. The hardcore believers left the party and founded a new one. Simple as that.
The real objective of driving the GOP leftward is to leave dittoheads with no political vehicle.
But acts of kindness and generosity must be free and voluntary; no man has a right to compel another to follow his conscience. This is a concern which lies between a man and his God.
-Richard Fuhrman, pro slave advocate, 1823
There are more than two parties
March 3, 2009 - 22:37 ET by PopularTechLibertarian Party
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Huh?
March 4, 2009 - 11:39 ET by UnsaneTwo legitimate parties - legitimate in the sense that they actually have a snowball's chance in Hell at winning elections.
As Americans generally are NOT obsessed with drugs and don't generally want to turn the country from a superpower into a whiny, powerless laughing stock that ONLY plays defense, the Libertarians have NO chance. Period.
And your absolute failure to study history is once again showing. Even successful third parties get co-opted by the Democrats and Republicans, as has happened to the Progressives in the early 20th Century.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Your fear of a guy from MO
March 3, 2009 - 18:27 ET by UnsaneYes, I think moderate conservatives are the future of conservatism. Yes, the "future of conservatism" LOST the last election. Looks like it is back to the drawing board. Besides, the rest of your post just looks like an "I hate Limbaugh" rant.
I do not agree with everything Mr. Limbaugh says. However, what makes him effective is that he gets out the message of conservatism in a clear, unambiguous, entertaining manner. For some reason - I suspect because you are a Leftist who is too embarrassed and ashamed to admit it - this scares the hell out of you.
There was a man like Mr. Limbaugh once in the 1960s and 1970s. His name was William F. Buckley, Jr. They are the same sorts of people - articulators of the conservative philosophy. Nothing more, nothing less. If Mr. Limbaugh puts THAT MUCH FEAR in your heart - I offer that we at NB are entitled to question your "moderate conservative" bona fides. I certainly do.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Yes, I think moderate
March 3, 2009 - 18:40 ET by Clear thinkerYes, I think moderate conservatives are the future of conservatism.
We tried it their way and it failed. The idea of a conservative being a moderate will be revisited, near the end of this century.
Yes We Can
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
I wouldn't compare WFB to Rush
March 3, 2009 - 21:04 ET by nwahsAnd neither would WFB's son, Christopher.
Christopher Buckley wrote this:
"To which, let me add a personal, affectionately-intended note: Rush, I knew William F. Buckley, Jr. William F. Buckley, Jr. was a father of mine. Rush, you’re no William F. Buckley, Jr."
http://www.thedailyb...
BTW, I brought up my affection for WFB a few times on this board only to be greeted with "He hasn't been a true conservative, since he had that PBS show!"
But if your point was WFB was an intelligent, articulate, and extremely gracious man - I quite agree. I really do.
2nd BTW - Later tonight, I'm going to start a forum topic about this article by Christopher Buckley (dated October 27, 2008) as it accentuates some of what I've been saying about Rush, and being lambasted for. I'm glad you brought up Buckley.
Beware of a crazy woman throwing a hash pipe.
The OBSESSIVE DEVOTION continues
March 4, 2009 - 11:42 ET by UnsaneYou gush about Christopher Buckley, a Leftist, in order to continue your OBSESSIVE DEVOTION to attacking Limbaugh?
I wish you had the guts to admit you are a Leftist.
Like it or not, WFB and Rush Limbaugh are similar. They even had mutual respect for each other.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Six weeks!
March 3, 2009 - 10:41 ET by iveseenitallIt has taken just six weeks for "moderates" who supported Obama to see the light. They turned a deaf ear during the campaign. With all the evidence to the contrary in front of them, they "convicted" President Bush and went with an inexperienced manchild who is now flailing about in a sea of trouble. The list of assinine judgments the man has already made is too long to enumerate here. In just six weeks he has weakened America at home and throughout the world. He has managed to anger Americans and widen the divide among our citizens. He has endangered the economic future of the young. He is now forging global alliances which risk our economic stability and physical safety. And who are his "advisors"?--- tax cheats and radical left-wingers. Barry is already the worst, most dangerous president the country has ever known. And this is just the beginning. America is in deep soup. God help us all.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Hey Brooks!
March 3, 2009 - 10:39 ET by GeneralAlHey Moderate - Conservative Brooks, do you remember Mr. Cross the Isle McCain? He trashed all us "Right Wing Extremist" and he won the White House, right? I have news for you! If you want to run the GOP, so be it. After the McCain debacle, I've left the GOP as many Conservatives have done. It amazes me how you elitist morons want us to yield power to you but you continue to ask me for money. Since you trash us so much and compliment our liberal enemies, ask Georgie Soros or Moron.org for support. In any case, you won't get any more of mine!
A NYT Moderate
March 3, 2009 - 10:57 ET by snaggletoothieHe prefers the irresponsibility of Obama to a Republican win? Only in Fantasyland could this guy be called a liberal,
Mr. Brooks
March 3, 2009 - 11:06 ET by jdlybrandWell DUH! Where'd you leave your badge Dick Tracy?
Throughout the Presidential
March 3, 2009 - 11:20 ET by marpelThroughout the Presidential campaign David Brooks annoyed the hell out of me, and now that he's had this "epiphany", he's annoying me even more. Plus, he's trying to convince us he's a moderate? So, he not only insults conservatives throughout the campaign, but now he insults our intelligence.What a smug A-hole! He's as phoney as Obama.
David Brooks commited journalistic malpractice during the campaign, so he can now just Kiss my A**! He needs to go down with his NY Times ship.
I have no patience with fake conservatives like Brooks...
March 3, 2009 - 11:29 ET by R D Helm...along with all the others, who are just now "waking up" to the total fraud that Barack Hussein Obama is.
Myself, along with many others, were right here on this very site TWO YEARS AGO predicting that, should he be elected, Obama was going to do EXACTLY what he is now doing.
We didn't miss a thing, either. Nothing.
Some passed us off as extremists, or as people not willing to give the man a chance, and, according to some of our trolls, we were down right racist in our opposition to the One's "plan."
Hell, the man never had his own plan. It had already been written by Karl Marx a long time ago.
All Obama needed was to create a sense of urgency so that he could ram this "plan" through before the average dolt in this country even had an inkling of his true motives.
What is so tragic for the future of this country is that he is probably going to succeed beyond his wildest expectations, too, thanks to all these damn brain-dead fake conservatives who fell under the spell of a former Chicago street agitator.
Anybody with even half a brain and a smidgen of common sense saw this coming way back when Obama was still battling Broom Hilda for the nomination.
Its just too bad that so many "moderates" couldn't take the time to find out what this empty suit of a fraud was really all about, especially people in a position to get the word out to the brain-dead, gullible American voters.
All the David Brook's of the world had to do was open their eyes, as it isn't as though the information wasn't out there.
-Dave
Our clueless political leaders are about to drive us all over a cliff. The time to HITM is now-before we go over.
RD
March 3, 2009 - 11:38 ET by jdlybrandWell said my friend.
Dave~ You speak for many
March 3, 2009 - 12:44 ET by MichelleCDave~
You speak for many of us!
Republicans believe every day is the 4th of July. Democrats believe every day is April 15th ~ Ronald Reagan
David Brooks
March 3, 2009 - 18:33 ET by UnsaneDave, spot on, and no better said.
I fear that all His Majesty The Shahinshah needs to do in 2012 is to show His BEAUTIFUL SMILE and His chiseled pecs a few times, and all America and the world will fall madly in love with him again - no matter what.
No matter that many of us saw what was happening.
For instance - yes, dammit, I will toot my own horn - for a weekend captionfest, featuring a Shahinshah press conference, I made a caption that said something to the effect of "Yes, this is how I will appear on images for my personality cult." Did not a personality cult spring up around Him?
You, me, and so many others here knew what we were getting into, as did many others. But you know what? We were all RIGHT.
And NOW, David Brooks has woken up and smelled the coffee?
Let's set the coffee put to boiling and pour it all over him. Moron.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Wow.
March 6, 2009 - 02:33 ET by KimberlyCan't add nothing but applause, friend.
# applause #
David is NO Republican
March 3, 2009 - 11:22 ET by Delsahe is a Center Left Democrat.
His words say so.
There is no middle of the road. You either is or you ain't!
The middle line "moderate" sleeps next to dead possums and they awake with the stench of their bedfellows.
May David's moment of Wakefulness expand into Wide Awake!
I won't hold my breath.
Brooks is clearly
March 4, 2009 - 17:46 ET by JerBrooks is clearly more moderate than Limbaugh [as are millions of Republicans], but a center left Democrat? Puh-leeze!
Jer
Casting Call for D.Brooks...
March 3, 2009 - 11:33 ET by AMR1960David Brooks reminds me of the smug idiot in the Sci-Fi/Horror movie that thinks there is no problem, until it's too late for his sorry-ass. Go on ahead David, tack towards the right all you want, but alas it's too little...too late.
David: please return to your rightful place...the rectum of Pinchy Sulzberger's N.Y. Times.
__________________________
Long Live...THE REPUBLIC !
WHAT????
March 3, 2009 - 11:33 ET by Flying_FlynnObama isn't who we thought he was? Nooooo!
I bet the next thing we're going to hear is that smoking us actually BAD for our health! Oh wait....IT IS!
Flying Flynn
GeneralAl
March 3, 2009 - 11:39 ET by DelsaAs to your assertians regarding Right to Work, YOU are wrong.
I was president of Local 555 of the Transport Workers Union for eight years in the state of Florida, aka a Right To Work state.
Although a worker does not have to "JOIN" a Union, when hired, they do have pay "FEES" that are removed from their pay checks that go directly to the UNION!
There is no other way but the union way. Unions are NOT helping employees if the employee looses his or her paycheck along with their jobs.
The union heads NEVER loose their jobs and their paychecks never stop.
I wish I could agree with you but your are simply dead wrong on this issue!
name calling
March 3, 2009 - 11:52 ET by soosanI'm not big on name calling but Mr. Brooks is a putz. Not only does he have an elitist (only we in the east can truly see...) attitude, he helped get Obama elected using his position as a "conservative" writer. For someone who thinks he is so smart he really blew it. He is still trying to justify his actions and now he is declaring himself a leader of the moderates??? He is a fool. The only op-ed he needs to write is the one that says "I screwed up". Skip the rhetorical flourishes and whining, you have not only harmed the Party, you have harmed America. Putz!
(I feel better now)
and this is why David
March 3, 2009 - 12:13 ET by Chris Normanand this is why David Brooks only plays a conservative for the benefit of the New York Times. Given his - er - keen - political insight - why would anyone pay attention to what he says? They may as well fill his column with dingbats and punctuation marks...
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
PJ - The honeymoon may be over sooner than we believed
March 3, 2009 - 12:18 ET by Rush Fan"Yeah, we got it, David. You're a "moderate." You don't drive a pickup
truck with a gun rack and you sip expensive wine with the glitterati
instead of guzzling beer with the yahoos. Now that you've established
your "civilized" moderate bonafides, you can safely continue on with
your journey of "discovery."
Well-written piece and an excellent description of these Huffington Post-moderate-conservative types such as David Brooks.
--------------------------------------------
When out of control government policies effect the 401Ks and IRAs of everyone, I'm not surprised that these pseudo-conservatives are the first media group on the left to complain. As you indicated, those on the right, especially those who listen to Rush, already knew what was going to happen. The second group, the rest of the liberal media, should follow shortly, as President Obama's unhinged spending further reduces their nest eggs.
There is something about losing money that effects us all. As a study published in the Journal of Neuroscience indicates: "Losing money may be intrinsically linked with fear and pain in the brain."
If Obama's policies have any positive effect at all, it is to see the fear and pain it is afflicting on the liberal media.
------------------------------------------------------------------
“Nobody believes what the mainstream media says now anyway. Except the uneducated, the illiterate, and the uninformed -- which, sadly, is a fairly large number” ~ Rush Limbaugh
Rush Fan, wait until the Obamanistas go after retirement plans
March 3, 2009 - 13:47 ET by R D HelmAnd they will, to, as they have been planning to do it for years.
After all, it just isn't faaaaaaaaaaayer that some people should have more retirement money than others.
-Dave
Our clueless political leaders are about to drive us all over a cliff. The time to HITM is now-before we go over.
R D Helm
March 3, 2009 - 22:58 ET by Rush FanI'm no longer worried about Obamanistas going after my retirement account. Once President Obama's 'stimulus' policies take effect, I won't have any money in my retirement plan for them to take. Moreover, Obama will have accomplished one of his most important goals: leveling the playing field; i.e. everyone will be broke!
What's that old saying: "You can’t squeeze blood from a turnip"
----------------Some interesting articles-----------
A note to David Frum, Ross Douthat, David Brooks and every other self-important, self-designated savior of the Republican Party… PLEASE STOP.
So. Any other Republican Party studs care to besmirch Rush?
Where Rush Limbaugh Went Astray At CPAC?
------------------------------------------------------
“Nobody believes what the mainstream media says now anyway. Except the uneducated, the illiterate, and the uninformed -- which, sadly, is a fairly large number” ~ Rush Limbaugh
Dear Brooks, Parker, Noonan, Buckley, etc.
March 3, 2009 - 12:22 ET by Paul AtreidesGO. AWAY.
Please
JUST. GO. AWAY.
Obama's not who we thought
March 3, 2009 - 12:32 ET by wiwfObama's not who we thought he was? Shocka!
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
didn't hear anything, and I'm not deaf
March 3, 2009 - 12:36 ET by mom_roxHey, did anyone hear the alarms from 'moderate Republicans' Specter/Collins/Snowe?
mom_rox
March 3, 2009 - 13:46 ET by R D Helm"Hey, did anyone hear the alarms from 'moderate Republicans' Specter/Collins/Snowe?"
Its hard to hear anything from them when they are so tightly crammed under Obama's desk. :-O
-Dave
Our clueless political leaders are about to drive us all over a cliff. The time to HITM is now-before we go over.
the Blue Dogs are starting to yelp
March 3, 2009 - 23:29 ET by mom_roxAccording to Politico, it's the moderate Dems (the Blue Dogs and Lieberman), not Specter/Collins/Snowe who are starting to question the high level of spending.
mom_rox
March 3, 2009 - 23:42 ET by TN MomIt's about time the Blue Dogs woke up! I call my own Blue Dog often, and I understand that he is getting slammed.
Also, hearing that Democrat Senators Mendendez, Martinez are gearing up to fight obama on relaxing Cuba trade/travel that's in the upcoming $410 Billion Spending bill. Bill includes opening up credit for Cuba to trade with US Farmers (other goods), apparently Cuba doesn't pay their credit bills. Ever. There's also the very bad treatment of Cubans by Dictator Castro... Martinez is so angry he's going to place a 'hold' on 2 of obama's nominees. Also, Bob Nelson is joining them. One of them (Martinez?) wants the ENTIRE spending bill replaced!
Today, Charles Rangle (of ALL people!) critized Obama for taking away IRS deductions for Charity and Mortgage interest rates.
David, you let us down...
March 3, 2009 - 12:50 ET by sawing battawhat a shame. you drank the kool-aid and turned your shoulder on those who told you otherwise.
what a disappointment you have been.
David Brooks lives in the
March 3, 2009 - 13:21 ET by Chris NormanDavid Brooks lives in the wrong era. He would've fit nicely into say the Ford Administration. "Conservative" - really only in comparison to the far left - and then, embarrassed by the label.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
WHO DO YOU BELIEVE?
March 3, 2009 - 13:41 ET by danybhoyTo those Americans like David Brooks who bought into Obama's slick marketing & loved his his fantastic speeches...SUCKERS! Most of the MSM was just like Brooks, at worst, like the beatoffs at MSNBC. Anybody with a just a little bit of functioning grey matter could see that they should question what they were seeing/reading on/in the MSM.
That brings me to where the real reporting was during this last election cycle was. TALK RADIO & THE WEB. That's right, If you would have listened to El-Rushbo, Hannity, Glenn Beck, Quinn & Rose, John Gibson, Rusty Humphries, Mark Levin, Roger Hedgecock, Jason Lewis, Laura Ingraham, & others, you would know EXACTLY what Obama was BEFORE you voted. These hosts(these were people I listened to)& others got information from any number of websites, reported what they found, talked to those who wrote & researched what they had found out about Obama & those who he surrounded himself with.
If you did'nt do talk radio, but did do ABC, CBS, NBC,MSNBC, CNN, NYTimes, WashPost, & last & certainly LEAST, The Daily Show w/Jon Leibowitz. Yes, some idiots get their news info from a comedian. If these were the only places you went to for your news & information, you were lied to.
Here is the real question...When many Americans find out how bad Obama is & how his policies will hurt them in so many ways they could'nt have thought possible, will they dump Obama & the hardline leftist Dems & right the wrongs? Also, will they turn on the media sources that did NOTHING to report fairly on Obama & his past? If the answer is no, this nation is over.
"The Fairness Doctrine = Jim Crow laws for Conservatives". Jim Quinn from "Quinn & Rose"
Paul
March 3, 2009 - 14:12 ET by DelsaYOU are so right. Thank you for telling lile it is with life in a union.
As a negotiated settlement with the Company, I took a union member, who was drinking on the job, off the payroll for six months for rehab and gave her a one year probatuion during which one alcohal related insodent she'd loose her job.
The Union came down on me like a ton of bricks because I dared to settle for any punishment! I told them to pound sand.
The individual did well and was sober the rest of her life. Not only did we save her job, we helped her save herself!
My advice to auto makers is to declare bankruptcy, ask all workers who want to stay to stay, without a union, with changes to wages and benifits, and save their jobs.
Get rid of the unions, keep the most productive hardworking employee,(like yourself) save jobs, and the industry.
Delsa I hear you
March 3, 2009 - 15:09 ET by PaulJamesThanks for the comment. I think unions have a place when they provide good collective bargining. Unfortunately they wield their power like thugs. I understand that it is hard to trust the big corps to be fair to the workers. At the same time some companies actually appreciate hard workers. Most tech co. have figured that out and there is no reason to organize them because they treat people right.
At our terminal the hardest workers were the ones that endured the most presure to do more. The deadbeats and do nothings were ignored. They were given non-productive jobs so that they would not show up in the productivity numbers.
Good Luck To All
Well It Is Too Late Now
March 3, 2009 - 18:17 ET by Blue Collar ToddDavid Brooks was lulled to sleep by Obama's speeches and rhetoric of deception. This is why a twenty year history of radical associations should not have been overlooked. Now we all are going to suffer the consequences.
The don't come any phonier
March 3, 2009 - 18:41 ET by bigtimerThe don't come any phonier that Brooks and all his ilk.
Gergen is a perfect example.
Every so often they pretend to be somewhat on the right side of the aisle so they can claim they are really representing what they lie about being and getting paid for...which are nothing but wishy-washy dem lights to put it politely.
Brooks right on Palin, wrong on Obama
March 3, 2009 - 22:42 ET by PopularTechInteresting how he could see right through the unqualified Sarah Palin but could not see through the unqualified Obama.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
On CEOs
March 10, 2009 - 19:28 ET by UnsaneJust remember - being a CEO is completely different from running a government. I cannot name that many CEOs that, day to day in their present positions, have the capacity to issue orders to people to protect and defend the corporation, all the while knowing that some or all of them will die.
Think of it like this, my obsessive devotee:
If you are the CEO of Apple, and IBM outsells you, you get a smaller bonus. When Germany "outsold" France nearly 70 years ago, it meant a teensy bit more to the French than a tighter budget. (h/t to the shadowy benevolent organization known simply as HMM)
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Oh, don’t worry, I’m
March 3, 2009 - 23:01 ET by SvenOh, don’t worry, I’m sure Sh** for Brains will conclude, “Barak Obama is who we thought he was” after his next speech! Brooks will fall in love all over again! Kack!
What a putz!
The intelligent Brooks
March 4, 2009 - 08:45 ET by reddogBrooks, you're stupid.