Babbling Brooks

I have always been fairly neutral about David Brooks. He can at times seem insightful, but sometimes he leans toward some partisan rhetoric. His latest column, however convinced me that he is an idiot. Yesterday he wrote an article claiming that the press is the reason that McCain is running a negative campaign (which is absolute and complete bulls%%t!). The reason that McCain was running behind couldn't have been the fact that he offered more of the same and that people weren't interested in hearing that. No, apparently the reason he was running behind was that the press wasn't giving enough attention to his message and they were actually reporting his mistakes. How dare they! McCain wanted to run a good campaign, a new style campaign, but that no good Obama wouldn't agree to his town halls and then the press just didn't cooperate, so he had no choice but to go negative. No choice, you see! It's not his fault. Don't blame the messenger, blame the people who forced him to deliver the message.

So in one simple article, Mr. Brooks has forgiven Senator McCain for anything that he has or might throw at Obama, because Obama and the press made him do it. He's also forgiven him because, damn it, it's working! He adds,

"As the McCain’s campaign has become more conventional, his political prospects have soared."

So apparently, according to Mr. Brooks, the ends justify the means. That's just fantastic. The old Malcolm X "by any means necessary" quote seems perfectly reasonable now. Perhaps Mr. Brooks would like to suggest that McCain supporters start wearing "X" t-shirts to show their solidarity with slain leader. Get those Swift Boats ready, it's gonna be a long campaign.

Of course Mr. Brooks couldn't help but add a couple of "political" observations that transformed the article from just merely ridiculous to the land of absolute fantasy. And I quote,

"Everyone said McCain would be down by double digits at this point. He’s nearly even. Everyone said he’d be vastly outspent. That hasn’t happened. A long-shot candidacy now seems entirely plausible."

First of all, I never heard one person say that McCain would be down by double digits. In fact the last presidential campaign that had a 10% difference was the '84 campaign between Reagan and Mondale. Perhaps in Brooks' vivid imagination he came up with the double digit scenario and is now crediting himself as "everyone". I don't remember anyone saying that he'd be vastly outspent either. The reason that Obama needed to turn down public financing was because McCain was going to have a significant advantage from the the 527's and RNC. Obama is the one who was trying to level the playing field and not the other way around, but I guess Brooks knows best. And anyone who thought that McCain was a long shot to win the election is either living in a fantasy or is David Brooks.

I want to thank you, Mr. Brooks for allowing me to see the idiotic, partisan "journalist" that you are. I will now be able to add all of your commentary to the "I'm just talking out of my ass" file.