David Brooks, lying neocon shill, compares Kerry to Castro & Brezhnev.

[Stephanie]

He does this today in the NY Times, then tonight he is on PBS commenting on the proceedings. WHY?

Somebody please explain to me why William Kristol's whore is critiquing the Democratic Convention on PBS? Why does he have a NY Times column? Why is he the conservative darling of mainstream media? He makes me SICK with his lying innuendo.

It was a winter's night in Iowa, round about midnight. John Kerry should have been wrapping up a town meeting, but he'd decided to go into his "I'll answer every question'' mode. Most everybody desperately wanted to go home, and insects and other small life forms were perishing from boredom. Every time he'd launch into another Castroite soliloquy - on the history of the Middle East or the pay structure of the civil service - the audience would groan. I sat there listening to this drone, thinking, "If this man becomes president, I have to stop being a pundit because I know nothing about politics."

I didn't realize that tediousness is John Kerry's greatest trait. I didn't realize that a country barraged by a decade of Gingrich, impeachment, hanging chads and war may actually be looking for a Brezhnev to give it a break.

<snip>

I also didn't sense that the Democratic Party is just sober enough to realize it needs a designated driver like John Kerry to get it home at night. This is a whacked-out party that has spent the past year throwing back Howard Dean hurricanes, being gripped with Michael Moore fever and indulging in Whoopi-esque animosity binges.

<snip>

All this may work. But there is still more to learn. Is Kerry a little dull because he is steady and sensible, or is he just incapable of making up his mind? Is he prudential because in times of crisis the nation needs a steady hand, or is he cautious because he simply doesn't grasp that we're in a new world, confronted by a rabid ideological foe?

<more>

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/27/opinion/27broo.html

The rabid idealogues, of course, are in the WH and the Pentagon and the AEI and the PNAC. Brooks' bosses and cronies, in fact.

How much longer must we listen to this phony duplicitous creep? WHY is he the conservative commentator of choice for PBS, NPR and NYT?

[Mika]

1. We only wish we had the literacy levels&teacher/student ratios as Cuba

Not to mention health care, etc.


UN: Learn from Cuba
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/learn.htm

There were 12 primary school pupils for every Cuban teacher in 1997, a ratio that ranked with Sweden, rather than any other developing country. The Latin American and East Asian average was twice as high at 25 to one.

The average youth (age 15-24) illiteracy rate in Latin America and the Caribbean stands at 7%. In Cuba, the rate is zero. In Latin America, where the average is 7%, only Uruguay approaches that achievement, with one percent youth illiteracy.

“Cuba managed to reduce illiteracy from 40% to zero within ten years,” said Ritzen. “If Cuba shows that it is possible, it shifts the burden of proof to those who say it’s not possible.”

Similarly, Cuba devoted 9.1% of its gross domestic product (GDP) during the 1990s to health care, roughly equivalent to Canada’s rate. Its ratio of 5.3 doctors per 1,000 people was the highest in the world.

The question that these statistics pose, of course, is whether the Cuban experience can be replicated. The answer given here is probably not.

Remember, Castro forces this on Cubans. :think:

[Stephanie]

6. Completely irrelevant, of course. Brooks only cares about buzzwords

Facts don't matter - please! This is all about practicing the same rhetorical trick that Bush used, damning via juxtaposition:

September eleventh/Saddam Hussein

Al Queda/Iraq

Kerry/Castro

Kerry/ Brezhnev

[camby]

2. OK you officially just made me puke

words cannot describe the disgust with which I read his comments. Let me at him.

[Stephanie]

3. Please be my guest

I wish someone would really challenge the lying prick.

Have you noticed his teeny little girly hands? He's nothing but a weenie. You could take him easy.

[bossfish]

4. He's right about this part, though..

"...because I know nothing about politics."

[Stephanie]

5. Finally he spoke a true word

But too late.

Does the Times ever FIRE anybody, besides Jason Blair? Brooks is DISGUSTING. He is Joe McCarthy, except that he doesn't believe a word of it. What a bankrupt soul.

[Stephanie]

7. Somebody tell me why this smarmy jerk is commenting on OUR

convention?????

[bloom]

8. He's is not so obviously whacked-out as Coulter

I try to avoid him - but I appreciate the reports...

[Stephanie]

9. But his remarks are just as false and almost as offensive as hers

He takes the flimsiest of pretexts to mention CASTRO and BREZHNEV's names next to Kerry's. Fortunately, nobody reads him. But the Times should not tolerate this garbage on their pages. It's an outrage.

[kaitykaity]

10. This is pure desperation showing.

It's so over the top as to approach being a parody
of itself.

Pay it no mind.

[cthrumatrix]

11. marching orders....not critical thinking and balance

[Stephanie]

12. You're right, except that he has the most important column slot in NYT

He gets to bash Kerry with ridiculous innuendo twice a week in the paper of record. I'd like to know why!

[kaitykaity]

14. I think he's just trying to come up with his word quota.

The Times is probably afraid to fire him now.
"Liberal media! Liberal media!"

But if the quality of his columns continues along
this vein, he's not long for the job.

[MaryH]

13. Call me ignorant

But I have always liked David Brooks. I watch Lehrer on PBS everynite and Brooks has been the conservative point of view therefor a long time - way before he made it to the Times. He is Jewish. He is paid to be conservative.

I don't think he liked Clinton. I don't think he buys into the fact that Bush is getting close to King George. He was for Iraq but it was because of Saddam's regime and the torture, etc. But, even he said he was niave - and is pretty appalled by the results. Thinks we have made one mistake after another.

And he supports gay marriage. Which is pretty unusual for a conservative.

I always side with Mark Matthews. But I like to hear the conservative side of things, too. Although I don't care much for Brook's articles in the NYT. I like to know what the conservative arguments are. Think about them. It gives me a better perspective.

So slam away. I can't even listen to most of the other Conservative like Hume and Kristol. I like to listen to Safire (he's funny) but I seldom agree with a word he says.

[sadiesworld]

17. Actually I tend to agree with you.

Brooks IS better on PBS. And at one time, his articles in the NYT were (comparatively) readable. But he has become increasingly irrational in the past couple/few months. He may just be giving the liberal :eyes: NYT what they want.

[Stephanie]

18. Brooks started at The Weekly Standard under William Kristol

Kristol is the leading neo-con, in charge of the Project for a New American Century, which brought you this Iraq war.

Brooks is deceptive, as are all the neo-cons, because they have been taught (see Leo Strauss) that they are the elite, born to rule, and that deception is acceptable to achieve one's aims. He is not at NYT & PBS to make his observations dispassionately from a conservative viewpoint. He is there to sell an extreme agenda, day after day. He has been strategically placed by the extremist hawks as their PR guy, as their public voice.

He's an embarrassment.

[sadiesworld]

21. I suppose his true colors are coming out.

I imagine we'll see more of that as the election nears.

[WyLoochka]

15. Brooks was just about speechless

after Obama's barn burner. He stuttered, stumbled and ah - er - uhed - until he finally managed to say (probably regretting it almost instantly) - Barack Obama is the Tiger Woods of the politics!!!! hahahahah

He recouped his senses later and wrapped up with, believe it or not, Geppy's speech was the best so far! He actually said that twice.

Brooks is a joke.

[MaryH]

16. Well, he really likes Gephardt

He felt like it was one of Gephardt's best ever speeches - thought it showed "soul." I'm not sure what he means by that.

But I thought Clinton's speech was wonderful and he didn't want to say that it was.

He also really liked John Edwards - thinks he is a really good speaker and natural politician.

I didn't hear Obama and now I wish I had made myself stay up for it last night.

[Stephanie]

20. You must hear Obama

That speech will air again, I'm sure, or go to www.cspan.org and listen to it. Absolutely stunning.

[Stephanie]

19. He WILL regret that remark

What a freaking doofus.