David Brooks was on NPR and just made me hurl chunks...

[Turn CO Blue]

I only caught the tail end, but apparently he was doing "analysis" of the week's political events, and was saying something ROUGHLY along the lines of: "Things are really looking up for the Democrats because it appears that the center elements, the Clintons and Rahm Emmanuel have regained control of the party away from the elements on the far left."

Which is (in my opinion) exactly the opposite of what's happening and what we need. The grassroots, the NETROOTS, the DU'ers, the pro-peace movement, Kossacks, and the Deaniacs have nearly wrestled power away from the Democratic establishment - and if/when that occurs it really will be a bright future for the party.

These kind of establishment talking heads really like to think that IF they say something then that makes it so.

So listen to All Things Considered (at least I think it was that show) for today's date (May 12) and then write David Brooks to tell him just how wrong he is...

Sorry for not checking to be sure it was that show - I have to leave in a few seconds to go chaperone the marching band banquet. Woo hoo!

<http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5401889>

[marmar]

1. David Brooks needs to put down the crack pipe...

:smoke: He's way off the mark.

[acmejack]

2. He is just so full of it!

What makes people like him feel qualified to weigh in on the events of the day and and presume to tell us what to think?

[Dr Fate]

3. When did the "far left" ever have control of the party?

I dont recall Kerry embracing Micheal Moore or Noam Chomsky, or DU.

Du was screamming "CALL THE BASTARD A LIAR!!! FIGHT BACK!" I dont know who he was listening to at that time, but it was not us. (he is a little better at that now)

I dont recall too many- or at least not enough- Democrats following the advice of the "far left" on Iraq or the Alito Filibuster either.

False argument that the DLC has wrested control from the left- the left never had any control and still does not.

[Turn CO Blue]

4. Right!

And if all these "far left" people (we're really in the middle, you know) like you and me had control, man, it would be like some new kind of government concept huh? Like a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people"!

[peacetalksforall]

5. David Brooks is hopeless. n/t

[Canuckistanian]

6. He doesn't understand Democrats, Netroots or liberals in general

Why does he think he has any credibility on this?

[ChiciB1]

11. He Used To Be A Big Time Repuke! ...n/t

[Canuckistanian]

16. Really? I've always had mixed feelings about him

I've heard many a questionable statement from him, yet he's identified as a moderate Democrat.

[omega minimo]

17. By WHO!?! "....yet he's constantly identified as a Democrat."

:rofl: :wtf:

[Canuckistanian]

18. Oy, my mistake

I was thinking about someone else.
:banghead:

[omega minimo]

19. Either way-- Brooks is a DEMOCRAT??????!!??!!!!!!!?!!!!

:spray:

no fukkin way--- he's a megaphone for the Repukes :puke:

[blondeatlast]

7. Brooks=tool. nt

[depakid]

8. Not even worth listening to

The guy's both unintelligent- and lacking all integrity.

Nothing but wannabe intellectual.

[AX10]

9. Brooks is clearly afraid of progressives.

He wants the "roll-over and play dead" type Democrats to run in the 06' campaign because he knows that they will lose.

[Up2Late]

10. David Brooks has been doing this Politics from the Right/Politics from...

...the left segment (opposite E.J. Dionne) for quite a few years now, I've gotten to the point were I just ignore what he says, unless he's eating crow, which he ends up doing a lot lately.

David Brooks just lies, that's his job. He lies so much, I'm not sure if he even believes himself anymore.

If you want to hear an annoying republican, you should here some of the "Republican strategist" the GOP sends over to counter the liberal regulars on the show "News & Notes with Ed Gordon," especially this one woman "Republican strategist Tara Setmayer" she is SOOOO annoying the way that she only seems to know the "talking points" of most issues.

At least David Brooks has a slightly recognizable personality.

Here's an example of her work, if you want to here a GOP operative ruin a good round table debate: <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5259562>

[Hippo_Tron]

12. I make a point to ignore everything that David Brooks says

[FrenchieCat]

13. That's the only way to go....really.

Unless you're insane, there really is no other option. :shrug:

[hatrack]

14. If I had to choose between listening to David Brooks . . .

And listening to a bag of lawn clippings, the lawn clippings would win six days a week and twice on Sundays; after all, you can actually use the clippings for compost or what have you, whereas Brooks is the rhetorical equivalent of that irritating piece of gum that sticks to your shoe when you're out on a date.

:puke:

[belpejic]

15. Don't worry about Bobo

He doesn't count anymore, just like Friedman, Kristof and Tierney don't count.

Read Kos, or Josh, or Atrios (plus anyone else you like).

The NYT pundits, for the most part (Krugman generally excluded), are completely useless and almost always wrong.