Presidential knee pad wearer, David Brooks,
- Thread starter WVPATX
- Start date
ms barf is IN nursery school.....she hasn't got past single
syllable words yet.......another 3 or 4 years and she'll get there.....she might have trouble with the 850 calorie thing though
syllable words yet.......another 3 or 4 years and she'll get there.....she might have trouble with the 850 calorie thing though
David Brook is not a conservative
by any stretch of the imagination. He has twice supported Obama and continues to be very supportive of his policies. He is certainly to the right of most NY Times writers, but is not to the right of the average American.
by any stretch of the imagination. He has twice supported Obama and continues to be very supportive of his policies. He is certainly to the right of most NY Times writers, but is not to the right of the average American.
Re: David Brook is not a conservative
lol, you'd say white was black. He absolutely is a conservative so it's no surprise that he would be critical of the recent Iran nuke negotiations though many people have been critical of the tentative agreement. I'm talking about David Brooks, I don't know who this David Brook is that you're referring to.
David Brooks (born August 11, 1961)[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brooks_(journalist)
lol, you'd say white was black. He absolutely is a conservative so it's no surprise that he would be critical of the recent Iran nuke negotiations though many people have been critical of the tentative agreement. I'm talking about David Brooks, I don't know who this David Brook is that you're referring to.
David Brooks (born August 11, 1961)[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brooks_(journalist)
Re: David Brook is not a conservative
I can post many, many true conservatives opinions of Brooks (e.g. Charles Krauthhammer) and they, like me believe that Brooks is very moderate. Again, Brooks twice supported Obama who is easily the most liberal President the U.S. has ever had. I would agree that Brooks is "conservative" for the NY Times but he is not conservative with respect to traditional conservatives and their beliefs.
I can post many, many true conservatives opinions of Brooks (e.g. Charles Krauthhammer) and they, like me believe that Brooks is very moderate. Again, Brooks twice supported Obama who is easily the most liberal President the U.S. has ever had. I would agree that Brooks is "conservative" for the NY Times but he is not conservative with respect to traditional conservatives and their beliefs.
Re: David Brook is not a conservative
Brooks said, "if you call someone who supports Republican candidates conservative, then, I am not a conservative." Doesn't support limited taxation. Brooks also famously said, "Run, Obama, run". Has always thought Obama as a good President.
His core principals do not seem too conservative to me either. I have seen him on some programs feature Brooks as the counter to extreme liberals, like the Dr. That does not mean he is conservative.
Brooks said, "if you call someone who supports Republican candidates conservative, then, I am not a conservative." Doesn't support limited taxation. Brooks also famously said, "Run, Obama, run". Has always thought Obama as a good President.
His core principals do not seem too conservative to me either. I have seen him on some programs feature Brooks as the counter to extreme liberals, like the Dr. That does not mean he is conservative.
Re: David Brooks IS a traditional conservative.
From Forbes Magazine: Brooks' views are anathema to conservatives
If his December 16 New York Times column, "Strengthen the Presidency," is any indication, faux-conservative David Brooks has been hitting the spiked Christmas eggnog early and hard. Or maybe, as we've seen before, when it comes to the Obama presidency, Brooks was transported to la-la land. Who can forget the 2009 profile of Brooks in The New Republic, in which he recounts his first encounter with Obama four years earlier: "Usually when I talk to senators, while they may know a policy area better than me, they generally don't know political philosophy better than me. I got the sense he knew both better than me."
Brooks then dug the hole deeper: "I remember distinctly an image of - we were sitting on [Obama's] couches, and I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant, and I'm thinking, a) he's going to be president and b) he'll be a very good president." And still deeper: "My overall view is ninety-five percent of the decisions [Obama and his administration] make are good and intelligent. Whether I agree with them specifically, I think they're very serious and very good at what they do."
The sorts of arguments advanced by Brooks are anything but conservative, but they are not surprising to anyone familiar with his commentaries. In a 2007 column, "No U-Turns," Brooks urged the Republican Party to distance itself from its fundamental limited-government, conservative principles, arguing that these supposedly outdated concepts are no longer mainstream and must be discarded if Republicans hope to win elections. "Goldwater and Reagan were important leaders, but they're not models for the future," Brooks concluded. Instead he seems to prefer Barack Obama's vision for America: redistribution of wealth, stultifying regulation, class warfare, political cronyism, vacillating foreign policy, lack of transparency and relentless incompetence.
This post was edited on 4/9 12:16 PM by WVPATX
From Forbes Magazine: Brooks' views are anathema to conservatives
If his December 16 New York Times column, "Strengthen the Presidency," is any indication, faux-conservative David Brooks has been hitting the spiked Christmas eggnog early and hard. Or maybe, as we've seen before, when it comes to the Obama presidency, Brooks was transported to la-la land. Who can forget the 2009 profile of Brooks in The New Republic, in which he recounts his first encounter with Obama four years earlier: "Usually when I talk to senators, while they may know a policy area better than me, they generally don't know political philosophy better than me. I got the sense he knew both better than me."
Brooks then dug the hole deeper: "I remember distinctly an image of - we were sitting on [Obama's] couches, and I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant, and I'm thinking, a) he's going to be president and b) he'll be a very good president." And still deeper: "My overall view is ninety-five percent of the decisions [Obama and his administration] make are good and intelligent. Whether I agree with them specifically, I think they're very serious and very good at what they do."
The sorts of arguments advanced by Brooks are anything but conservative, but they are not surprising to anyone familiar with his commentaries. In a 2007 column, "No U-Turns," Brooks urged the Republican Party to distance itself from its fundamental limited-government, conservative principles, arguing that these supposedly outdated concepts are no longer mainstream and must be discarded if Republicans hope to win elections. "Goldwater and Reagan were important leaders, but they're not models for the future," Brooks concluded. Instead he seems to prefer Barack Obama's vision for America: redistribution of wealth, stultifying regulation, class warfare, political cronyism, vacillating foreign policy, lack of transparency and relentless incompetence.
This post was edited on 4/9 12:16 PM by WVPATX
current day liberals
Are attempting to place conservatives in that box. They are suggesting that is the only way they are going to win future elections. And, they are asking conservatives to buy into that farce. If both parties are going to actually be degrees of liberal, why would anyone vote unless we become communist like countries like and get 99% vote in favor of incumbent.
Are attempting to place conservatives in that box. They are suggesting that is the only way they are going to win future elections. And, they are asking conservatives to buy into that farce. If both parties are going to actually be degrees of liberal, why would anyone vote unless we become communist like countries like and get 99% vote in favor of incumbent.
