October 30, 2012

"If Obama wins, we’ll probably get small-bore stasis; if Romney wins, we’re more likely to get bipartisan reform."

"Romney is more of a flexible flip-flopper than Obama. He has more influence over the most intransigent element in the Washington equation House Republicans. He’s more likely to get big stuff done."

120 comments:

Eustace Chilke said...

And unlikely to get any big stuff undone, which is more what we could use. Oh well.

Alex Ignatiev said...

Wow. David Brooks endorses Romney: another reason for Republicans to vote for Gary Johnson.

clint said...

His reasoning that House Republicans are the unreasonable, obstructionist ones is a bit twisted, but his conclusions are surely right.

President Romney will definitely get things done. President Obama would likely take us over the fiscal cliff, Thelma and Louise style.

clint said...

Does David Brooks count as another media endorsement Romney's won away from Obama's 2008 lineup?

garage mahal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Synova said...

That's an interesting compliment.

No doubt Romney is going to have conservatives on his case from day one. But it's not like we didn't see that coming. A person would have to have not been paying any attention for the last decade to think that Romney was ideologically driven.

Or... if he is it's his religion, a real religion, instead of a social ideology that he's ideological and uncompromising about.

And that's not going to be his job. I don't expect him to get hung up on ideology the way Obama did, since Obama's ideology is a social/political one.

(And on that thought... I hope Crack is well and prosperous.)

I also trust Romney not to get distracted by pet social projects (like Obamacare) while blithely expecting the economic problem to have been taken care of by an influx of cash and only waiting left to do.

garage mahal said...

You'd think Romney would have a hard time with House Repubs judging by Romney running as a Democrat these past few months? I don't think that really bothers conservatives that much because they just think Romney is lying.

Maguro said...

Well, that's a relief. I was worried silly that David Brooks would find Romney's pants insufficiently creased.

Synova said...

It's okay garage. Obama's campaign hasn't yet given up on the fantasy that Romney is a terrifying hyper-conservative. He's been transformed into a Randian right before our eyes.

Romney and Ryans plans have always been and still are what they were... which is profoundly measured approaches with long timelines and generally doing the most gentle possible job while still actually doing something at all.

And Tea Party hardliners and free market sorts have been fussing about how it's not enough for ages. Nothing new. No surprise.

But at least we can be certain that Romney has a thorough and practical understanding of economic reality and doesn't, like Obama, think it's cute not to know the difference between collision and liability insurance.

So a great many of those who see him for the weak tea that he is will crawl through glass to vote for him.

And then, when he's president, will do their best to make sure that his Congress has their feet held to the fire and sends him more than he, perhaps, wants.

edutcher said...

The Romster is probably a bit more Conservative than a lot of people (on both sides) want to believe, but he'll have a more Conservative Congress to deal with. The Tea Partiers are looking to score another big Congressional victory (even Akin is looking good), so garage can snark all he wants. His precious Lefty agenda is about to go a-glimmering.

Colonel Angus said...

Romney will be able to get bi partisan support because he's not a petulant crybaby like Obama.

Ali Karim Bey said...

VICTORY IS AT HAND.'

We have Virginia and Ohio.

Tomorrow through Tuesday, every-voter in America will see our POTUS show leadership on Sandy.

GOP is finished.

We are C***-P**** to victory on Nov. 6.

Benghazi: Who cares? No one remembers. Voters will do as they are told. NYT will run story after story fro now through Tuesday.

It is beginning to look like Christmas.

clint said...

"We are C***-P**** to victory on Nov. 6."

??

What's "C***-P****"?

Synova said...

Congressional Republicans elected by Tea Party majorities playing "bad cop" would let Romney be the nice guy that works with the opposition. (Which is why it's Congress where pressure needs to be brought to bear.)

The Democrat "united front" method gives the opposition too easily defined a target. Think of it as a heterogeneous mixture of compounds. Mixing (bipartisan effort) requires molecules of one compound to be relatively independent. If they're not it won't mix. Pelosi was admired (mind boggling thought) for her iron hand and enforcement. The whole Dem establishment *seems* to value that leadership style.

But it's anti-bipartisan... no mixing it up.

And garage thinks people on the Republican/Romney side of things, or the Tea Party/free market side of things, ought to be distressed that there may be dissent on "our" side. (However "our" side is defined.) Probably smells like hypocrisy or something... like truffles to a pig.

Tim said...

Brooks writes:

"Obama himself is not going to suddenly turn into a master legislative craftsman on the order of Lyndon Johnson."

Hell, on a really, really good day, Barack isn't even Gerald R. Ford.

Ford at least attempted a rescue mission of Americans aboard the captured SS Mayaguez.

Tim said...

What's "C***-P****"?"

It's the Latest Liberal Election Ad: “I’m Going to Give Romney a C--k-P--ch Right in the Nut Sack”

TWM said...

"You'd think Romney would have a hard time with House Repubs judging by Romney running as a Democrat these past few months? I don't think that really bothers conservatives that much because they just think Romney is lying."

We're gonna get a chance to see, garage. Aren't you glad?

creeley23 said...

"We are C***-P**** to victory on Nov. 6."

clint: This is a reference to a deeply ugly, vulgar video put out by Michael Moore and MoveOn.org, which features elders threatening Republicans:

"If your voter suppression throughout this beautiful country enables Romney to oust Barack Obama, we will burn this mother f**ker down."

"I’m going to track down Mitt Romney and give him the world’s biggest c**k punch."

Lovely stuff. I can't imagine why the messages from these fine supporters of the Democratic Party don't carry more weight with voters.

Elliott A said...

Romney will call out obstructionist elements from day 1. They'll have to live with 80% they like and 20% they don't as that is as good as it ever gets.

lewsar said...

and why exactly would anybody care what david brooks thinks?

Colonel Angus said...

"I’m going to track down Mitt Romney and give him the world’s biggest c**k punch."

Lovely stuff. I can't imagine why the messages from these fine supporters of the Democratic Party don't carry more weight with voters.:


This shouldn't be surprising. When the ubiquitous campaign poster features Obama in a Che Guvera like pose, it stands to reason his supporters will behave like the Marxist thugs they really are.

Liberals and many Democrats have stooped to the sewer level in order to win elections. Pathetic recourse for a once honorable party.

Michael K said...

My one concern about Romney is that he will turn out like Michigan governor Rick Snyder. Too eager to chart a middle course when salvation lies with radical reform. Snyder was CEO of Gateway, a failed PC maker.

I think Romney is more used to big things and does have some experience in government. One term in Massachusetts in enough to teach him what politicians are like, especially Democrats.

Brooks believes the Obama propaganda and hasn't a clue what it takes to govern and rescue the economy. I think he just sees the coming juggernaut and is jumping on the band wagon.

ricpic said...

Voters will do as they are told.

Which moderate Obama minion whispered that in your ear, AP ?

Revenant said...

Romney has influence over House Republicans?

Since when?

Pogo said...

So the nonagenarian threatens to burn down her own nursing home if Romney wins?

Sounds like the Aricept/Namenda combination has failed.

SteveR said...

well we already know what will happen with Obama. Forget legislation he'll just bypass the consitution.

Recess appointmens, executive orders, don't enforce legislation, whatever

Coketown said...

I wonder if cock punch is as good as cock soup.

I looked up cock soup on Amazon and the results are hilarious.

dbp said...

I don't think Romney is running as a Democrat but if Garage thinks he is then what does it imply?

I suggest that it is because Obama has abandoned mainstream Democratic positions in favor of progressive ones. This has left the middle open for Romney to occupy.

Another possibility is a psychological one: Unable to face the immanent rejection of liberal governance, rationalize the loss as coming from a different cause.

Coketown said...

Like spotted dick pudding hilarious. hahaha.

Pogo said...

"If Obama wins, we’ll probably get small-bore stasis; if Romney wins, we’re more likely to get ...big stuff done."

This town needs an enema!

Seeing Red said...

David Brooks is clueless...........


Is he still looking at the crease of people's pants?

garage mahal said...

Romney is flip floppingly flexible on virtually every important issue. He would never betray you.

Seeing Red said...

3-1/2 years Democrat Harry Reid's Senate has stalled a budget.

Disgusting.

ricpic said...

There's no way to avoid the fiscal cliff without, at the very least, flatlining federal spending. And there's no way Romney can reach across the aisle and get that done. So, if Romney is elected we'll know early on whether he is serious and offers a budget with out spending increases or with spending increases balanced by genuine cuts, and whether he has the backbone to stand up to being called a monster by the Dems, the MSM, Academics, Hollywood, the whole usual suspect crew, for doing so and rams his budget through despite the caterwauling.

yashu said...

Romney has influence over House Republicans?

Since when?


For one thing, he as Paul Ryan at his side.

For another, a decisive electoral victory-- toppling and ousting Obama-- would by itself earn Romney some gratitude and appreciation from every Republican and conservative in the country. A very finite and limited amount (with an expiration date)-- but at least at the start of his term, I think you'll find them (somewhat) willing to play ball.

He will have earned a little (not much, but a little) benefit of the doubt. For Tea Partiers, reaching a compromise with Romney will be a fundamentally different situation from compromising with (i.e. being forced to surrender unilaterally to) Obama.

Pogo said...

@Garage

At least we know for damn sure he won't leave an Ambassador and SEALs to die in a war zone.

edutcher said...

Michael K said...

My one concern about Romney is that he will turn out like Michigan governor Rick Snyder. Too eager to chart a middle course when salvation lies with radical reform. Snyder was CEO of Gateway, a failed PC maker.

In the 90s, Gateway was up there with Dell. Until the early part of the Aughties, it was one of the foremost computer makers there was. My first PC, and The Blonde's, were both Gateways.

It deteriorated when founder Ted Waitt left.

Maguro said...

Oh, garage, very clever. I see what you did.

yashu said...

IMO Romney is (will be) more of a fiscal conservative than many conservatives expect; yet more of a moderate/ pragmatist than Democrats/ liberals fear.

Given Romney's history, I think he's they kind of executive that's concerned with actual results, effectiveness-- the bottom line. My own hope (and guess) is that he'll provide more aggressive problem-solving leadership than some conservatives dare to hope for from a RINO; but he'll do so in a way that isn't too bitter for Democrats (at least blue dog moderate Democrats) to swallow.

A spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down. Whereas Obama's term has been filled with nothing but bitterness.

SteveR said...

Romney is flip floppingly flexible on virtually every important issue. He would never betray you

garage, you really think this is about Romney? The only people who care about those things are people who aren't going to vote for him, like you. Stay on topic

Colonel Angus said...

There's no way to avoid the fiscal cliff without, at the very least, flatlining federal spending.

I don't see why this should be that difficult. We are spending over a trillion dollars more than in 2008. Iraq war is over, Afghan is winding down. Even letting the Bush tax cuts expire would not bring us close to $3 trillion in revenue so flatlining Federal spending is the least we should do.

Craig Landon said...

Ace has the back story of the term in question here:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/334401.php

Craig Landon said...

Ace has the back story of the term in question here:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/334401.php

AprilApple said...

If we get Obama we get Obamacare. No thanks.

yashu said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
yashu said...

PS I should have put "RINO" in quotes; I don't at all believe Romney is a RINO. I think that, if he wins decisively, and if he's politically skillful enough, Romney and Ryan have the potential to redefine what "Republican" means for the next generation, just as Reagan once did.

But that's a big if. The Dems had big hopes for Obama, and we see how that panned out.

So as big as my hopes are for a Romney electoral victory, I'll have to lower them for a Romney presidency.

Nevertheless, I have no doubt about this, at least: Romney is much, much, much more competent and serious a leader and chief executive, with a vastly more realistic diagnostic sense of our nation's problems and the ability (and courage and will) to deal with them, than Obama.

granmary said...

David Brooks is an idiot. The only thing he is right about is that bipartisan reform is more likely under Romney. The reason is not that Romney flip-flops, but that he is competent & knows how to make things work. Obama on the other hand still thinks that his every wish will be granted,because he is so beloved that the world will grant his every whim.

granmary said...

David Brooks is an idiot. The only thing he is right about is that bipartisan reform is more likely under Romney. The reason is not that Romney flip-flops, but that he is competent & knows how to make things work. Obama on the other hand still thinks that his every wish will be granted,because he is so beloved that the world will grant his every whim.

AaronS said...

The key to good flip-floppery is to actually change your views and then advocate for them. Seems to me President Obama gets into office and finds that some of his stated positions don't work so well and changes course. But then just tells people that he didn't really change course.

That's just lying. And it's counterproductive to building better government or society.

wyo sis said...

I was all happy that David Brooks was writing a little favorably about Romney, then I remembered how often Brooks is right. Now I'm all worried. It's a puzzle.

Cedarford said...

Alex Ignatiev said...
Wow. David Brooks endorses Romney: another reason for Republicans to vote for Gary Johnson.

==========
Yes, because Republicans really are in a mood to piss their vote away and help reelect Barack Obama.
That is all a Johnson vote is good for.

Colonel Angus said...

Obama gets into office and finds that some of his stated positions don't work so well and changes course. But then just tells people that he didn't really changecourse.

I think Obama used the term evolving rather than flip flopping.

furious_a said...

Brooks: He has more influence over the most intransigent element in the Washington equation House Republicans. He’s more likely to get big stuff done.

Laughable assertion that it is the House which is intransigent. And for "...get[ting] big stuff done.", well, as Joe Biden would say:

Three Words: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid!

furious_a said...

Seems to me President Obama gets into office and finds that some of his stated positions don't work so well

It's not that he's lying, it's just that all of his promises come with an expiration date...all of them (Jim Geraghty).

bonerici said...

Romney should be more like George W. Bush and less like Obama, so there's that to look forward to.

creeley23 said...

Brooks ignores Benghazi, not surprisingly.

The "small-bore stasis" of Obama's re-election goes right out the window when the House Republicans impeach Obama, as they will and should, if Obama doesn't do some fast, truthful explaining or resigning.

Thomas Sowell has a compelling article today on the intentionally slow release of information in scandals like Benghazi and Monica Lewinsky.

creeley23 said...

Sowell article here.

bagoh20 said...

Neither candidate has done anything to prove to me they can avoid the fiscal storm coming with the first wave hitting in January. Regardless of who wins, we will still have a leadership across the board that is in denial and unwilling to make the people face it. Sufficient reform is highly unlikely, but at least possible with Romney. That's only one reason to vote for him among many.

Inga said...

Ali Karim Bey said,
I VOTED FOR ROMNEY YESTERDAY AT 4 PM.

I voted due to one word: Benghazi.

" You keep lyin' when you oughta be truthin' "

(from, These Boots Are Made for Walkin', by Nancy Sinatra, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbyAZQ45uww)

--------------------------------
What's going on Ali?

10/27/12 1:25 PM

Inga said...

From Evidence Romney is Winning, blog post Oct 27th.

Ali, I'm confused, you voted for Romney but are hoping Obama wins?

Michael K said...

"Blogger garage mahal said...

Romney is flip floppingly flexible on virtually every important issue. He would never betray you."

Whereas, Obama would never betray you. You and he are hard leftists.

creeley23 said...

Inga: Ali Karim Bey is a moby of some sort. Probably used to post as "America's Politico."

A time-waster in other words.

Inga said...

Creely, yes I deducted that, just curious to see how he responds, LOL.

Inga said...

Titus, you need to let your Indian wife know he can't vote twice, even if he did change his mind.:)

Sammy said...

Obama will be a lame duck from day one if he slithers by like snake in the grass to reelection.

If republicans had no reason to help pass his agenda at the height of Obama's popularity, the bonddoggle bureaucratic mess that will being talking effect in 2013, they will have even less reason.

Once Obamacare is implemented and everything republicans have been warning about come true, millions dumped from their private insurance onto government exchanges, Medicare cuts, doctor shortages, hosptial cuts, costs ballooning real time with covering over 30 million citzens healthcare onto the already unsustainable by then 17 trillion dollar national debt, deficits still over a trillion, the Feds wouldn't be able to keep buying 92% goverment debt.

People have no idea how bad Obama 2.0 will be and republican opposition will be their to remind folks,
" told you so".

mccullough said...

If Romney wins then the Dems will dump Pelosi and probably Reid for Hoyer and Durbin. Along with Boehner and McConnell some decent things could be accomplished. Romney, like Clinton, is a competent pragmatist.

bagoh20 said...

When Romney wins the Nobel Peace Prize, which his life work has earned him much more than Obama's ever did, and then he expands and accelerates the killing of brown people by the thousands, then YOU call him "a flip flopper on important issues". The rest of us can do it now, but if Obama is your man then STFU.

mccullough said...

If Obama wins, he will continue to just issue executive orders to get around Congress. He's already instituted his own version of the Dream Act and NCLB. Expect more waivers from the actual laws if states and companies follow Obama's version. Also, expect continued pushback from the governors against Obama. The governors have already thrown a wrench into Obamacare by not setting up exchanges and not agreeing to Medicaid expansion. Obama just doesn't have the necessary leadership skills. He's a senator by nature.

bagoh20 said...

You see, you people who voted for Obama the last time have pretty much lost any right to complain about other people being stupid, uninformed, flip floppers, liars, war mongers, promise breakers, neocons, spenders, overreachers or Constitution violators. Redeem yourself next week, and then maybe you will have some credibility to talk.

a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...

I take as something of a given what Peggy Noonan said about Obama last week. Perhaps Mr. Brooks does to; he's got the line 'Obama is not going to turn into an arm twisting legislative wiz like LBJ' which would be like understatement agreeing with Noonan. David is sensible enough to say I'm sorry sort of to the Times readers unlike the section chief at Apple who got himself fired this week. I love me a David Brooks.

creeley23 said...

You see, you people who voted for Obama the last time have pretty much lost any right to complain about other people being stupid, uninformed, flip floppers, liars, war mongers, promise breakers, neocons, spenders, overreachers or Constitution violators.

I don't mind repeating bagoh20's assertion above and adding another:

You people who voted for Obama have also lost the right to complain about gray-area, or even illegal, executive orders and crony waivers.

I'd prefer that Romney avoid illegal executive orders, but as far as I'm concerned if the R's don't win the Senate, it is open season for Romney, the House, Republican governors to gut Obamacare any which way they can.

Obamacare is such a fragile, unwieldy, unworkable monstrosity, that I'm certain it can be paralyzed and killed off with a few dozen or a few hundred strategic knife slices.

Broomhandle said...

Inga,
You seem like a sweet person but, like so many liberals, a bit irony impaired.

Eric said...

So, if Romney is elected we'll know early on whether he is serious and offers a budget with out spending increases or with spending increases balanced by genuine cuts, and whether he has the backbone to stand up to being called a monster by the Dems, the MSM, Academics, Hollywood, the whole usual suspect crew, for doing so and rams his budget through despite the caterwauling.

Never happen. Not only is Romney not a hard-core conservative, he isn't a conservative at all. Domestically he's going to be a lot more like George Bush - we'll get this decades NCLB and schedule D. Conservatives will scream bloody murder, but what are they going to do about it?

The Republicans and Democrats are taking us to the same place, just at different speeds. It's been ten years since we had a politically viable chance to deal with the fiscal problem. Granted, Obama made things a lot worse, but that really only changed the timeline and not the outcome.

garage mahal said...

CRONY WAIVERS! You have NO RIGHT 0bummer voters. ZERO is too kind for you!

madAsHell said...

small bore??....5.56??

Be careful! Small bore stasis sounds like a death threat to me.

I don't want any streets named after this buffoon.

Eric said...

I don't want any streets named after this buffoon.

Why not? He already has schools named after him plus a Nobel prize. All before he actually accomplished anything (which still hasn't happened). I hope people will think long and hard before they elect the next affirmative action president.

Saint Croix said...

"We are C***-P**** to victory on Nov. 6."

??

What's "C***-P****"?


Crease pantsin'

Ali Karim Bey said...

Inga: I voted for Romney but have realized that my vote will not matter. Obama will win. No way will this prediction be wrong. Already VA and OH are in WH column. There is nothing to do.

You cannot fight an incumbent.
You cannot fight the smart press (ex: NYT).
You cannot ignore bad people in your own party (ex: IN and MO candidates for senate).
Etc.

And, voters have a short-term memory.

It is over. My vote was wasted.

Ali Karim Bey said...

Inga: I voted for Romney but have realized that my vote will not matter. Obama will win. No way will this prediction be wrong. Already VA and OH are in WH column. There is nothing to do.

You cannot fight an incumbent.
You cannot fight the smart press (ex: NYT).
You cannot ignore bad people in your own party (ex: IN and MO candidates for senate).
Etc.

And, voters have a short-term memory.

It is over. My vote was wasted.

Inga said...

Ali is the first Althouse Romney voter to regret their vote! A distinction!

Saint Croix said...

Crease pantsin'

I actually think the vulgar, combative, interrupting, rude, and mean-spirited Obama has lost himself a lot of support among people who liked the crease of his pants.

Hence the desperate attempt to woo first year girls in college. "I'm cool! Kids are still singing my praises."

David Brooks is too insightful to be fooled by this.

Dante said...

Obama said he would try to recreate the Obama-Boehner budget deal of two summers ago, with $2.50 of spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. Then he’d try immigration reform. Then he’d cut corporate tax rates as part of corporate reform. Then he’d “weed out” unnecessary regulations. All the while, he would implement Obamacare and increase funds for infrastructure.

$1.00 increase for every $2.50 in spending cuts. Not likely. You killed it before, what changed in you?

Immigration reform: make all those here illegally citizens and leave the border open. The new Democrat leftist base.

"he would implement Obamacare and increase funds for infrastructure"
Yup.

"weed out” unnecessary regulations: Aren't all regulations necessary? He's a liberal.

"cut corporate tax rates as part of corporate reform" Whatever it is, the cure is more expensive than the disease.

And what does the NY times call this:

This is a moderate and sensible agenda.

This must be informing the readership the way they want to be informed.

EMD said...

I postulate Ali has never voted in his life.

RecChief said...

sorry, I quit reading david brooks a a long time ago. he is usually so far off the mark, and as the "resident conservative" at the NYT, he really isnt very conservative. Plus he doesn't really advance or articulate many new ideas, so reading his column is a waste of time for me.

Michael K said...

$1.00 increase for every $2.50 in spending cuts. Not likely. You killed it before, what changed in you?

This goes back to Reagan when the Democrats talked Dole into supporting one of these plans that would provide four dollars of spending cuts for every dollar of taxes.

The taxes got raised but no spending cuts ever showed up.

"Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice..."

john marzan said...

another back handed complement by "conservative" david brooks. basically what he's saying is that romney will betray conservatives, on taxes and obamacare.

wyo sis said...

There may be some things about AKB that Inga doesn't understand.

john marzan said...

if you gave david brooks a lie detector test and ask him which candidate would you vote for in 2012, obama or romney, how would this conservative NYT columnist answer?

Lynn Meadows said...

Mr. Romney is the joke that keeps getting retold, each time a little differently.

If you placed all his positions end to end he would appeal to everyone. If you asked him for just one position on each issue he would appeal to no one.

yashu said...

Oh, I didn't bother to actually read the Brooks article.

Like others here, I don't put much stock in anything he says, especially anything related to Obama. (I'll say this much, he has slightly more credibility than David Frum. Which means, I guess, I want to c***-p**** him less often.)

But I know endorsing Romney vs. Obama must have been an extremely wrenching experience for him. I almost feel sorry for him (not really).

chickelit said...

Lynn Maddows imagines:

If you placed all [Romney's] positions end to end he would appeal to everyone. If you asked {Obama] for just one position on each issue he would appeal to no one.

Missionary is still more appealing to most than anal. Especially with women.

Comanche Voter said...

Boy the comments at the NYT on Brooks' piece are from another planet. Obama is a reasonable fellow held hostage by intransigent republicans and Romney is a shape shifting tool of the plutocrats.

Well the commenters are as far out there as the asteroid formrnly known as the planet Pluto.

creeley23 said...

Mr. Romney is the joke that keeps getting retold, each time a little differently.

LM: Yeah, Obama, you and all of your ilk keep parroting that talking point about Romney.

May it keep you warm on the long cold nights ahead when your side is mostly out of power.

Dante said...

Lynn Meadows Sez:

If you placed all his positions end to end he would appeal to everyone. If you asked him for just one position on each issue he would appeal to no one.

Hah! What did hope and change mean to you? Isn't everyone for it in their own self interested way?

What hope and change were you for?

creeley23 said...

Noemie Emery has an excellent column today about what might have been in Obama's presidency:

[Obama] had two choices [after Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's seat in Jan, 2010]. One was to scale down his health care bill to a few proposals which could have won broad approval, try to win over some centrist Republicans, and have a small but real win he could take to the public. The other, which he chose, was to go big: ram the bill back through the House of Representatives, enrage the people already against him, and add to their number those made as angry by the procedure as others had been by the bill.

Obama went big. He won, but he shredded his party, put a huge head of wind behind his opponents, and now has a bill he can't cite in mixed company. He lost the House, lost independents, and may lose this election. He wanted too badly to be "historic." Sometimes "historic" describes a defeat.


Despite all the talk from the left about how compromised, centrist or even right-wing Obama is, Obama was always going hard to the left, as in the huge case of healthcare, whenever it was possible.

It seemed to me that if Obama had backed off strategically, as Emery suggests, he would have gotten more done and been invulnerable in this year's election.

creeley23 said...

But I know endorsing Romney vs. Obama must have been an extremely wrenching experience for him. I almost feel sorry for him (not really).

yashu: It's a wonderfully craven, non-endorsement endorsement. Brooks can't bring himself to actually recommend Romney, and he can't let on that Obama has failed, but Brooks has to admit that Romney's the guy who can get the big stuff done.

Well, surely we are at a crucial juncture when the "big stuff" must get done. But Brooks can't admit that either.

Along the way Brooks lashes out repeatedly at Romney, Republicans, the House Republicans and, worst of all, the "Tea Party extremists."

Most ungracious. And another bitter clue that Obama has lost this election.

furious_a said...

Well the commenters are as far out there as the asteroid formrnly known as the planet Pluto.

Wait 'til Nov 7 hits them like Chicxulub hit Yucatan.

furious_a said...

Lindsey: Mr. Romney is the joke that keeps getting retold...

"I, Willard Mitt Romney, do solemnly swear..."

Heh.

Darrell said...

Why is the Althouse blog down?

DNS attack? Google servers out?

Matthew Sablan said...

"It seemed to me that if Obama had backed off strategically, as Emery suggests, he would have gotten more done and been invulnerable in this year's election."

-- Man. I wish when I repeated common wisdom like Emery does I could get published in papers.

deborah said...

There seems to be no common sense with Obama. Going to bed early during the Benghazi attack, not attending (as usual) his security briefing the next morning, flying off to Vegas. Sorry to go Godwin, but his ego and judgement approach Hitlerian proportions. Has he completely slipped control of his handlers?

tim in vermont said...

You would think that Brooks would stand by his man, after all, remember the crease in those mom jeans Bamster sported that time in the World Series?

Should have sent tingle number two up Brooksie's spine.

tim in vermont said...

I think Akin might win in MO, but cost Scott Brown his seat in MA by association.

You read it here first, and maybe the only time, but I think that will be the impact of Akin.

roesch/voltaire said...

A Romney win will bring about a perfect storm for America, and his so-called willingness to work with Democrats based on his record in Mass is just hot air.The Neo-cons who surround him, and the Tea Party to whom he owes much will urge him to cut Fema, Education etc.. THis man is one of the most devious and dishonest persons to run for president; I trust him not.

Saint Croix said...

sorry, I quit reading david brooks a a long time ago. he is usually so far off the mark, and as the "resident conservative" at the NYT, he really isnt very conservative.

Ross Douthat is the NYT conservative. I like Douthat.

You have to have a strong character to resist the crowd. Clearly Brooks isn't up to that.

Contrast Althouse! She resists the entire liberal world of Madison, Wisconsin. She creates a libertarian blog that attracts all sorts of brilliant minds. And then she resists all the hillbillies (like me!) in her comments.

Love it. Althouse is awesome, while Brooks is squishy and weak.

And they are both political moderates! Yet Althouse is a fierce-fighting moderate who stakes out her positions with clarity. Brooks is a Republican because his father was a Republican, and his grandfather was a Republican, and that's how they do it on the Mayflower.

Althouse is a sharp, open-minded thinker who listens to Rush Limbaugh. There is no way in hell that David Brooks listens to Rush Limbaugh. And yet Brooks has strong opinions on Rush.

Are those his opinions? Ha! He heard his opinions and he regurgitates his opinions. He's a vacuous, dull mind. Perfect to lull you to sleep on NPR.

galdosiana said...

David Brooks is the columnist my liberal friends in Madison like to quote when they say they read articles written by conservatives.

galdosiana said...

(Of course, I suppose saying "liberal friends in Madison" is a bit redundant.)

Saint Croix said...

The NYT and the Washington Post and the L.A. Times have all started to cover Benghazi.

And I'd like to welcome these newspapers to the business of journalism. Glad you could join us!

Although, to be fair, the L.A. Times and the Post are only, at this point, offering opinion about the journalism that other people are doing. But hey, that's a start! At least you're telling your readers to look elswhere for their news. Good for you!

a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...

Looking forward to the special Massachusetts edition of Althouse and 'Where Scott Brown Lost Me.' To forestall that, no 'huh's please, let me point out that Scott Brown has not been seen in shorts.

EMD said...

Obama said he would try to recreate the Obama-Boehner budget deal of two summers ago, with $2.50 of spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. Then he’d try immigration reform. Then he’d cut corporate tax rates as part of corporate reform. Then he’d “weed out” unnecessary regulations.

He's never really shown the enthusiasm for doing any of these things, has he?

Marshal said...

I don't know how we could possibly get bipartisan reform with the Democrats committed to ever more spending, nor do I believe bipartisanship is a goal unto itself. Compromising with nuts doesn't improve policy. Bush already tried it and we discovered what we already knew. Democrats will undermine the resulting policies and remove anything resembling accountability by executive privilege and bureaucratic fiat.

The best policy is for the adults to take the steps we need to reduce spending and dare the children to filibuster it. Then we run a few more of them out of town and try again.

tim in vermont said...

"THis man is one of the most devious and dishonest persons to run for president; I trust him not."

Shall we get into the long long list of Obama's lies?

Here's a freebie: "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan."

Sam L. said...

Does anyone really care what David Brooks thinks? Other than the NYT? If them?

Marshal said...

tim in vermont said...
"THis man is one of the most devious and dishonest persons to run for president; I trust him not."

Shall we get into the long long list of Obama's lies?

Here's a freebie: "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan."


I like the implicit distinction. Obama's a liar, but he isn't devious because we all know he's lying - like when he said he would cut the deficit. Romney's devious because he's so damn believable.

Synova said...

If you like your plan you get to keep you plan....

My first or second day calling I got an old lady who, when I asked my (deliberately) general question about Obama and the economy started yelling about how she was the first victim of Obamacare. She lost her health insurance. First thing. She had a great plan she'd probably had forever and even medicare was way more expensive. She yelled for a while about being 82 and on and on and then started bawling... big sobbing gasps of bawling.

It was probably my worst experience in months. It was horrible. I couldn't tell her Romney would win and even if he did, there is no way she's ever getting her medical insurance back again. It's gone forever.

Bender said...

It is aggravating in the extreme when, despite their seeing the disaster that Obama/Dem policies have brought, we once again have some Establishment-type tell us that the answer is not to utterly reject those policies, not to adopt conservative policies, but to instead implement Obama-lite and Dem-lite policies, that the answer is not to destroy the Dems and render them harmless, but to accomodate them and do what they want to do.

And, of course that is what Romney is going to do. That is why many of us have been so loathe to vote for him.

It has long been clear that if Obama wins, conservatives will have an opponent in the White House. And if Obama loses, conservatives will have an opponent in the White House.

Marshal said...

Bender said...
And if Obama loses, conservatives will have an opponent in the White House.


It is likely true that Romney's instincts are not fully conservative, but Romney pressured by a House Tea Party caucus might turn out better than expected. And he is certainly better than Obama in any case.

Bender said...

Romney pressured by a House Tea Party caucus might turn out better than expected.

Only if he goes along with such pressure. Only if he realizes that the country is better off working with conservatives than it is by working with the Dems.

Will he do that? Or will he end up working against the people who put him in office, will he end up taking Dem initiatives and ram them down the throats of conservatives who will be pressured to go along? Or will he end up offering weak-tea, half-assed measures because he thinks that that is all he can get, because he does not want to engage in the hard work to do what is necessary (which has been the case under the "leadership" of Boehner)?

Marshal said...

Bender said...
Only if he realizes that the country is better off working with conservatives than it is by working with the Dems.


Romney is only half the election. Those who prefer less spending have to elect enough congresspeople with that motivation that Romney has no choice but to work with them.

Synova said...

Romney can only sign what the Congress sends to him.