"This is a campaign marker, not a jobs bill."
I wasn't going to link to that. Because everybody's linking to that, and it doesn't seem right to give so much attention to someone who's realizing that so late in the game. (For example, Rush Limbaugh knew the "jobs" bill was a just a campaign marker the instant it was announced that Obama was going to give a speech about the jobs bill.)
But I think it is kind of a big deal that David Brooks is saying this so clearly and conspicuously from his perch at the NYT. Obviously, Obama will see it, and it matters that even the people who dearly want to believe in your sincerity don't believe anymore.
२० सप्टेंबर, २०११
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
७९ टिप्पण्या:
(For example, Rush Limbaugh knew the "jobs" bill was a just a campaign marker the instant it was announce that Obama was going to give a speech about the jobs bill.)
For example, 90% of the people who comment on this blog.
DAD-
Beat me to that.
As our resident bellicose thread carpet bomber, long since shot down apparently, used to remark...
duh
Obama is effectively a lame duck.
I haven't noticed, has Obama quit having his pants pressed?
Thought that was the only thing that would cause Brooks to turn on him.
Brooks says: "To be an Obama admirer is to toggle from being uplifted to feeling used."
Woah. Don't tell me the useful idiots are waking up!!
I'm torn. Is a strong primary challenge to POTUS a good thing or a bad thing for a prospective GOP candidate?
I couldn't agree with him any more. He is a sap, and an idiot. A special kind of idiot to write the following Dem talking point with a straight face:
"The White House has clearly decided that in a town of intransigent Republicans and mean ideologues, it has to be mean and intransigent too."
Do they not remember the circumstances around how Obamacare was passed? That was the defenition of mean ideologue.
You could replace David Brooks with Ann Althouse, couldn't you?
Admit it Ann. Barack was a mistake.
My guess is Obama would cling to the part where Brooks says:
"The president believes the press corps imposes a false equivalency on American politics. We assign equal blame to both parties for the dysfunctional politics when in reality the Republicans are more rigid and extreme. There’s a lot of truth to that, but at least Republicans respect Americans enough to tell us what they really think. "
I'm glad to know the president thinks that (such a whiner!) but I've got to know why Brooks believes there is any truth to it. I think Obama will just see that line as confirmation that the press is now out to get him.
I guess I read it wrong. Brooks sounded tongue in cheek to me. So he was admitting that Obama chumped him?
The Other McCain does a good explanation:
And here is why you’re a sap, Brooks: You looked at the long era of Republican ascendance (1981-2006) and decided that the cause of GOP policy failure was that Republicans were too conservative. Ergo, you reasoned, some sort of “moderate” bipartisan compromise was the solution. But the failures of the GOP are due to other reasons entirely — including the constant stream of disinformation flowing from the media — and so the bipartisan compromise approach you recommend only leads to Democrat victories.
He voted for someone other than John McCain too. So on the suitability of Old Man McCain, you too are sympatico.
"Fool me once shame on me.." We all know the rest, professor. Like yourself I supported Obama the first time. The wave of independents that crested and surfed Obama into the WH is now an undertow, carrying him out to sea.
I'm a sap is a lot easier to type than how McCain lost me. No offense, Professor.
Shorter version of Brooks: Obama lied.
Brooks does make the often ignored point that increase of taxes on actually wealthy will not make a dent in the Tsunami of debt...that is the big lie.
My first impression was that it was a present for his hommies (his far left base) and it would do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to reduce unemployment so long as the Administration continues its regulatory war on business (e.g. NLRB, EPA, DOJ, IRS, DHS, etc.)
The sentiment is no surprise, only that it's so simply stated and prominently displayed in the NYT.
To go all Carol Herman on it: I somehow picture this article like a scene from Scooby Doo, that just by virtue of being printed starts with a Scooby "ruh-roh" for the President, before Fred Jones (played by Brooks) rips the mask off the marauding Recession Monster to reveal it as the pretending-to-help but actually-self-serving Barack Obama (for the small percentage of the audience that hadn't already figured that out).
Instead of slavishly believing White House spin why didn’t Brooks (and others) as journalists challenge the facts of the stimulus program, instead of propagating WH spin and acting as a PR stooge.
Not only a Sap but Pathetic.
Don't worry folks. Davie will be back on the (Canadian) bus before you know it. Interesting as well that NYT closed comments on his column.
I think folks are giving too much credit. Reading between the lines, Brooks remains ready to blame the rest of us for ruining what, for one brief shining moment, could have been.
So now Obama may win via the sympathy vote. Cads have been using that forever to get people to do what they know they shouldn't. The morning after is a hard day.
Can you really keep your job at the NYT after you have admitted you're not very bright??
OK.....dumb question.
I don't know, you-all seem cheery. I'm offended. So resign, Mr. Brooks. Are you actually planning to write a column next week, knowing that people will read it, and pay you for it?
I think Tom from VA is correct: Brooks "confession" of being a sap reads to me more like a statement that those "mean republicans" ought to be less intransigent, so the Object of His Affection doesn't have to be mean and ideological. It's still not Obama's fault, or Brooks' fault. It's still the Republicans. "You made me hit you."
Saw Brooks walk by while eating dinner last week. He has always irritated me since his days on Newshour with Lehrer. His dull obsequiousness is the problem. I don't know how to react to his self confession now, though. Everybody, left and right are arming themselves with a critical critique of Obama and beating themselves up for insurance later, you know in case Obama loses badly.
What type of a sap are you and where is your confession, Althouse?
word verification: maska {can't believe it, in Indian it means to ingratiate}
Maybe Brooks needs to get out of the game for awhile.
Maybe he should go write a book on the social sciences, how they're transforming America into a post-racial society via the frontiers of evo-psy with some political and economic analysis thrown in.
Catchy title. Big Debut at the Aspen festival, promo tour at the Times and the WSJ. Back in the game.
(For example, Rush Limbaugh knew the "jobs" bill was a just a campaign marker the instant it was announced that Obama was going to give a speech about the jobs bill.)
Limbaugh is a straight shooter isn't he? Obama knew Republicans wouldn't work with him on anything, but he went ahead with his plan anyway! Which means he wants to get reelected. Christ!
Brooks is starting to morph into MoDo. And Obama's starting to look like Brigid O'Shaughnessy to them both...
All we've got is the fact that maybe you love me and maybe I love you. ... But suppose I do? What of it? Maybe next month I won't. I've been through it before – when it lasted that long. Then what? Then I'll think I played the sap.
--The Maltese Falcon
Garage,
Your contention that Obama really believes his bill will work is more of an indictment than Rush's.
Go easy on the President, he having a rough time. Brooks now knows he's a liar, but you think he's stupid.
I think you're both right.
Convincing the NYT readership that Obama is wasting vast sums of taxpayer money on futile, politically-motivated boondoggles won't do any good. Somehow, we've got to convince them that Obama is Texan.
"I don't know how to react to his self confession now, though. Everybody, left and right are arming themselves with a critical critique of Obama and beating themselves up for insurance later, you know in case Obama loses badly."
The Devil made me vote for Obama. I didn't want to do it. The devil made me do it. He snuck up behind me in the voting booth. I heard him tippy-toeing up behind me. I didn't want to look around, 'cause I knew it was the devil, but he peeked over my shoulder and said, "Hey mama, all the cool people are voting for Obama." I said, "Cut that out, devil!" but he kept at me, telling me how smart I'd be if I just pulled that little lever ...
Don't most of us know what Rush is going to say about Obama before he says it? Nothing against Rush, but it's not rocket science. Obama has to be the most predictable president in all of American history.
After all, you can't take a man with absolutely no practical experience and make him president of the United States, and expect a good outcome.
And when we think of all the things that require executive experience, being president is pretty high on the list. Certainly higher than running a fried chicken outlet, or even a Potemkin village powered by solar.
"Saw Brooks walk by while eating dinner last week..."
And... apparently you had no beer at hand.
wv: cantruff -- "cantruff up the sap, it wouldn't be sportsmanlike.)
Your contention that Obama really believes his bill will work is more of an indictment than Rush's.
Most in the GOP probably think it will work, that's why they won't support it. I mean, I beleive most in the GOP can read, and most have seen or heard of the CBO scoring. Perhaps they even read Moodys scoring the bill at 1.9 millions jobs added and growing the economy by 2%. Or, maybe you're right, maybe they only listen to Limbaugh and they would never knows these things.
Today on CNBC, Andrew Ross Sorkin, who is a reliable liberal (from the NY Times) said the President's plan was a huge dissappointment for moderates and independents because it disregarded the realities of compromise (i.e. Obama has moved way left).
Sorkin agreed with Boehner in a way that real spending reform has to come first before revenues.
Obama cannot win re-election with just liberals and minorities. That only gets him to 40%.
Apology not accepted
Kirk Parker said...
"Saw Brooks walk by while eating dinner last week..."
And... apparently you had no beer at hand.
---------------------
Are you questioning my veracity? :) In fact Biden and his wife were leaving just as we were approaching the restaurant. You know some 4-5 black humongous SUVs and men looking all serious and a handful of people gawking, one with camera. I didn't stop and gawk but asked the guy about what was going on. Restaurant staff were all excited but most others including those on the street were, 'meh' like me.
Brooks apotheosis nothwithstanding, I am interested in whom the progressive wing of the dems might put up as a alternative during the primary season. Short of Russ Feingold, I dont see any valid choices.
"Obama knew the Republicans wouldn't work with him on anything, but he went ahead with his plan anyway! Which means he wants to get reelected! Christ!"
No, garage, what it "means" is that Obama is betting the same 52% who put his coke-snorting affirmative action ass in office are as stupid - or as willfully ignorant - as you. The SCOAMF says he's proposing $580 billion in cuts, but he also wants $1.5 trillion in new taxes. As the Washington Times (yes, garage, I know they're partisan hacks who only want Little Black Jesus to fail, but I put this out for the non-mouth breathers on the blog) says, "Mr. Obama said his plan calls for $2 in cuts for every $1 in tax increases, but he reaches that by re-counting cuts already in law or in the planning pipeline, and by factoring in lower debt service costs."
Preznit Stutterfuck isn't looking for this "bill" to pass, and if the GOP had any stones, they'd put it up for a vote and make the Democrats choke on it. They're all fake proposals with (as Ace says) poison pills designed to piss off Republicans.
He still thinks his golden voice will sway the fools like Impeccable Crease Brooks. He's going to go out there, as has been pointed out, to try a Harry Truman and berate a do-nothing Congress that won't cooperate with poor, sweet, reasonable Barack. For all the bleating clowns like you did about the Republicans "holding the country hostage" during the debt ceiling talks, your tinplate messiah is planning to deliberately trash the economy because he thinks he can get some votes from people like you.
A cynical, disgusting, seditious and malicious strategy. In other words, Democrat SOP.
A reasonable position for conservatives to take would be that revenues will be on the table once the Government can balance the current budget under the current rules (i.e. cut spending first). Once the budget is balanced, new revenues can be used to pay down the existing debt. I think this is now Boehner's position.
If we raise massive taxes on the rich to try to close to deficit.... who will pay off the existing debt?
Obama cannot win re-election with just liberals and minorities.
What about the women.
Brooks manages one evocative image:
But each time he gets close, he rips the football away.
Obama is his own Lucy to his own Charlie Brown.
If you're a sap and really believe this, you believe that Obama is ultimately self-destructive. This is the comforting notion that the great man has a fatal flaw. Alas.
If you're not a sap you know that Brooks is wrong. Obama wants to hold the football; he never, NEVER, wants to kick it. Charlie Brown is a mensch and a hero because he never shies away from the action. He is always ready to lead, even if it means humiliation and defeat.
Obama is the second stringer on the sidelines offering advice to the tired starters when they come off the field. God forbid that his uniform get dirty.
"1.9 millions jobs added"
@ 250k a job? What could be wrong with that?
Almost Ali said...
Obama cannot win re-election with just liberals and minorities.
What about the women.
--------------------
If all women are like Ann and something tells me that they are suckers for 'all that glitters', we know what the outcome will be.
being an Obama sap isn't special. it's quite common.
Seems to me that Mr Obama has thrown this piece crap out to enable him to run a la Harry Truman again a recalcitrant republican congress--It worked for Harry--it aint going to work for jug ears
"A reasonable position for conservatives to take would be that revenues will be on the table once the Government can balance the current budget under the current rules (i.e. cut spending first). Once the budget is balanced, new revenues can be used to pay down the existing debt."
Yes.
Today on CNBC, Andrew Ross Sorkin, who is a reliable liberal (from the NY Times) said the President's plan was a huge dissappointment for moderates and independents because it disregarded the realities of compromise (i.e. Obama has moved way left).
-------------
In fact Byron York has an interesting article in that regard. Obama has done everything the Dems wanted him to do, but why are they still beating him up? Pyrrhic victory anyone?
From a political perspective seems to me Mr Boehner should let the proposal come up for a vote in the house--there arent many democrats whose seats are threatened going to sign up for a tax increase--obamas stupidity will fail
republicans are doing an excellent job of giving Mr Obama all the rope he needs to hang himself (oops--no racist intent)--continue the march and let mr obama swing.
pm317,
No, not at all, I'm saying you blew it--how did you miss that beer is how we deal with dweebs now.
He's a sap. And people read him and take him seriously. Those people are bigger saps.
He is a sappy bore.
Peter: David Brooks is the kind of conservative that liberals like to invite to cocktail parties--nothing more, nothing less
@ 250k a job? What could be wrong with that?
Heck, they'll practically pay for themselves once the quarter-millionaire-tax goes into effect.
The president believes the press corps imposes a false equivalency on American politics. We assign equal blame to both parties for the dysfunctional politics when in reality the Republicans are more rigid and extreme. There’s a lot of truth to that, but at least Republicans respect Americans enough to tell us what they really think.
Would that Republicans had been more rigid and extreme in defense of fiscal sanity. Brooks is one of those who has it seared into his brain that, yeah, the Dems are bad, but the Republicans are always worse, no matter what.
At least this is progress for him, though, in that his man-love for Obama is fairly close to shattered. Same with 90 percent of the other Obama sycophants of the last few years.
Nevertheless, there is still enough of that residual man-love -- or more accurately, genetic knee-jerk hatred of Republicans and conservatives -- that they will direct their disappointment, not at Obama. but will turn it on the Republicans.
Sap, eh? Not the word I'd use for you Brooks, no, not at all.
Kirk Parker said...
pm317,
No, not at all, I'm saying you blew it--how did you miss that beer is how we deal with dweebs now.
----------------
Oh, I get it.. I missed that other post. I would not waste my beer on that dull bastard though.
I don't understand what everyone's whining about. Obama was elected to be our first black president (he had no other qualifications for the job.) He is still black. So what's the problem?
garage mahal said...
Your contention that Obama really believes his bill will work is more of an indictment than Rush's.
Most in the GOP probably think it will work, that's why they won't support it. I mean, I beleive most in the GOP can read, and most have seen or heard of the CBO scoring. Perhaps they even read Moodys scoring the bill at 1.9 millions jobs added and growing the economy by 2%. Or, maybe you're right, maybe they only listen to Limbaugh and they would never knows these things.
9/20/11 9:28 AM
Dude, seriously, I am an employer of over 50 people. The size of business that employs the bulk of the private sector. The jobs plan is a disaster. It guarantees that unless its an absolutely necessary hire employers will not hire. It does encourage the hell out of outsourcing and using temp labor to the max wherever possible. The only jobs the democrat plan will increase are public sector jobs and a relative few private sector jobs the contract for the public sector.
Obama's tax the rich nonsense will blow up in his face. Really rich people have options, they can take their and run and there is nothing Uncle Sam can do about it. The not so rich will take it in the shorts and reduce their expenses causing layoffs among those who depend on them. If my taxes go up and I can't increase my income I have to cut my variable expenses since I can't immediately cut my fixed expenses. That means cutting discretionary spending on a personal level and reducing staff where possible and any other possible expense such as benefits to the staff.
Sooner rather than later the government will hit a borrowing wall, a tax raising wall and the the cuts will come. Reality cannot be denied.
All this means is that the
Establishment Media realizes the Lefty agenda is going down in flames and they're trying to make it look as if they opposed GodZero all along.
Won't work.
Scott M said...
I'm torn. Is a strong primary challenge to POTUS a good thing or a bad thing for a prospective GOP candidate?
If history is any indicator, it's a very good thing.
garage mahal said...
(For example, Rush Limbaugh knew the "jobs" bill was a just a campaign marker the instant it was announced that Obama was going to give a speech about the jobs bill.)
Limbaugh is a straight shooter isn't he? Obama knew Republicans wouldn't work with him on anything, but he went ahead with his plan anyway!
The words, "I won", ring any bells?
Garage gets his bell rung daily but he never hears it.
As far as this "vote on the bill now" nonsense goes -- it is still being reported (very quietly) that Obama's actual bill still has not been filed in the House. Thus, there is nothing to vote on.
And it looks like Harry Reid only introduced it in the Senate on Sept. 13, only to put it on the calendar for next month (SR 1549). There are no CBO estimates of the bill yet.
There are no CBO estimates of the bill yet.
That simply cannot be. Garage says there is.
That simply cannot be. Garage says there is.
But then garbage also said that the Republicans also know that Stimulus II would work, and that is why they are opposing it. Always a font of subjective reality.
I thought that someone had a great idea above - calling it the quarter-millionaire tax (or, apparently, maybe even a fith-millionaire tax). That would, of course, be more honest than calling it a milliare's tax. Except, of course, being a millionaires or a billionaires is based on assets, not income, and by the income standard, Warren Buffet would be a low millionaire, if that (ignoring his billions in unrealized capital gains not taxed by the IRS).
Dear David,
You had me at "I'm a sap". After that not so much.
garage mahal said...
Most in the GOP probably think it will work, that's why they won't support it. I mean, I beleive most in the GOP can read, and most have seen or heard of the CBO scoring
Please provide a link to this CBO scoring of the Obama Jobs Bill.
Please bozo, I can't wait to read it.
Bender said...
As far as this "vote on the bill now" nonsense goes -- it is still being reported (very quietly) that Obama's actual bill still has not been filed in the House. Thus, there is nothing to vote on.
And it looks like Harry Reid only introduced it in the Senate on Sept. 13, only to put it on the calendar for next month (SR 1549). There are no CBO estimates of the bill yet.
9/20/11 10:48 AM
If Boehner was a bit more savvy he would introduce his own jobs bill. A bill that would jack taxes up on the blue states with things like the repeal of the tax deductibility of local income taxes, tax the difference between rent controlled rents and market rents, hit non profit employees with a 35% surcharge on their incomes. Remove the tax deductibility of charitable giving to NGO's and other orgs that are not primarily religious or are not directly giving charity or performing scientific research. Tax the endowments of non profits income and the same for foundations that have outlived their founders. All green energy tax credits and every deduction and credit that benefits mostly democrats. The republicans can vote for it unanimously in both the house and senate and enjoy the show as the democrats first rage and then vote against in the senate. That will blow the class warfare playbook of theirs in their face. It will be a great piece of theater to expose their phoniness.
"Obama has done everything the Dems wanted him to do, but why are they still beating him up?"
Seems those great progressive ideas have put the country in the shitter. That's why they're so unhappy (though most/all of them don't understand that).
Reality's a bitch.
Brooks is, and will remain, a donk. What gets me is even if you did believe this was a jobs bill, straight from the horse's mouth, unless you are a teacher, construction worker, or home rehabber, you are SOOL.
Fred4Pres said...
You could replace David Brooks with Ann Althouse, couldn't you?
Admit it Ann. Barack was a mistake
============
In 2008 people generally believed John McCain was going to be a dismal President and worse than Bush. A fairly stupid guy who was war thirsty for new Neocon Adventures starting with Iran. And clueless on the economy, with a long tradition of stabbing Republicans in the back in doing deeds that pleased the NY Times.
With Obama, people didn't know because of his lack of record. Good chance he would be dismal as well. A shot he might work out OK.
McCain of course shot his "experienced and solid" creds all to pieces by 1st picking an inexperienced VP to back up an old man with a serious cancer history. Then by running about panicked and incoherent in the economic crisis.
Very few people, even Republicans, are playing the regret game - "Gosh, if only the Hero POW and his wise hilbilly hockey Mom had been elected!!" - as both lost even more favor after the election. People also recognize that McCain would have just about destroyed the Republican Party as he rushed to Pelosi and Reid to craft "bipartisan bailouts" and to close GITMO and get support for his wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Georgia, Sudan, Somalia, and mainly - deal with 250 dollar a barrel oil caused by his big new war to "help our dear friend Israel and uplift the noble Iranian freedom lovers."
The mess Bush left was beyond the abilities of McCain or Obama. Worse, we are now sort of realizing the mess was not just Bush and Wall Street and money-spending Democrats and unfunded wars of adventure - it was from almost 40 years of bad decisions in Europe and 30 years in America - not just Bush, but decisions also made by free traders, globalists, advocates of the Euro welfare state, Reaganomics...
And it will take years and years to correct...if we are fortunate. Otherwise, China and free trade for freedom lovers - wins.
sorepaw - sucked up in two major wars with huge financial and economic problems - now is not the time nor would have 2008 - 2011 been the time if Hero POW was elected - for a 3rd major US-caused elective war of choice and 250 a barrel oil and a global Depression.
The zionists would dearly love to suck us into that folly and make us pay the full price for doing so. But if the US had launched that new adventure, it would have been without allies or support of the American public. (and no, Israel sitting on the sidelines and smiling as US lives and treasure were lost in a John McCain splendid war - is not an ally.)
*************
2008 was an awful choice. Most people by November sort of knew John McCain was an awful candidate and bound to be an awful President..but the alternative was an inexperienced charismatic.
Perhaps McCain helped that decision along when he decided that his own inexperienced charismatic Palin was perfectly fit to take over from him if his cancer came back.
Both Althouse & Brooks may have voted for Obama, but beyond that there's no comparison.
Since O's been in office, Althouse has been sharp & unsparing in her scrutiny & critique. She hasn't held on to a fantasy, rationalizing & spinning, unsceptically swallowing (& then purveying to her readers) the O talking points, willfully blind & in denial, championing & defending everything Obama has done, in order to justify that 3-year-old vote-- as Brooks, ostensibly a Republican, has disgracefully done. And still does, even now, even as he admits he's a sap.
If Althouse doesn't regret her vote today, I think that's largely because Obama's presidency has put the USA through a kind of political catharsis, as Victor Davis Hanson puts it. I think that's true; and in that sense an Obama presidency has been salutary. Like a purgative.
In any case, that vote is in the past. Althouse's evaluations of Obama, not as candidate but as president, show her faculty of judgment is intact. Whereas the fog of Brooks's delusion-- & worse, abetting the delusion of others from his perch at the NYT-- is indefensible.
Garage:
Let me explain some Keynsian economics to you.
Y = C + I + G
If you want Y to grow through a government stimulus Then the delta G has to make the sum of three components larger. If you "pay" for the stimulus then C + I + G is the same as it was before so there is no change in Y. That the nature of the Obama jobs plan. So the sources you quote say that his plan creates nearly 2 million jobs are full of it. The same models predicted his previous stimulus would keep the unemployment rate below 8%. These models are garbage in/garbage out. Well actually they are just garbage
I am a former member of a the Economics faculty of a Big Ten Univeristy.
> Admit it Ann. Barack was a mistake.
Ann can always argue that McCain would have been worse. For example, she could argue that, sans McCain as President, the Republican Party have been better able to cope with reality. There is considerable merit to this argument. OTOH, sans Obama, the Democratic Party might have been better able to cope with reality. They surely are not coping well with it now.
Yours,
Tom
Who didn't know that? Obama hasn't had an original thought in his life. Now he's going to try the
"Give 'em hell, Harry!" approach, but that's so 1948, the year I was born.
For all the paeans to his intellect, he has turned out to be singularly dull and repetitive.
Brooks IS a sap. It's nice that he woke up in time.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा