When it was Brooks's turn to speak, he began: "Yeah, first of all they should wear sneakers so we can get out of the boots thing."
That is so poor, given the context of death and despair for the Syrian people and Obama's dire predicament. Maybe somewhere behind the scenes — where gallows humor is needed — that joke might be okay, worded less awkwardly. I could imagine political comedian saying something like: Obama said he wanted to very clear and very explicit that he would not put boots on the ground in Syria. Absolutely no boots on the ground. How do you get around that? Sneakers! They're going to be wearing sneakers. Sneakers on the ground!
I'm hearing the comedian in my head and I'm ready to boo him. But David Brooks on "Meet the Press"? How could he possibly have believed that joke was appropriate?
ALSO: Brooks had this advice for Jeb:
If I were him I'd lead with his strengths. And just say, "I'm boring. I'm boring. Is our problem in Washington we don't have enough boringness? No. We've got too much craziness. And so I'm going to be a sedative. I'm going to be a laxative, I guess. You know, I'm going to calm you down."That's sort of good advice — I, myself, want boring politicians — and Jeb pretty much already is doing this. But laxative? Something is very wrong with the mind of Brooks. Maybe he worked on his material when he had more time to drag out the image. "I'm going to be a sedative... I'm going to calm you down" — that makes sense. But why stop in the middle of saying that to bring in "laxative"? Washington is full of shit? The legislative process is constipated?
पोस्ट्स
६१ टिप्पण्या:
I can't stand David Brooks.
On the other hand, we need more offense and less PC.
Well done, Althouse. The American press is basically frivolous. David Brooks enjoys his high status as NY Times columnist & tv commentator, much more than as honest evaluator of what lives are being destroyed in Syria, why and what to do about it.
I like to be frivolous too - but I understand the concept of "time, place & manner". On a national platform, with millions of viewers, we have now seen "moderators" and "opinion makers" on CNBC and Meet the Press show us their true colors. It's not pretty.
I get the boots bit..he's poking fun of the inconsistency..and the absurdity of it given O's repeated line drawing and last wordisms that he has had to weasel out of.
The advice to Jeb IS ridiculous. Bacuse in DC, and the WH in particular, Immodium would be a better choice.
But it's hard to recapture the level of insight he had with regard to O's crease.
Oh, forgot to mention - most of the American press is left-wing, which is a cause of their frivolous-ness.
My guess is the Obama administration is going to take the "joke" to heart and proclaim "Obama didn't put boots on the ground. There are sneakers engaged in kinetic activity."
And the democrats and media will think that is just swell.
Watched the noon re-run of Fox News Sunday with John Roberts, formerly of CBS News, sitting in for Chris Wallace "interviewing" Paul Ryan, and it was apparent that John Roberts has no understanding of what the objections to the CNBC crew at the infamous debate was about.
And this was on Fox!
Don't many sedatives have a constipating effect? So he's saying to be a sedative and a laxative. "I'll calm everything down, but don't worry; I won't let everything get backed up. I'll calm it down but keep the waste going out."
Yeah, I don't see how this would help Jeb Bush.
Jeb eats nails!!
Hold on, are we to assume you think "creases on his pants" David Brooks is a serious person?
Bull. Shit.
Well, 'laxative' made a nice, not-so-boring contrast to 'sedative,' and in doing so was sneakily subversive to boot. It was better than advising Bush to say, 'others want to be the uppers of this season, but I'll be the downer the country really needs!' And using 'laxative' in this context offers a nicely fractured classical subtext, suggesting that Washington is a modern day stables filthier than the one of ancient legend, and to clean it out requires a change in the leaders' inner constitutions --only Jeb! will deal with the source -- rather than mere outwardly heroic labor to get rid of current pile.
Brooks is delightfully off on his own, so much better than another boringly predictable NYT op-eder.
David has lost his way. He so wants "the first black president" to be successful (and in turn David Brooks vote in 2008 and 2012) that he'll do anything except state the obvious: Everything Obama has touched has failed to meet any objective ever set for it. Obama was a political neophyte in 2008, hasn't learned much, and is still a neophyte getting our pockets picked around the world. Millions of people will die because of Obama.
Don't be too hard on Brooks. He's a very, very well respected member of the Press. He's simply anticipating the White House response by a few hours. That's what makes him such a great analyst. Look how well he predicted Obama's greatness.
In other news:
SPRING VALLEY BACKLASH: STUDENTS BACK FIRED DEPUTY WITH #BRINGBACKFIELDS SCHOOL WALKOUT
Yeah, that's the school where a cop was filmed taking down a disruptive black female student. Besides, what do they know, they were only there. Besides, they didn't do it right. No rocks or bottles thrown, no bullhorns, nothing too disruptive so there's no video to go viral. Want to bet on how much press this will get?
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/11/01/spring-valley-backlash-students-back-fired-deputy-bringbackfields-school-walkout/
And so I'm going to be a sedative. I'm going to be a laxative, I guess. You know, I'm going to calm you down.
Opiates for the massahs.
Brooks should stick to his day job whatever that is.
Brooks is a smug fool, but once he was a smug fool who could write. Now it seems he can't even do that. He'll be moderating debates next.
Take a mild diuretic and piss on them all........I'd feel comfortable with Bush as President. He's not in any way inspirational and nothing about him validates my identity. I look to my favorite movie stars and the next Star Wars picture for that jolt like most mature people......I don't think Bush would fare well in a debate with Hillary. He'd make a better President than Presidential candidate.
Brooks is a leftie's idea of what a "proper" conservative ought to be. He's a caricature, with pretensions of erudition.
As regards "boring," I can understand why you'd prefer "boring," Professor, after spending seven years watching Obama lurch from crisis to crisis. But do you not understand how screwed up everything is right now? I don't think a boring "return to normalcy" is going to cut it right now. I think we need a Mr. Fixit, and I'm trying to figure out who among the candidates can best fill that role. I think Fiorina, but she may prove me wrong.
As regards John Ellis Bush, I think that if his name was John Ellis and not John Ellis Bush he'd be laughed off the stage. When we design IT systems we start with "use cases" as a means for describing what it is that the new system is expected to do. And I cannot figure out a "use case" for voting for John Ellis Bush. What is it he can do that other candidates cannot do better? Who, besides his donors, is planning to vote for him.
Make that "no drama Obama" lurching from one crisis to another.
"I, myself, want boring politicians"
No. Since you can can only blog about dogs, fashion and Dylan so much, you want them to be bloggable.
"I don't think a boring "return to normalcy" is going to cut it right now. I think we need a Mr. Fixit, and I'm trying to figure out who among the candidates can best fill that role."
Cruz. But only if he can bring himself to care about the constitution and separation of powers as much as Obama does.
That would be a liberal nightmare, wouldn't it? Even if, in 2016, the Dems regained control of the house and senate.
I think it's a pretty sharp commentary on how the Obama Administration shamelessly weasels out of commitment after commitment once the President's promises reach their expiration date. Even if you think it's a lame joke, however, the President's word games have left thousands dead, not just a bad taste in the mouth. What's truly offensive is that this President's promise of no boots on the ground has emboldened killers and now he wants to make it go away with 50 "advisers".
"But 'laxative'? Something is very wrong with the mind of Brooks."
Probably lack of sleep combined with caffeine overdose.
Those kinds of hyper-nonsense are what someone totally wired on coffee will say.
Maybe he was thinking of the old joke that you should never take a laxative and a sedative at the same time.
Ah, comedy assessment again.
The "sneakers" line is amusing. Not hilarious or anything along that line, but amusing in a snarky sort of way. Obama has made a habit of making firm promises that are disposed of at the moment of inconvenience - I believe the meme is "thrown under the bus" - and then act shocked - shocked! - when you think less of him for it. It's the smartest man in the room is never wrong nonsense and he deserves to be called out, regardless of topic.
Clearly, the target of Mr. Brooks's jab is Obama. The fact that the Syrian people are involved is tangential at best and frankly a stretch to read into this. If we are going to limit comedy to topics that do not cause harm to anyone, anywhere, at any time, in any way, then you have essentially banned comedy. "You made a fat joke. My sister got fat after she got married and her husband left him for a thin girl and my sister committed suicide. You murderer!" As far as offensive Syrian civil war jokes go, then is a 0 on a 1 to 10 scale.
Anyway, there is definitely a "Obama does not have his heart in this announcement" vibe to it. It won't be the first time he has announced something is super important and then did not much of anything.
I agree that the laxative joke makes no sense. Just one of those dumb things people say off the cuff, or really dumb people prepare ahead of time and then use at inappropriate moments.
Brooks's "joke" isn't that much worse than Obama's serial excuses for doing what he said he wouldn't do and vice versa. What Brooks said was basically a parody - a macabre one to be sure, but this Administration's lies are pretty macabre too.
The problem I have is that we are fixated on David brooks horrible joke as opposed to Obama reneging on his pledge to not out boots on the ground. Rather than hearing from brooks d rather hear from pundits who previously defended ibamas claim or are not attacking him now over it.
In defense of brooks I thought that he was just saying the use of "boots on the ground" is a way over used metaphor. And it probably is. However, there aren't many better.
Althouse: "That is so poor, given the context of death and despair for the Syrian people and Obama's dire predicament."
I'm more concerned for those actually in a "dire predicament" due in no small measure to Obama's fecklessness.
Get some perspective people. As long as the university law school pays its instructors who really cares about things outside of Madison? Boring!
Brooks is so high class that he identifies conservative with the doing nothing if it can be helped guys.
His view of Conservatism is seeing life as a late night poker game with the few chips left to play losers hollering Deal and the piled up chips leaders yawning and looking for their coats.
So he LOVES Jeb.
Brooks is widely considered an idiot, I hear. Confirmed here.
The metaphor "sneakers on the ground" precedes "pants on the ground". Or perhaps pants literally preceded the sneakers. It's hard to say with this administration. We may already be at the mooning phase, which is a universal gesture of great contempt, and signal of vulnerability.
The point of inappropriate jokes is refusing the framing of a situation.
Usually framing by those in charge.
Boots on the ground is not being serious. It's pretending serious.
As in That is so poor, given the context of death and despair for the Syrian people and Obama's dire predicament.
That's a "that's not funny!" feminist moment.
"We know how to think and you don't."
As a matter of fact, Washington IS full of shit. And so is David Brooks.
The problem with Brooks is the he is totally irrelevant. Name one great column he ahs written? Too hard? Okay, name one really good column? On the other hand I can name two very good columns Ross Douthat has written this week and I'm not Catholic. And I can name a great column Maureen Dowd wrote recently and I don't even like her other than she hates Hillary.
I didn't watch MTP today and thanks for reminding me why.
Well our hostess believed that the joke that is Obama was appropriate for the nation. So why is she carping on David Brooks?
When a Democrat does glib, it comes across as urbanely sly and ironic.
When a Republican does glib, it looks clumsy and forced, and everyone feigns offense at their lack of gravitas.
"The problem with Brooks is the he is totally irrelevant. "
He serves to provide supposed "counterpoint"..
Similar type folks show up in public radio and tv.
n.n said...
The metaphor "sneakers on the ground" precedes "pants on the ground". Or perhaps pants literally preceded the sneakers. It's hard to say with this administration. We may already be at the mooning phase, which is a universal gesture of great contempt, and signal of vulnerability."
Perhaps a half-moon?
I think n.n. finally received the Cuervo care package I sent him.
(or her..far be it for me to assume)
Huh? You thought that joke inappropriate?
Not me. The joke is that Obama tries to hides behind definitions. And in that regard, the joke was spot on.
Brooks is recently divorced. A typical boomer. All he cares about is himself. Soldiers getting killed are just an abstraction to this guy. He's never sacrificed anything, much less his personal safety. He's as insightful as a football interview.
What's a 'newspaper column'?
An ROTC commander required her male charges to walk to class in uniform except wearing women's heels. Maybe Obama can use this method to avoid putting boots on the ground.
"Oh, forgot to mention - most of the American press is left-wing, which is a cause of their frivolous-ness."
If Jerry Springer or Kim Kardassian or Katy Perry or Big Bird (or the press) help the Left retain power, then the eschaton-inspired-ethos-based result of the actions undertaken can easily be interpreted as successful, specifically the tactic of knowingly dumbing down the populace as it has before and will be again deemed effective, even if only in terms of obeying an understanding of capitalism conveniently being giving "the people" what they want to mutual advantage potentially but without principled objection to covering up things that will hurt the Left if not framed properly repeatedly by Obama or Hillary or The New York Times or NBC et al.
I pray, literally, that your viewpoint is closer, ultimately, to reality than mine regarding this for obvious reasons including I would rather defeat stupid than evil.
For comparison, I consider abortion for convenience separate from anything to do with rape and simply evil in most but not all cases, and opposition to a woman's choice to have an abortion if she was raped in my belief is callously and stupidly denying the here-and-now access to liberty and a life/existence/being without reminder of a tragic event, in order in large part I assume for a future child I don't believe is equal to a child conceived legally and safely, although I am respectful of points of view which value life greatly, even that of Uday Hussein's victims offspring's potential value but more importantly in this Catholic view the inherent, inalienable dignity as an wholly-innocent-and-worthy-of-protection-life with a soul.
Because of the fright change could bring including changes such as a rise in false claims of rape after an unwanted pregnancy and loss of fund-raising ability were national dignity through respect for life to make a comeback in America, I don't see many fundamental changes coming anytime soon to America's barbarous (to much of humanity's standards) blood-money fueled abortion industry.
Certain changes like not allowing fungible taxpayer dollar's to be poisionously spent in Satan's service can happen though.
Actually it's a sizable portion of the American public that is frivolous. 59 million plus or minus a few.
My son Jon served a tour in Iraq (USMC). My nephew Darren (also USMC) served two tours in Afghanistan and wanted to serve a third, but the Corps wanted him elsewhere.
Brooks is an asshole, and that is a term I almost never use about another person, and especially not in a public forum. There's nothing the least bit funny about his 'joke'.
Actually I think it shows that Brooks is not a serious person. For him its all just a show that he gets to comment on in exchange for serious money. Does he really care about this vast tragedy?
bwebster, I understand your personal connection to the policy ramifications but, would it be different if it wasn't Brooks? I think his comment reflects more negatively on Obama's err..variable policies.
Give Brooks a break; he's a tailor, not a doctor.
Guild: "If Jerry Springer or Kim Kardassian or Katy Perry or Big Bird (or the press) help the Left retain power, then the eschaton-inspired-ethos-based result of the actions undertaken can easily be interpreted as successful, specifically the tactic of knowingly dumbing down the populace as it has before and will be again deemed effective, even if only in terms of obeying an understanding of capitalism conveniently being giving "the people" what they want to mutual advantage potentially but without principled objection to covering up things that will hurt the Left if not framed properly repeatedly by Obama or Hillary or The New York Times or NBC et al."
...and the rest.
BN salutes.
BN salutes bwebster too.
BN returns to silence... not worthy.
Obama's "predicament" "law prof"?
You just can't admit that you are so blind that you voted for an illegal Usurper that was wholly unknown, and still is. So ensconced are you in the Ivory Tower of Academia, amidst and the Marxists and control freaks that inhabit it, that you have totally lost touch with reality.
Obama is the death of America, and you can't admit to yourself that you helped do it. Now, to you, no one can be "uncivil" to the band of Marxists that have infiltrated the government. Obama (his handlers) and Clinton are the CAUSE of what is happening in Syria, and the progenitors of ISIS whom they created by arming them through Libya, where we destabilized another fairly secular Muslim country at the behest of the Muslim Bros, who have also invaded the WH (Islam and Marxists go hand in hand). Ambassador Stevens knew about the arming of what is now ISIS and was murdered--- an expendable fag sent to a lawless Muslim country, where his security was undermined and rescue was thwarted by none other than the WH itself. Now the Press and YOU give them all a pass. And that "immigration crisis" of 75% Muslim men fleeing ISIS and their US caused war torn countries--- all planned invasion by the Muslim Bros and aided by the Usurper (his handlers), just like our southern border mess is a PLANNED INVASION. There can be no "national identity" in the NWO. Are you really that blind?
"Predicament" indeed.
Remember, he's one of the "conservative" writers for NYT.
Obama lied, through his teeth, about his plans. And the press isn't going to hound him on it. And if a Republican mentions it, they will just be told that they wanted this ANYWAY and to hush.
Brooks is a leftie's idea of what a "proper" conservative ought to be. He's a caricature, with pretensions of erudition.
Like Rush said, they want Republicans in the pre-Newt mode.
They want, you know, losers.
"Serious" person making stupid joke here
The real joke is Obama. You know, the guy you, and Brooks, voted for.
"Put them all in sneakers" however, is actually funny, if you have a sense of humor.
"That is so poor, given the context of death and despair for the Syrian people and Obama's dire predicament."
Poor Obama, bad things keep happening to him.
The reason you resent the sneakers remark, professor, is because it is an attack on legalism and on the craven Obama administration, both of which hit you where you live.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा