David Brooks -- Adam Sandler or Diogenes?

[nixonwasbetterthanW]

In his last two NYT columns, Brooks leaves me confused. Is he, like Adam Sandler, a waterboy (for the GOPocrisy), or is he, like Diogenes, searching for an honest (Republican) man?

Last week, he followed the party line on the CIA, swallowing and then expectorating the swill about nefarious libs and the need to rid the agency of them and their Kerry-loving agenda.

Today, however, he writes an eye-opening piece that calls Tom DeLay, in so many words, a spineless and corrupt political boss.

Give the man credit. At least he knows how to surprise a jaundiced reader.

[chieftain]

1. I give him no credit for anything .

This Safire wannabe called anyone who had the temerity to criticize the neo cons "anti-semites" . And then when the outcry got too loud , he suggested that he was only joking . What a tool . The significance of the Delay column is not that Brooks has seen the light , it is that the Republicans , probably led by Rove , have decided to cut their losses with this soon to be indicted felon .

[nixonwasbetterthanW]

3. yes, that makes more sense.

And yet, assuming the spin is Rove's, the column makes me much more hopeful about what will happen to DeLay. I don't think they would trail-balloon this unless matters were coming to a head fairly soon; perhaps the White House has got reason to believe that the DeLay indictment is close to certain; Rove needs to telegraph GOP House members to find a new majority leader, quickly.

I'd forgotten about Brooks' retreat on the antisemitic accusation. What a weasel.

[MisterP]

2. waterboy

during the Invasion of Iraq, he said that eventually, those heathen Europeans will come around and thank us for removing Saddam's WMD threat.

[JI7]

4. Brooks is a right winger but tries to appeal to liberals and moderates

so he can have influence on them. he wants to be seen as fair so we don't blow him off.

but there is a pattern with him in that he tries to appeal to liberals but always ends up on the side of the right wing.

just like that stupid apology to Kerry for misrepresenting what Kerry said. he only apologized AFTER the election. nothing to lose at that point.

i think he is married to some democrat or liberal woman so he probably has an idea of how we think or live in a "non political" sense.

[Snellius]

5. Maybe he's trying to revive his shriveling raison d'etre

Ever since joining the Times, Brooks' faked intellect has finally caught up with him. He's always been in that mold of phony conservative pundits like Buckley or George Will or Tucker Carlson, who try to make up for their lack of real insight or erudition with a prissy show of ivy-league affectations. As if, if they sounded Yaley enough, mystified readers wouldn't bother to ask whether they made any sense or not. Unfortunately, the readers of the Times are not as stupid as his old audience at the Weekly Standard.

Attacking DeLay is always a safe bet, even though he's afraid to admit the real goon in his mob is someone else.