First George Will, Now Krauthammer: Obama Is The Better Candidate. Brooks Lies
As my friends know, I can't stand Charles Krauthammer. First, he's a neocon who has about as much regard for American interests as Nick Sarkozy (i.e, he likes America. He just doesn't identify with it). Second, (stop me if I told this before) he bellowed at the rabbi in synagogue on Yom Kippur 2001 for expressing the hope that Jews and Arabs could coexist peacefully. I mean, he started screaming from his seat in the middle of services. Unforgettable.
But today I give him credit for the best analysis of why Barack Obama should be President: "Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. famously said of Franklin Roosevelt that he had a 'second-class intellect, but a first-class temperament..'" Barack Obama, is better than that. "He's got both a first-class intellect and a first-class temperament. That will likely be enough to make him president."
I give Kraut credit for honesty. The contrast with his New York Times counterpart, David Brooks, is striking.
Krauthammer faces what is, for him, a painful truth. Obama is preferable to McCain.
Brooks simply lies. His column today is a syrupy valentine to Sarah Palin. She "passed the test." She was "surprisingly forceful" on Iraq. She "established debating parity with Joe Biden. And in a country that is furious with Washington, she presented herself as a radical alternative."
Not for a minute do I believe that Brooks believes any of it. I submit that if any of Brooks children discussed public policy with as much ignorance -- not to mention silly grammar and incomprehensible circumlocutions -- as Palin, the very Ivy David Brooks would be appalled. Of course, that couldn't happen. Brooks has smart kids who speak good English.
But Brooks does not hold a candidate for Vice President to the standards to which he holds his teenage children. Fundamentally Brooks thinks that Sarah Palin is a fine representative of the America he has no familiarity with. What do you expect from these dummies?
So he suspends the judgment he would normally apply to people who don't know what an Achilles heel or the two-state solution is, and praises her to the skies. He says he was impressed by her. He wasn't. He sat in front of the screen cringing.
Two-state solution. It was obvious to me that Palin has no idea what it is. She listed it, along with an undivided Jerusalem, as part of the pro-Israel litany she was spoon fed.
No one told her that the two state solution is not part of the "I love Israel" paragraph but part of the "nevertheless, Israel must...."
She just rattled the phrases off. I wish Ifill asked her which two states she meant. No way Palin would have said, "Why Israel and Palestine, of course,"
October 3, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
This clearly seemed a new topic for her, one in whose details she was insufficiently schooled.
As for Brooks--I saw him on PBS after the matchup, and he was unwatchable--not the slightest bit of subtlety. Just a ham fisted shill.
I am quite surprised at Krauthammer--and George Will, as well--I never thought they had it in them.
October 3, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, then, you're just biased in favor of the far-left liberal socialists George Will and Charles Krauthammer.
Which makes you an Obamabot.
By contrast, McCain did jail-time as a POW some 40 years ago.
October 3, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Immediately after the first Bush/Kerry debate (the one where Bush was *amazingly* pathetic) I saw Brooks on TV claiming that Bush had won. I no longer pay attention to anything he writes or says.
October 5, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ: You need to write a column on Olmert's recent comments. I think that the Israeli writer Uri Avnery, or someone from Ha'aretz wrote about a year ago that Bush needed to give Abbas a letter like he gave Sharon. Essentially, America needs to show that Taba is a two-way street: both sides have to be told in no uncertain terms, "You are not going back to the Bible and you are not going back to 1948." It is incomprehensible to me that America has not laid down this marker. It would provide real cover for Abbas regarding Hamas and Livni regarding the lawless settlers.
October 3, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Recently the settlers have been engaged in terrorist bombings -- in Israel.
October 3, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the worst happens and McCain gets elected and then succumbs to old age and Palin inherits, it's frightening to think of who will then be writing her talking points. Will it be the First Dude Todd, Steve Schmidt, her WH staff from K Street or even worse, Dick Cheney at an undisclosed location.
The Democrats should pay Lyda Green to follow Sarah Palin around the country as a truth squad, countering her political lies.
October 5, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brooks seems to forget that she is a "refreshing alternative to Washington" running with a 5 term US Senator.
In the future, when Brooks says something relatively agreeable (which he sometimes does), we will simply look back at his columns from this Election season and remind ourselves that yes, he really is an asshat.
October 3, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's been an asshat since at latest 2000.
October 3, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
October 4, 2008 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was entirely obvious and universally recognized that during the debate Sarah Palin did little but spew empty talking points. It is entirely understandable that someone as inexperienced and unknowledgable as she is will have to adopt a fairly superficial strategy to negotiate a debate.
What is missed in the commentary is the implication of the obvious. Sarah Palin is 44. She majored in journalism or communications or some such rot, but she lacks the basic language skills, pronunciation, diction, basic vocabulary, that one would expect from an entry level television commentator. She doesn't just lack the experience of a US Senator. She is also incompetent in her proscribed area of expertise. By the age of 44 most people of above average intelligence with real leadership abilities have demonstrable competence in some area. They also have a reasonable working knowledge of the world at large and can integrate their expertise with their broader experience. Sarah Palin is not a child. She is over half way through her life and apparently has very little to show for it. She is little more than a parasite with a superficial ability to manipulate morons into thinking she is a member of their species.
October 3, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
But, other than those few minor flaws, she is a wonderful hockey mom. (What is a hockey mom?)
October 3, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shortly after Brooks joined the News Hour, he moved to wingnut views on many subjects. What's funny, when he goes long in right field, is he ducks his head and casts his eyes down. Not too obvious he doesn't believe what he says and writes when taking wingnut views. But I'm sure he and other wingnut pundants, such as Paul Gigot, have a large bank balance because of it.
October 3, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's hard to decide who's more noxious - Kraut or Brooks - but I definitely agree that the latter's disingenuousness in this case is truly hard to stomach.
The man trained at the feet of the uber-snob Bill Buckley, and yet he just can't stop patronizingly praising folks out in the "heartland." I can't believe anyone still takes this schtick seriously.
October 3, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brooks is a charlatan, Krauthammer is a snake in the grass. Big difference.
October 3, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man, MJ. If you thought Brooks was bad, did you read Noonan?
October 3, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had just witnessed a man publically spanking a woman - the closest thing to sadistic porn on PBS.
And right after it our Dave said Palin was great. ok dave. ok.
I've always thought Kraut was pretty much the "Mr Potter" of "It's a wonderful Life." Even down to the wheelchair.
Maybe I'm going to have to find someone else to despise now. Darn.
October 3, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I give [Krauthammer] credit for the best analysis of why Barack Obama should be President M.J. Rosenberg
I believe the operative word is "will" not "should," yes?
October 3, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. As I read it, anyway...
October 3, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brooks is pitiable. He has written extensively about his personal vision of American utopia--exurban communities. That these are the communities hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis is making him unhinged.
October 3, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brooks is not pitiable. He is condemnable.
October 3, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, then, you're just biased in favor of the far-left liberal socialists George Will and Charles Krauthammer.
Which makes you an Obamabot.
By contrast, McCain did jail-time as a POW some 40 years ago.
October 3, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, MJ. You and I have been around and around this year, and some of it has been about Krauthammer.
This is a good post.
"But Brooks does not hold a candidate for Vice President to the standards to which he holds his teenage children. Fundamentally Brooks thinks that Sarah Palin is a fine representative of the America he has no familiarity with. What do you expect from these dummies?"
Good question. The past couple of weeks I've watched Fox News for the first time. What I noticed about the Fox bunch is that -- with the exception of the Hannity guy -- they mostly come across as "likable" boobs. Even O'Reilly. They're more entertaining than their counterparts on the other networks. Same impression I had of Brooks on PBS. Maybe we need to look at political commentary as an art form. Campy, but fun.
October 3, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Throughout the campaign, Obama's Orwellian sheep have sought to silence dissidents by chanting three mantras:
"You are a liar!"
"You are a racist!"
"You are a racist liar!"
Ol' MJ worked all three smears into a single column, establishing yet again his cherished status as Obamaton Number One.
I cannot wait until the election is over so Rosenberg can resume his favorite pursuit...bashing Jews.
But wait! David Brooks IS a Jew!
Never mind.
October 3, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Today on NPR's "All Things Considered," David Brooks conceded that Obama will win.
October 3, 2008 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a clear right-wing argument for Obama, and it surely lies behind the recent statements by Will and Krauthammer. The rightist perspective is that we're under severe existential threat. Believe this, and it follows that we need competent leadership to survive at all. Obama is abundantly intelligent, knowledgeable, level-headed, and competent; McCain is none of these and Palin is a nightmare of lack.
So, for the reasoning rightist in a world of mortal enemies, it's time to swallow some pride and ideology in the interests of staying alive.
October 4, 2008 7:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since her (in)famous live-mic incident, Noonan has had a credibility problem.
Not with us, her critics; there was never any credibility there to be damaged.
And also not with her audience. Like an Alzheimers' victim, wingnuts have essentially no real connection with the Past. If the noises that she is currently emitting conform to the approved template, anything she may be said to have "said" in the Past (...what?) must have been taken completely "out of context" (...what?) and, in any case, may rapidly be forgot and never brought to mind (...what?) -- the accursed al G'Oog-al notwithstanding. (And just what the hell kind of un-Amurkin, terrorist, demonspawn name is al G'Oog-al anyway...what?)
No, Peggy Noonan -- acolyte, journeygal scribe and Professional Hagiographer -- has an all-too-real credibility problem with her only potential clients of any future promise: the Sarahphim (a.k.a. the posse of Da Killa From Wasilla ... whatever.) Her old(er) clients are either dead (St. Ron), doomed (St. John), or utterly and completely discredited (too numerous to mention.)
Just about the only mortal sin a P.Hag. like Ms. Noonan can commit is to be caught on an open microphone blathering with the boyz about how the purported Object of Adoration is really just a funny joke/transparent ploy being played the cynical Kewl Kidz on the moron "base".
The penance for such a thing is arduous and long, and we can expect to see many further such self-abasements from Ms. Noonan during the course of her re-education through labor in the vinyards where the Grapes of Wrath are stored.
Yep, them thar Grapes takes a whole heap o' fertilizer -- as in organic fertilizer, don'tcha know -- and ol' Peg is gonna hafta sling that stuff for a long time to come, before she gets to climb back aboard the Bus To Nowhere an' swap moose-stew recipes with Da Killa...you betcha!
October 4, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brooks or Krauthammer?
Back before I had a single gray hair, my friends and I would play a similar game. Nixon's daughters or Johnson's daughters?
It was more fun.
October 5, 2008 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink