Brooks is desperate to interpret away the obvious story, which is the defection of large segments of the business community from the Republican standard.

They're the ones who have to live in the reality which Brooks only sees as grist for his tales. No surprise that they respond to it as it is. A similar remark may be made about the military.

This reminds me of Brooks's claim a few years back that a distinction between 'word people' and 'number people' explained the rejection of Cheney-Bush in the intelligentia: apparently the universities are filled with 'word people', incapable of rational thought. Among the universities he listed with hugely disproportionate faculty donations to the Democrats: MIT.

Posted at July 2, 2008 5:55 AM in response to Muddy Brooks

This is a classic inside-the-beltway problem-of-the-day issue that no one actually cares about. The canonical 'American' stance on money is simply the more, the better, and if it's yours, you get to spend it.

From this point of view, it's puzzling and probably unamerican to limit intake. The fact that Obama is going to be hugely funded, especially by business big & small, will be seen by everyone as the ultimate stamp of legitimacy. And it will hasten the tipping point in the upcoming Republican wipe-out.

Posted at June 21, 2008 7:42 AM in response to The faux outrage over Obama's campaign finance decision

The important point here is that McCain now finds himself imitating Obama. This marks him as playing catch-up ball, a very hopeful sign.

Behind it all is the blogospheric insistence on parity of judgment with respect to the candidates, largely absent from the traditional media. It is remarkable that this force has carried the day.

Posted at May 23, 2008 7:26 AM in response to McCain Finally Rejects Hagee's Support -- And Makes It All About Obama And Wright

Undoubtedly. But the point is to get facts-on-the-ground on the ground. A power plant can't be very easily unbuilt, or even uncontracted.

Posted at May 20, 2008 12:35 PM in response to Today's Must Read

HRC's recent tactic is to rank the candidates Self > McCain > Obama. To see how destructive this is, remove "Self" from the order, as could easily happen, and look at what you have left.

Imagine now the Democrats at campaign time. If Obama is regarded as less able than McCain by the HRC crowd, how can they possibly (much less enthusiastically) support him? And, should the nomination go the other way, how can the Obama people possibly line up behind the person who belittled him as inferior to a sclerotic, unstable Republican?

HRC has fallen into a strategy of mutually assured destruction. It has a pretty good chance of success.

Posted at March 7, 2008 6:36 AM in response to Hillary: McCain Has Crossed "Commander In Chief Threshold"

Buckley's brilliance lay in pulling off the charade of aristocracy as no American had managed before him. His luck lay in the presence of the glowering, nyekulturny commies manning the Kremlin. The immense human cost of the policies he espoused -- let us pause, congregants, to think back on it -- is sufficient reason to dance on his grave.

Posted at February 28, 2008 6:58 AM in response to William F. Buckley, Jr. Open Thread

A persuasive argument gets the listeners to agree with the conclusion. Corollary: do not repel them while establishing the premises.

Preaching to the choir demands that you brandish your bona fides, repelling non-choristers with every phrase.

Toobin's argument is persuasive.

Posted at September 30, 2007 10:01 AM in response to Are We in "Opinions on Shape of Earth Differ" Territory?

Historical analogies are fun, but Cheney -- aged 66, and working inside a stable electoral structure -- will never establish himself or any successors as permanent Leader. His goals are likely therefore be much more local, and he has a year and half to achieve them. It is implausible to assume that he will be running out the clock. This suggest that more attention should be focused on the near future, less on the long-term prospects evoked by images of emperors past.

Posted at June 28, 2007 7:38 AM in response to Cheney Plays Julius Caesar and Like Then Must be Stopped (Legally)

"Surge in Afghanistan if you surge anywhere,..."

What's the argument that a surge in Afghanistan will resolve the problems there?

Posted at December 21, 2006 12:22 PM in response to Surging into the Abyss

Current death claims must be highly unrealistic, because they completely omit any estimate of the excess mortality caused by the displacement of (apparently) hundreds of thousands of people into dire circumstances. Without adequate food, water, hygiene, or medicine, it can only be that the most vulnerable sectors of the population are getting sick in huge numbers. And many will die.

Posted at July 26, 2006 8:14 AM in response to Middle East Math