David Brooks on the Midterms
Emily Esfahani Smith, Ed. ·
Nov 4, 2010 at 8:16am
Here's part of his analysis (via HotAir's quotes of the day):
I’m delighted that the country will not be plagued by Senators Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell, and probably Joe Miller in Alaska. In a wave election a candidate has to beat the voters over the head with incompetence to lose, but these folks managed.
Yeesh, "plagued" is a little harsh, and a descriptor perhaps better suited to the Harry Reids and Chris Coons' of the world, I'd say.
EJHill, the creative genius behind the above image, wants the Davids to start their own band.
- Comment (19)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: David Brooks on the Midterms
I heard Rand Paul carries the plague.
May '10
Re: David Brooks on the Midterms
Well, we can't let a day go by without one of the Davids lecturing us on how we're just too darn conservative to win.
The Davids need to start their own band.
Re: David Brooks on the Midterms
EJ, I was hoping you'd post a picture. I hope you don't mind, but I added your image to my post.
Sep '10
Re: David Brooks on the Midterms
If they're talking plague then the Andromeda Strain should be the movie poster of choice.
May '10
Re: David Brooks on the Midterms
Yeah, you know how much I admire the Davids.
Sep '10
Re: David Brooks on the Midterms
Oh that is rich! Brooks has been silent on the likes of Al Franken, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Dick Durban, Barbara Boxer, Arlen Specter, Chris Dodd, the list is endless... How can anyone take him seriously?
As to Frum, I just posted some choice critisim of his anaysis at his pathetic site. Essentially it is spin and propaganda. I have come to believe they are agents for the left. (I'm sure they will be adequately appalled at being depicted as country singers...good job EJ!) They are smarter than their analysis. They make statements even they must know are fraudulent. They are moles and poseurs, that is the only thing that makes sense.
Frum is going around saying it was "a bad night for tea partiers" Huh? Of course it was published at the pay site of the London Times. Do the subscribers know they are getting agenda laden analysis for their British Pounds?
May '10
Re: David Brooks on the Midterms
Franco: As to Frum, I just posted some choice critisim of his anaysis at his pathetic site. Essentially it is spin and propaganda. I have come to believe they are agents for the left.
Frum is going around saying it was "a bad night for tea partiers" Huh? Of course it was published at the pay site of the London Times. Do the subscribers know they are getting agenda laden analysis for their British Pounds? · Nov 4 at 9:44am
Actually, what Frum said was correct in this case (it isn't always, it is this time)- he said it was a bad night for Tea Party radicals. He understands the difference between Marco Rubio and Ron Johnson on one hand, and O'Donnell and Angle on the other hand. Joe Miller is another matter- he was far better qualified and got caught in the internecine Alaska Republican warfare, after a couple of rookie mistakes and some shaky history that should have been vetted better before he was endorsed. Brooks, on the other hand, has returned to his elitist roots and is wallowing in them.
To succeed long term, we need professionals to help select ideologically solid, but electable, candidates.
Jul '10
Re: David Brooks on the Midterms
EJHill: Well, we can't let a day go by without one of the Davids lecturing us on how we're just too darn conservative to win.
The Davids need to start their own band. · Nov 4 at 8:30am
I thought they already had a band: Wyld Stallyns!
Sep '10
Re: David Brooks on the Midterms
Duane,
I'm not really sure what Frum understands, since he sends so many mixed messages. Frum claims to have "conservative" interests at heart, yet whenever a real conservative pops his/her head up he's firing at them with both barrells claiming they aren't civil, aren't sending the right message, are unelectable or otherwise unsavory. Further, he likes to pretend he can advise the voters how to vote as though they all go on his site eagerly seeking his words of wisdom, and when they vote their interests or sentiments, pronounces them rubes.
Frum thought it a mistake to primary Specter. Of course, Frum has no control over Toomey or how Pennsylvanians vote, but he still wagged his finger. And make no mistake, Frum railed against Toomey as a radical, yet now that he is a winner in an election where Frum embarrased himself by siding with Specter, he ignores the race completely. Frum is on record supporting Arlen all the way to the Democratic Party. For Frum the word "radical" in association with Tea Party is not a distinction but a modifier. Frum has never said the words Tea Party moderates, I guarantee you.
Sep '10
Re: David Brooks on the Midterms
Duane,
"To succeed long term, we need professionals to help select ideologically solid, but electable, candidates."
You really do tend toward elitism, don't you?
The people are smarter than the "professionals". Besides, our country is a democracy whereby the people, not the professionals get to choose, and that is a good thing. If it were up to the pros we'd have lost more seats in both houses, because the people are the ones who "know" the pros only guess what they want.
Somehow the pro Mike Murphy, with a fine, sucessful, moderate female candidate with unlimited funding, failed to beat Jerry Brown. Hmmm... Well the Republican voters in CA nominated her so I guess they were just as bad as those Delawarians.
May '10
Re: David Brooks on the Midterms
Franco, I hear you- I understand your frustration in-context, because David is definitely too much into compromise these days, and he does have a bit of an elitist streak, though nothing at all like Mr. Brooks'.
But to effectively criticize those we believe are off the reservation or wrong on substance, we need to do it as accurately as possible. And in this case, I think Frum was pretty accurate. Sarah Palin (whom Frum doesn't like, about which I disagree) did indeed have a lousy night on Tuesday, partly because she did not acquit herself well on TV (a major disappointment to me, I was hoping she had progressed more on that front), and partly because some of her most important candidates cratered.
For the record, I disagree strongly with David Frum's writing last year that the Repubs should have compromised with the Dems on the health care bill, but I agree with him that we blew it by not addressing the issue effectively ourselves when we had the chance.
But guys, get over it. David Frum is a Yalie, yes, he doesn't pay any attention to Middle America, etc. But he is no liberal.
Sep '10
Re: David Brooks on the Midterms
I guess what really bothers me about Frum is that he isn't principled nor is he even genuine. Whether he is right or wrong about Palin is immaterial. I also have grown weary of Palin and I don't think she is substantive. She would make a decent talk show host, that is, if she would do something about he vocal tone which I find increasingly annoying.
But Frum is a guy who goes on left-leaning media shows and bashes conservative Republicans for their amusement. He validates every meme they have that the GOP are rubes and superstitious fanatics and then laments that the GOP isn't running away from 60% of their most reliable voters. In this he is absolutely incomprehensible, which leads me to strongly suspect the simple truth is he is not genuine.
Now his propaganda duty seems to be to claim that somehow the Tea Party prevented the GOP from winning the Senate!
Let me tell you, you need a degree from Yale, a lot of writing and retorical ability to spin that one, but Frum bypasses all that and goes right to using his considerable chutzpah. His followers a willing to believe.
Oct '10
Re: David Brooks on the Midterms
So is he delighted that Lisa Murkowski is probably going back to the Senate? Is he delighted that all of those overpaid Federal contractors up in Alaska got their candidate re-elected?
http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2010/alaskans-standing-together/
Re: David Brooks on the Midterms
Please permit this David to make a humble observation from 32,000 feet via my iPad. It is unbecoming of conservatives to be elitists. Then again, I suppose that's irrelevant since we're talking about these Davids. Must the right be "plagued by snobs? Who are these two guys trying to impress anyway? They've already got the approval of the only group who might agree, ie the left.
Jul '10
Re: David Brooks on the Midterms
"Words mean things", as some guy once said.
D&D are not elitists, they are mere provincials. They are so wrapped up in their D.C. provincial bubble that they literally cannnot understand the likes of Angle and O'Donnnell. They lack the imagination to step outside their odd little snowglobe of a world and understand what motivates those who do not live in that bubble.
Proof? Anyone doubt they would not even get the Brooks & Dunn analogy?
May '10
Re: David Brooks on the Midterms
Franco: Duane,
"To succeed long term, we need professionals to help select ideologically solid, but electable, candidates."
You really do tend toward elitism, don't you?
The people are smarter than the "professionals". Besides, our country is a democracy whereby the people, not the professionals get to choose, and that is a good thing. If it were up to the pros we'd have lost more seats in both houses, because the people are the ones who "know" the pros only guess what they want.
The people choose, of course- and based on policy, believability, etc. But wise people also listen to the arguments of those who are experienced and understand the lay of the land in any particular area. You can defend yourself from a criminal charge too, but you are a fool if you refuse to seek an attorney's advice.
Accept or reject the advice, but don't pretend that neophytes know better about technical matters- such as vetting, background, aspects of messaging, etc. O'Donnell and Angle were severely flawed candidates, though their views were mostly just fine. Rove understands that.
I suspect that Mike Murphy will change professions, since his losing streak is too public.
Sep '10
Re: David Brooks on the Midterms
Duane Oyen:
For the record, I disagree strongly with David Frum's writing last year that the Repubs should have compromised with the Dems on the health care bill, but I agree with him that we blew it by not addressing the issue effectively ourselves when we had the chance.
· Nov 4 at 12:46pm
Duane, do you or did Mr. Frum have any ideas on how the Repubs should have addressed the health care issue effectively? Was the best chance to do this the most public event on this subject, the Obama health care summit, or what? That fiasco was monopolized by Obama (and to a lesser degree by the dems), and, while I am ignorant of the subsequent mainstream media reporting of it, I can safely assume it was the usual leftist slant and downplaying or one-sentence air time of any of the good ideas the Repubs presented at it.
Re: David Brooks on the Midterms
Indeed words do mean things and I think elitism fits better as conveying a superior attitude. Plague? Pure snobbery, not just an innocuous failure to understand those outside their bubble.
Oct '10
Re: David Brooks on the Midterms
brooks and frum used to be my favorite opinion writers. i followed frum after he left national review to form a new group blog called "New Majority". by the time he changed the blog's name to FrumForum, i already left.