My letter to David Brooks

[robbedvoter]

Subject:
The Good, The Bad and the Ugly - October 18, 2003
Date:
Sat, 18 Oct 2003 17:54:09 -0400
From:

To:
[e-mail]


You write that Clark democrats "too mealy mouthed to have a opinion?"
Let's see:

http://www.nwanews.com/adg/story_National.php?storyid=44658

$87 billion Bush plan now moot, Clark says

BY PAUL BARTON

Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003

"
Clark also said Bush "should not be playing politics with the safety of
our troops" and should
divorce the issue of additional aid for Iraq from the need for
additional funding for U.S. troops
there. The two issues are tied together in the $87 billion request,
which Congress began to
seriously debate this week."

See? A little research could have saved you a lot of embarrassment.



--
The horrible article is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/18/opinion/18BROO.html

Feel free to debunk his other lies and idiocies.

[DemDogs]

1. Don't agree with Brooks but

he is about the smartest neo-con around. I doubt he's embarassed.

[Uzybone]

2. LAWD

that is a disgusting column.

snip

"For the roster of the Pelosi Democrats, look at those who voted against the Bremer plan. Some names are obvious: Dennis Kucinich, Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer. But there are some names you wouldn't expect to see on that list: John Kerry and John Edwards. France, Russia and Syria don't oppose the Bremer plan, but the Pelosi Democrats are to the left of Bashar al-Assad."


They Repukes are becoming desperate. When even Brooks starts sliming mainstream democrats with this kind of rhetoric.

[CarlBallard]

3. I didn't realize France Russia and Syria were elected to the Senate

Because my understanding was the UN vote was vastly different than the Senate vote. For instance the UN appropriated no money. I'd be willing to bet that France, Russia and Syria pitch in significantly less money for the Iraq reconstruction than the senate voted for.

[bahrbearian]

4. 87 Billion Less !

[flamingyouth]

5. Head + Wall = Beat as necessary

Sorry, but that's about how effective it will be.

Good letter, though.

[AP]

6. At the risk of further opening unhealed wounds, Brooks looks like another

pro-Dean/anti-Clark media whore.

Anyone remember this article from four weeks ago?

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/13/opinion/13BROO.html?ex=1066622400&en=b7b0d5ed2a15179f&ei=5070

Bred for Power
By DAVID BROOKS

If you were to pick a presidential candidate on the basis of social standing — and really, darling, who doesn't — you'd have to pick Howard Brush Dean III over George Walker Bush...Both seemed to have sensed early on that their class, the Protestant Establishment, was dissolving. While Dean was at St. George's, the school admitted its first black student, Conrad Young, who, the official school history says, left after two years. By the time Bush and Dean got to Yale, a new class of striving meritocrats was starting to dominate the place.

Both, impressively, adapted to the new society... And for both, those decades of WASP breeding were not in vain. If you look at Bush and Dean, even more than prep school boys like John Kerry (St. Paul's and Harvard), Al Gore (St. Alban's and Harvard) and Bill Frist (Montgomery Bell Academy and Princeton), you detect certain common traits.

The first is self-assurance. Both Bush and Dean have amazing faith in their gut instincts. Both have self-esteem that is impregnable because it derives not from what they are accomplishing but from who they ineffably are. ...Both are bold. Bush is an ambitious war leader, and Dean has set himself off from all the cautious, poll-molded campaigns of his rivals. Both were inculcated with something else, a sense of chivalry. Unlike today's top schools, which are often factories for producing Résumé Gods, the WASP prep schools were built to take the sons of privilege and toughen them into paragons of manly virtue. Rich boys were sent away from their families and shoved into a harsh environment that put tremendous emphasis on athletic competition, social competition and character building.

... those who thrived...believed that life was a knightly quest to perform service and achieve greatness, through virility, courage, self-discipline and toughness.. that culture, which George Bush and Howard Dean were born into, did have a formula for producing leaders. Our culture, which is freer and fairer, does not.  

[robbedvoter]

7. Brooks is pro-bush period. Meddling in the Dem primaries

at the behest of his master. He's no more pro-Dean than he is pro any Dem. He's picking W's oponent as directed by Rove.

[AP]

8. no kidding

[pruner]

9. you're a real asshole AP

I have absolutely no doubt that your intent was in fact to "open unhealed wounds".

[AP]

10. So, what do you think about the articles? Who's the bigger ass

Me? David Brooks? Karl Rove? Or all the people who want to close their eyes?

As for opening unhealed wounds, I didn't say that I didn't want to. I said that I was accepting the risk...because I think this is important.

[pruner]

11. that's a tough one… I'll have to get back to you later

OT, did you ever get respond to me a couple of nights ago when I asked if that was the most flattering pic of Mrs. Edwards that you could find?

[AP]

12. This isn't that hard. Why's it hard to form the opinion?

I already told you, didn't I? I believe I said that "flattering" wasn't my criteria.

[pruner]

13. I don't really think you're as bad as Brooks or Rove…

but then again, I don't know as much about you as I do about them.

;)

truth be told, my only problem with you is the fact that you litter a lot of threads with anti-Dean rhetoric when Dean wasn't even the topic being discussed in the first place.

I didn't catch your reply (regarding the pic) the other night which is why I asked again. that will be the last time.

[AP]

14. DU is littered with a lot of Dean threads, so it's hard to

get involved with the prevailing debates without debating Dean.

And, obviously, when I'm posting to other threads getting so much resistance to the idea that Rove is push polling to hurt Clark and help Dean, and then I come over here and see that Brooks is sticking a knife in Clarks back, and I remember the Brooks article puffing up Dean and Bush, how can I not provide the evidence.

You know, it's not like I'm doing phrenology or palm reading or atrology. I'm stating facts and building arguments around them.

If you think that's litter...

[pruner]

15. my point is that you spend a lot of time trying to tear down Dean…

rather than promoting the candidate you support.

in fact, you seem to look for threads that provide you an opening to push your anti-Dean agenda.

[AP]

16. Begs the question

I certainly don't go into every Dean thread.

Nontheless, it begs the question: is it relevant to discuss the things I add to those threads.

Again, here's a thread about David Brooks cutting down Clark. Clearly, a relevant subject to discuss this week is whether the media is trying to pick a candidate for Democrats, and part of that discussion includes the issue of whether they're propping up Dean.

Well, I definitely remembered that article about Dean and Bush and being born to lead (ugh) by David Brooks.

I definitely think this a very important piece of evidence if you're arguing that Republicans are trying to throw the election for Bush.

[pruner]

17. let's just agree to disagree

:)

I do appreciate the points the points you're making.