David Brooks column -

[karynnj]

His column today contrasts Kerry and Edwards. He credits Edwards with talking about the root problem, poverty, and offering solutions - which he did not agree with but thought were "interesting". Kerry, on the other hand, is thoroughly trashed for 5 paragraphs, with no indication that he said anything positive at all.

The two worst paragraphs:
"Kerry began his speech by making the point that Bush and his crew are rotten. He then went on to make the point that Bush and his crew are loathsome. In the third section of the speech, Kerry left the impression that Bush and his crew are evil." (I want THAT speech - DU-P would love him for at least a day or two!)

"Now we know people so consumed by hatred for George Bush that they haven't had an unpredictable thought in five years, but in Kerry's speech one sees this anger in almost clinical form." (The Kerry I saw was relaxed, funny, human and kind, not to mention able to send protesters scurrying just by walking in their direction. Could you imagine Bush appearing before an open crowd like this? Who is more likely to fit one of the mental health diagnosis?)

He also calls your esteemed Jr Senator, Senator Ahab. He also later puts Kerry in the group that thinks the Democrats lose because they are less rough than the Republicans and think they must match Rove blow by blow. (Pretty hypocritical as he was pretty proud of Rove.) Also, if this were true, Kerry would be the hero of DU!

So, it look like they are trying to use the "Al Gore, he's crazy" stuff again - but Kerry simply gets more eloquent when angry. David Brooks is coming to Massachusetts on October 19, to speak at Holy Cross at 7:30 - I hope some of the staff and students defend their Senator. (It's weird that my daughter told us yesterday that one of her teachers mentioned it, even though she disagreed politically.)

The editorial is in the section they charge for - we get the paper at home.

[TayTay]

1. So, Kerry hit a nerve

and they sent Brooks out to defend by using the old chestnut, "He's crazy." Why am I not surprised.

I'm glad they put these things behind a wall at the NYtimes. Less people can see the lunatic rantings of Brooks.

Good for KErry and for striking a nerve in the callous and the cowardly. I go with the Oliphant OpEd from today in the Boston Globe.

The ending is delicious:

The Kerry-Edwards contrast is characteristic of the argument that now divides the Democratic Party. On one side are those who believe that the party's essential problem is with its political style. The Republicans win because they are simply rougher, so the Democrats must be just as tough in response. They must match Karl Rove blow for blow. Democrats in this camp are voting against John Roberts just to show the world, and their donors above all, that they are willing to give no quarter.

On the other side are those who believe that the Democratic defeats flow from policy problems, not from campaign style or message framing. They don't believe that Democrats can win wrapped in their own rage, or kowtowing endlessly to their psychologically aggrieved donor base. For them, the crucial challenge is to come up with policies more in tune with voters.

Kerry speaks for the first group, which believes in more partisanship, and Edwards for the second, which believes in less.

I have discussions with my Democratic friends over whether the party will snap back to Clintonite centrism after the polarizing Bush leaves town. Some think yes. I suspect no. As Kerry's speech shows, the emotional tenor of the party has changed. The donors are aroused. Bush may end up changing the Democratic Party more than his own.

Ahm, Brooks doesn't want the Dems to stand for anything. He wants them to occupy the namby-pamby middle, which is the script the Rethugs wrote for the Dems back last fall. Obviously, Brooks perceives Kerry as falling off-script and, heanves, actually standing for something, something that Democrats and Democratic donors might actually agree with, work for and support monetarily. Heavens!

More columns like this please. This made my day!

Remember this:
"Many wonder what it will take to restore social civility to Washington, to get Republicans and Democrats mingling again. Rock-ribbed Republican Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, proffered a solution, telling us that Democrats must accept the finality of their powerlessness. 'One the minority of House and Senate are comfortable in their minority status, they will have no problem socializing with Republicans. Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are very unpleasant, but when they've been fixed, then they are happy and sedate. They are contented and cheerful. They don't go around peeing on the furniture and such.' Norquist assured us that he meant neutered 'psychologically' and his metaphor was 'facetious.' Of course: Let the healing begin." (Richard Leiby, The Washington Post, November 4, 2004)

Kerry = not fixed.

[karynnj]

2. Especially because he had NO problem

with Rove and all lying about Kerry, but he has a problem with Kerry telling the truth! The fact that he mischaracterizes Kerry's speech, making up what Kerry said, making Kerry sound like the DU people who say Kerry should speak up is hilarious. Kerry listed things Bush undeniably did - so if Brooks characterizes it as Bush is evil, that's his interpretation based on Bush's behavior - Kerry doesn't use the word (must to the LW freepers dismay). As to anger - Why shouldn't Kerry be angry that Bush+ vacationed while people died.

To me it sounds like Kerry speaking truth scares him, as it did Nixon. Fortunately millions saw a very sane Kerry debating a pretty shaky President. The shot across the bow of signaling that he will speak out more has to concern them. I wonder if Kerry is to the point he was in in 1971 when he responded to Shafer's question on being President that there were many important things to be done and he might not be able to do them and make people happy enough. Maybe it's Kerry's fate to be the truth teller of the baby boom generation.

He is definitely not fixed! Nor is anyone in his family. (I thought it was interesting that Teresa and Vanessa were with him - as they are both busy people in their own rights - he did label the speech as a major speech. I would guess they loved it.)

[sandnsea]

3. Brooks misses the obvious

Uhm, the policy problem is that we let the country buy into Reaganism for 25 years. Roberts represents all that encompasses. Kerry voting against Roberts and lamblasting Katrina as Republican ideology means that he does understand the Democrats need a new policy and the policy is to stop endorsing Reaganism. Edwards understands it too, Reaganism increased poverty and pushed more blue collar folks down the economic scale. He's stopped endorsing Reaganism, if he ever did. End result is the same, new Dem policy.

That's the way I see it, sorry Brooks doesn't get it. Nice try to keep the party divided though.

[karynnj]

4. I suspect he does get it - Kerry was pretty clear

I think it's telling that he makes up what he probably wished Kerry would say. It's clear they want to label Kerry as angry (which for some reason he really is) and crazy (which he isn't).

[blm]

5. Warn Edwards' supporters that Brooks (GOP operative) is exaggerating

their appearances to play them against each other. He's making it sound as if Edwards was all about compassion for the people with no criticism of Bush while making Kerry sound as if he's ONLY attacking Bush with no compassion for the people.

The end result is that edwards becomes impalatable for those who look for Bush to be held accountable, while making Kerry sound as if he's crazy with hatred for Bush...like they did Gore.

[CBHagman]

6. One of my friends ADMIRES Brooks.

:puke:

I have kept quiet about how snotty and puerile I find the guy, but this may push me over the edge.

[whometense]

8. My husband met him

and actually spent some time with him, one on one (he had to drive him to his hotel after a panel discussion).

He liked him personally, but said he was wimpy and dweeby. I've been shoving Brooks's most intellectually lazy columns in his face ever since then until he finally yelled uncle. Not nice of me, but being pleasant in person excuses nothing.

On a side note we were discussing token conservative Jeff Jacoby's latest piece of garbage last night, and he voiced the intriguing theory that the generally leftish-leaning Globe editorial team keeps Jacoby on because he's so stupid he gives conservatives a bad name. Yesterday's piece gave his theory some heft.

[ginnyinWI]

7. Oh Brooks is just Brooks

He gets about one idea per week and recycles it. I heard him talking the "Democrats consumed by hatred for Bush" theme on last Friday's Newshour. Yawn.

I do think just the fact that he reacted to Kerry means they feel threatened by the man willing to tell the truth. Right after Katrina Brooks admitted that he was mad at Bush himself (he said with a chuckle), but didn't think he'd stay mad-hahaha. Oh, that Bush!

I can't stand David Brooks. But I do like to see him go head-to-head with Tom Oliphant, when he is there for Newshour's Friday political roundup. It's the only part of Newshour I try never to miss. David will start out with some bubble-headed idea pulled out of nowhere, some lame theory about the political sphere, and then Tom,like a surgeon lancing a boil, will quietly insert the facts of the case with a smile, and win the day.

[whometense]

9. Isn't Oliphant the greatest?

I love the gentle way he talks, and that smile. His emotions never seem to get the better of him.

[ginnyinWI]

10. yes

A gentleman with wit, intelligence, and heart.

[beachmom]

11. I also try to watch Lehrer on Fridays for the pundits

Look, Brooks is Brooks. He is a neo-conservative, and I think his columns got more ridiculous when Saphire left the Times and he became THE Conservative at the NY Times. I actually decided a long time ago that I liked him personally(and based on your story, Whomtense, my instincts about the guy's personality were correct), and there are far worse conservative pundits out there who have no civility to them at all. Obviously, I don't agree with this particular op-ed, and will try not to read it in my local paper, because anything criticizing Kerry just makes me nuts (yesterday on andrewsullivan.com he was talking about how he endorsed the other guy against Bush last year, even though "Kerry would have made a poor president". I was so mad I had trouble getting to sleep last night, so yes I am thin skinned when it comes to Kerry). In fact, I don't really agree with any of his pieces, but I often like to read them because they make me think, even if it's coming up with arguments for why he's wrong. I get the impression that Kerry likes Brooks (he has said in the past that he reads Brooks, respects him, but was saying he didn't agree with a particular piece Brook had written). Who knows, JK might pick up the phone and give Brooks a ring, and say -- hey, which speech did you read? Last week, I thought Oliphant had a good comeback when Brooks started gushing about using all the reconstruction money for the Gulf on conservative ideas, and Oliphant responded calmly back that the destruction was bigger than any ideology. Well put. Oh yeah, I love Mark Shields, too, who normally is on.

[whometense]

12. hahaha

Count me among the thin-skinned Kerry fans. If anyone says anything bad about him in my presence my husband will give me an alarmed look out of the corner of his eye.

I like Mark Shields too, but often feel he doesn't go quite far enough in defending democrats. His heart is genuinely in the right place, though.

Brooks really bothers me because I don't sense he really signs on to the Bush agenda. His heart doesn't seem to be in it - and I resent that he keeps mouthing the words anyway.

[WildEyedLiberal]

14. Oh God me too

One way to get on my bad side reeeal quick is to make a disparaging remark about John Kerry in my presence. My demeanor gets ice cold instantly - nothing makes me as seriously hostile as Kerryhate.

[karynnj]

13. Given there 180 degrees different view of Kerry's speech

this tomorrow should be interesting if they choose to talk about it. Oliphant's 30+ year history with Kerry should put him at an advantage.

[Firespirit]

15. How convenient for the press whores.

Very few people actually HEARD the speech or got a transcript of it. (I'd bet a fair sum of money that well over half the pundits' reports on it -- and at least 2/3 of the negative reports -- had no link to the speech itself.) So unless they actually look for it themselves and form their own opinion of it, all that they know about it is what the whores tell them. :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: I HATE THEM!!!

We need to get the link to people. And preferably the JK website will have a link to a video soon so they can see just how "crazy" he really was :P. Were viewers allowed to record it, MA people?

[TayTay]

16. There were video clips on various news stations, but

I haven't been able to find a video link. (igh!) I saw on the C-Span web site that they have a John Edwards speech from 9/18 on tap for Sunday's "Road to the White House" so there is hope. (They showed the speech at the Kennedy Center two weeks after the event in March.)

I will keep my eyes open. Also remember, that according to the speech, this is but the opening salvo from Sen. Kerry. I guarantee that his upcoming speech on IRaq will be heavily covered.

[CBHagman]

17. Here's the link from the Kerry e-mail.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2005_09_19.html

I didn't actually get to see him deliver the speech. The Washington Post article of the other day cherry-picked the angriest lines (e.g., the one about DeLay and ethics, if I'm not mistaken), and of course the Brooks column is more revealing of his own mind-set than the actual content of the speech.