I always knew David Brooks was an asshole ....

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/07/david-brooks-strange-preoccupation-single-parents

Bringing serious lols today. "(Elites) work much longer hours than people down the income scale, driving their kids to piano lessons and then taking part in conference calls from the waiting room."

can't read anything of Brooks' without imagining him in this pose:

http://jewishachievementblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/40-david_brooks.jpg

he's giving Christopher Hayes book some attention at least-

I’d say today’s meritocratic elites achieve and preserve their status not mainly by being corrupt but mainly by being ambitious and disciplined....

feel like he really had trouble with that one, a lot of straining to reach the liberal boogeyman.

Man, I hope Elites carry towels with them to wipe off after those grueling fucking conference calls.

Like, has David Brooks ever worked a graveyard shift or lifted anything weighing more than 10 pounds in his entire life? Does he know anyone who does?

http://amcatholic.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/photoshopped-david-brooks.jpg

motherfuckers don't understand i'm doing work emails while in line at starbucks

when people talk about corruption and rigging the game they mean Kaplan test prep courses. i'm surprised the occupy kaplan movement hasn't taken off.

Like, has David Brooks ever worked a graveyard shift or lifted anything weighing more than 10 pounds in his entire life?

His butt?

in today's column, he also uses the word "scrupulosity," which is defined as "a psychological disorder characterized by pathological guilt about moral or religious issues. It is personally distressing, objectively dysfunctional, and often accompanied by significant impairment in social functioning. It is typically conceptualized as a moral or religious form of obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD), although this categorization is empirically disputable."

he meant "scrupulousness."

but you know, that's just my elite education showing.

Scruples are such tiny things that even the scrupulous overlook most of them.

http://www.phillymag.com/articles/booboos-in-paradise/

Kevin Drum re latest Brooks column on Romney/Ryan medicare plan:

As near as I can tell, the truth is almost exactly the opposite of what Brooks has written. He may not be impressed with Obama's plan, but that's not a good excuse for so badly misrepresenting what Romney and Ryan would do.

x-post--great piece.

his defense is that his writing is a joke. impenetrable.

today's brooks' op-ed begins with "Let’s say you’re generally a moderate voter." and peaks with "The priority in this election is to get a leader who can get Medicare costs under control. Then we can argue about everything else."

The purpose of the Republican convention is to introduce America to the real Mitt Romney. Fortunately, I have spent hours researching this subject. I can provide you with the definitive biography and a unique look into the Byronic soul of the Republican nominee:

I actually found this column moderately funny (ducks):

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/28/opinion/brooks-the-real-romney.html?_r=1&hp

It is (ducks also). But is Brooks mocking us as well as Romney?

I don't know what to make of that tbh

Yeah that's the problem with Brooks. It should have a name, Brooksism or something -- that gutless, hide-the-ball kind of writing that makes you feel a little like you're talking to a narc.

seriously today's column is weird. i thought it was a media put-down - "see this is how the liberal media portrays poor mitt" - until the last line.

there are funny jokes in there - which is alarming enough - but yeah his motives for writing them is sort of inscrutable

http://www.mockpaperscissors.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/bobo-tongues-the-world-surreal-247x300.jpg

"heh heh heh"

motives = are

stupid verbs

I think it's all in the spirit of good-natured ribbing. These are pretty gentle zings - stuff that I'm sure Romney could chuckle over at a comedy roast. I think it fits pretty well with Brooks's attitude that Romney is a good candidate dogged by bad PR.

He's no Dave Barry, thank Heaven.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/opinion/brooks-thurston-howell-romney.html

what a tool...he didn't know this before the secret video? and he says at the end that he really thinks Willard is a good guy deep down? FU, Brooks

He was doing ok until this:

"Sure, there are some government programs that cultivate patterns of dependency in some people. I’d put federal disability payments and unemployment insurance in this category."

The vast, vast majority of people on unemployment do not want to be. They want a job.

It's interesting to see Brooks reach the point where he stops trying to bend over backwards to be the compassionate, moderate, open-minded conservative while still playing for team Republican and when he finally decides he has to cut Mitt loose.

those damn disabled people, always wanting a handout

Disability insurance is a source of moral hazard, dissuading the lame from healing thyselves.

It's interesting to see Brooks reach the point where he stops trying to bend over backwards to be the compassionate, moderate, open-minded conservative while still playing for team Republican and when he finally decides he has to cut Mitt loose.

― o. nate, Tuesday, September 18, 2012 4:32 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

hes allowed one of these heterodox columns every so often but really compassionate, moderate, open-minded conservative while still playing for team Republican or the more succinct republican apologist is his job he knows this and will carry on starting next column

I can't tell him and E.J. Dionne apart anymore :(

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/25/opinion/brooks-the-conservative-mind.html?hp

Where do these fantasies come from?

x-post--In print E.J. is much more liberal while on NPR he and Brooks try to make nice.

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/david-brooks-on-drugs-and-medicare

Dean Baker vs Brooks with a link to Brooks' piece yesterday on how the Romney Medicare proposal is better than the Dems because the Romney plan relies on the free market

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/11/todays-war-on-nate-silver-quiet-flows-the-don-edition.html

delong quoting someone else:

Brooks’ journalistic way of knowing

Ha.

I thought you were going to be mentioning Brooks' absurd reasoning behind his endorsement of Romney.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/30/opinion/brooks-the-upside-of-opportunism.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

if Romney wins, we’re more likely to get bipartisan reform. Romney is more of a flexible flip-flopper than Obama. He has more influence over the most intransigent element in the Washington equation House Republicans. He’s more likely to get big stuff done.

get big stuff done get big stuff done get big stuff done get big stuff done get big stuff done get big stuff done get big stuff done get big stuff done get big stuff done get big stuff done

if anything needs getting done, it's big stuff

America: who do you think u r?
Romney: mr. big stuff B-)

'I certainly wasn't wrong about it provoking smart ass jibes.'

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/02/your-use-of-data-for-any-purpose-but-validating-david-brookss-lazy-intuitions-infuriates-david-brooks

On Brooks' attempt to argue with Nate Silver over baseball stats

Spectacular column.

its incomprehensible.

why isn't this guy recognized as the Murray Kempton of his generation