Meet The Press: David Brooks "Let's Have War Games" As A Test For The Presidency
By Nicole Belle Saturday Apr 19, 2008 9:15pm
Reflecting on the higher negatives of all the presidential candidates as this campaign continues and how the debates, negative ads and the media distractions play into a virtual death by a thousand cuts to all of them, professional pundit David Brooks wonders if there isn't a more relevant way to pick the candidate.
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t Bill W)
BROOKS: Can you imagine doing that, leading that life? No normal person would live that way. And no normal person would emerge normally after that, giving the same speech eight times a day for 15 months? It destroys you, and it makes you less attractive and that’s even without the negative ads.
RUSSERT: Is it a fair test to determine who would be the best president?
BROOKS: I don’t think so. You know, watching the debate, the whole furor over the ABC debate, what strikes me is we should actually test candidates by how they’re going to act as President. We should have war games. Put them in a room with their advisers, give them a circumstance and see how they react to decisions and uncertainty. The debate is a totally artificial way to judge who is going to be a good president or not.
Yeah, Bobo, war games aren't totally artificial, are they? Let's say we tried your way. Can we automatically disqualify any candidate who advocates an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation, seeing as that's a violation of international law? If so, can we hope to see your contrition for cheerleading Bush for doing so five years ago?
Login or Register to post comments.
Nope the best way David is to
corruptseek out expert advice that tells you what youwant to hearneed to hear about important issues.Perhaps folks from academia would be good sources of 'advice'.
Eh?
Then again, maybe not so much....
Would it be televised? Live?
It's a poor idea, but I'd probably watch anyway :)
It'd fit right into the current reality TV market.
So, basically, let's convert the Presidency from "Commander-in-CHief" into "Warrior-in-Chief"
Haha, and truly, that is what they have been aiming for. and it all started with G-Dubya. They're just hoping McSame can pick up where G-DUbya left of...
bobo...
maybe we should have them play pac man, to see who is willing to eat up the most corporate contributions in the shortest amount of time..?
Dubya had people conduct war games for Iraq. The US lost, we went anyway. Is that what Brooks means by good president?
Two words: Kobayashi Maru
"Meet the Press", or "Parade of Apologists for Bush" as we call it has bottomed out.
The Potomac/Alexandria pipeline for well-moneyed stuffed shirts that have been dead wrong about everything in the last eight years, pontificating on a small-town America that barely even exists anymore...rears it's ugly head in a vain effort to avoid looking more irrelevant than they already are.
Say Dave - why don't we have a similar test for holding on to your job as a writer, say, every four years.
Take your mouth off the administration's pecker before you speak. That way, we'll be able to hear you better.
Where there are war games, there are false-flag operations.
War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious.
– General Smedley Butler ( from PA )
Peace and friendship with all mankind is our wisest policy, and I wish we may be permitted to pursue it.
– Thomas Jefferson
The tragedy of modern war is that the young men die fighting each other--instead of their real enemies back home in the capitals. – Edward Abbey
Hart/Sequoia Voting Systems Hostile Takeover: Publicly Confirmed by Sequoia
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5915
Okay, I'm all for this idea. Let's play Brooks' war game. And if in the face of crisis one of the candidates insists on reading My Pet Goat, let's have Superman fly around the world backwards at supersonic speed 17,000 times so we can fix Florida's butterfly ballot, and then properly re-run the election of November, 2000 so the brainless idiot isn't installed by the Supreme Court. That will allow the Nobel Prize winner who got the plurality of votes to become President, and then we can replay the last seven and a half years and bring 4,039 Americans back to life, along with hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis.
LOL! These men get dumber by the second. Let's just cut the crap and elect best counter strike player or halo 4 player. The games are on line and we can just check their record.
Uh, David??? If we did it your way, I'm pretty certain that the war games would be off limits to the general public. Debates are the only way for the voters (aka American People, remember them??) get an opportunity to see the candidates. I would expect a highly paid putz - oops! I mean pundit - such as yourself would understand that, but I guess not, huh?
Yeah, that makes sense. You know, if a Democrat proffered such inanity, the Republicans would
arguerepeat endlessly that all Democrats want the whole world to witness precisely how secret military and intelligence decisions are made so that the terrorists can plan better.I have an alternative to Brooks' suggestion: Have a media that concentrates on substantive political issues, believes in objective facts, and calls the candidates on it when they stoop to negative campaigning and lying.
Of course this would be his recommendation. To Brooks and his well protected kind, that's what war is: A "game" to be played with the lives of other people. He really needs to be parachuted into the middle of the game to see how much fun it is.
Bob in PA @ 10:
Right on! We actually did get to see how George W. Bush would react to the sentence, "Mr. President, the country is under attack." He became flush, shit his pants, and sat there for seven minutes.
Later, he struck back at the wrong country.
Actually this is a good idea, we do need to get a good test of how they would react, each candidate can do 3 wars games, all the same scenario, keep it secret until they have all finished then release the results. National Security is important, this would be an amazing test.
RUSSERT: Is it a fair test to determine who would be the best president?
BROOKS: I don’t think so. You know, watching the debate, the whole furor over the ABC debate, what strikes me is we should actually test candidates by how they’re going to act as President.
You know what this means when wingnut pundits start questioning the usefulness of debates in the electoral process? It means they've already taken a good look at their guy, McCrazy and came to the conclusion "This guy's gonna get butchered in a debate with Obama". So they're already starting to circulate the meme that "Aw, the debates don't really tell us anything about the candidates anyway!" Might as well start that bullshit now, so it is full circulation when the REAL campaign starts - Obama against McCain.
AnotherBruce @ 14:
Exactly.
Instead of"Star Search," we would have "Preznit Search" with tonight`s host Ed Mc Mahon."Tonight, The Death Match of the Preznitials."
ROFLMAO.
IMHO, one step away from choosing our president by having the candidates compete on a reality show. "American President", anyone? I'm sure it would get far more participation from the public than our current election system. Think of how much money the sponsors would pull in, not to mention the network lucky enough to develop the thing.
That would make me proud to be n American.
**turning off the sarcasm now**
Brooks is a very strange person.
How does this idiot continue to appear on television as an expert on anything, except stupidity??
Why the heck is Bobo still appearing on TV. He is only the political pundit to praise ABC . That should tell you something
I don't recall his name. But after 9/11, a retired military man made this point: Neither the collapse of the World Towers, nor the attack upon the Pentagon, nor the deaths of the poor souls who perished in that Pennsylvania field, threatened the national security of the USA. Strategically speaking, the 3,000-plus dead of that day, and the destroyed infrastructure, weren't merely expendable, but were superfluous, insofar as our military capacities were concerned.
Let any politician running for the presidency "war game" that rude truth, and then dare talk turkey to the American people.
sully18 @ 19:
Ed Mcmahon, huh? Well, at least then they'd finally have someone on stage who is older than McCain.
Randy @ 22:
Or write for the NYT?
I'm going to give bobo the benefit of the doubt where 'war games' more generic. Of course, with the state of public discourse in the U.S. right now, suggesting that being a military strategist would be the best criteria for president wouldn't surprise me.
Yeah Brooks! Maybe the candidates could swap wives and compete in a talent competition with Simon Cowell. Brooks is running out of talking points I see.
I have a better idea. Let's have an Indian leg wrestling match. Best two out of three. And don't think this is sexist. My hundred pound sister in law would flip me over quicker than O'Really gets a motel phone all gooey.
geneHUSSEIN214 @ 17:
Yeah, they're scared. The attacks on Obama don't seem to stick, and his followers don't stray. (Which makes them a cult in Obama's detractors' eyes.) Even when Obama doesn't fair well in a debate (he really looked tired and unprepared in that travesty on the All Bullshit Channel), he rebounds.
He's not complacent Kerry. He's not boring, little, silly-looking Dukakis in a tank. You can't just loop a Dean Scream, and make him go away. And somehow he's currently beating the Clinton campaign.
The Republicans are as disorganized, disheartened and disliked as we're ever going to see them, and they know it. They're scared.
But it's not a shoe-in for us. It's just ours to lose.
brooks is a direct counterweight to the pentagon story today.
brooks just exposes again, the tremendous credibility problem at the paper of record.
This is the most arrogant bullshit I've read yet from Brooks' festering gob.
ATTENTION DAVID BROOKS: HERE ARE THE QUALIFICATIONS TO BECOME PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:
Plus, GETS THE MOST ELECTORAL VOTES.
Got that, shit-for-brains? This is a Democracy. Not a military dictatorship.
May I complete my digital screaming fit by adding that there is something seriously missing from Brooks' arrogant face: my white-knuckled FIST.
This has been a Slippy rant.
On second thought maybe we should have war games and see how the public react. I know what Bush would have done in tight situation, he just sit there silent for 7 min straight.
seevee @ 29:
"UGH! My eyes!!!!!"
How can we take these idiots seriously?And what happened to my last post where I didn`t take them seriously.Am I in trouble or is it my lousy computer that is the problem?
RUSSERT: Is it a fair test to determine who would be the best president?
Wul,gee Tim,I dunno, duh,maybe we could make a video game out of it.
Randy @ 22:
I don't know. This guy is so secluded, out of touch, and sheltered from the everyday realities the majority of Americans have to deal with Bubble Man might be a good name for his segment.
Shades of BF Skinner. A candidate picked on their ability. Who'd a thunk?
slippy hussein toad @ 32:
you're right, but you left out his arse and a large foot.
chris @ 16:
Except, [Deleted-Sitemonitor], for its complete irrelevance to the already established Constitutional procedure we use. But other than that, hey, great way to choose our next MILITARY DICTATOR.
Liberal bloggers really need to start email campaigns to contact the medica everytime they lie or make a "mistake" about one of the dem candidates.
Jim Acosta just lied on CNN Rick Sanchez show tonight, he reported that Obama was referring to abortion when he talked about his daughters not being punished with a baby. This was a CNN videotape so he clearly intentionally lied to the CNN viewers.
Tim Russert also lied today about Obama not putting his hand over his heart during the pledge of allegiance. If the MSM is going to continue to flat out lie on Obama in order to help McCain... T
The Obama people are going to have to get someone to monitor the media for their campaign to contact and correct the news organizations when they intentionally misreport a story or get the facts wrong. I have noticed too many "mistakes" !!
Karen @ 30:
I agree. The Reichwing Noise Machine has thrown just about everything they could at Obama, and he just keeps on truckin'. They just can't derail his campaign the way the could probably derail Hillary's, and that is why having McCrazy face off against Obama is the reichwing's worst nightmare. I can't wait for the debates; it'll be Kennedy/Nixon all over again. That is why hacks like David Brooks have already started attacking the process - i.e. debates as a means of evaluating the candidates.
CoIntelPro against DIVISIVE DEMS. @ 34:
I assume you meant the phone and not me being rolled.
My bad. That is a big nasty.
Yea, and who’s going to be grading this test, David (Dumber Than A Rock) Brooks? I, personally, would settle for a physical exam, mental evaluation and an IQ test.
chris @ 16:
National security is far too important to have someone in charge who was good at winning a game simulation of national security.
Besides, how exactly do you propose to keep it all a secret until the games are finished? What results would there be to release? What? Are they going to play the Last Starfighter game?
This is a nonsensical proposal.
"Bobo" is good, but Bozo is better.
slippy hussein toad @ 32:
BROOKS:OH BOY! A knuckle sandwich.My favorite.Bring it on.
chris @ 16:
Yeah, "amazing," as in "isn't it amazing, when I flush the toilet, it all just disappears!"
I'd like to see McCain do it. He'd forget it was just a game in a Geritol rage, and start hitting his Alert Button while singing a Beach Boy song. Cindy would save the day by pulling out a vicodine from her stockpile in her $30K Hermes purse. Then he'd slap the shit out of her and call her a trollup c*nt. The whole thing would just backfire.
Capt. Kirk rigged Kobayashi Maru test so he could win it.
pfeld @ 45:
Who`s Bozo?
Roket @ 43:
The ensconced wealthy elite, of course. The problem with David Brooks is he's having heart palpitations that an informed, and possibly ANGRY electorate may be making a critical decision regarding the leadership of this country in the next eight months. And that, like the old saw says, elections may have consequences.
Of course I think there are a lot of wealthy elites running around with piss trickling down their legs at the notion that the entire corrupt, steaming heap of shit that they've turned our government and society into may come to a screeching halt while those of us who actually OWN the country, as in those of us who have invested our blood and sweat into its wealth, pause to evaluate to whom all of the benefits are accruing. A truly panic-inducing concept, this Democracy. Which is why all common sense and caution are being thrown to the wind as the establishment frantically hunts for a way to avoid actually having an election in November.
Presidential War Games? Let's instead play Newspaper and TV Pundit War Games, where we go back to Y2002 and see which ones favored getting the U.S. sucked into the Iraq quagmire. Each and every pundit who failed the test, i.e. everyone who cheerleaded us into this senseless war, gets permanently and irrevocably fired from punditry forever. Then we'll be rid of the likes of Brooks and his feeble thought process forever.
Yes, because clearly the way to fix the corporate media's shallow campaign coverage is to turn the campaign into a fucking reality TV show.
I can't believe that imbecile can write at all, let alone be paid to do it.
We are attacked by Country A, and we retaliate against Country B?
If you get this true or false question wrong, does that mean you get a second term.?
Slippery hussein toad @53
Absolutely right on the money
where did the name bobo come from?
Bob in PA @ 52:
Or better yet, sent to the front with the same shoddy equipment the MICC (Military Industrial Congressional Complex) has been foisting on our soldiers for the last six years. Then he can see just how the fuck much fun it is. And for the final insult, every six months review the status of his deployment, and tell him that he's entering the "critical phase" of the war and needs to stick with it for another few months.
But Dumbya failed this test and he didn't even take it ....
*
L.A. Confidential @ 21:
Yes, a President should be good at blowing things up, not building a better society. Very strange indeed.
Why do Democratic Candidates have to adhere to a higher test of ANYTHING than the republicans did or do.....did anybody have bush checked out for a stable mind, if he was ignorant enough to start a war with a neutral country and bankrupt the United States. Heck no. So why should a Democrat have to????
Haven't we had enough destructive war games? I think the best test of a leader is to put them in a room and see who is best at fixing all of Bush's fuck-ups. Whoever has the best plan to rebuild our reputation, our military, our constitutional freedoms, our moral standing in the world, our budget surplus and gets us out of the Bush recession wins!
Trittydi @ 58:
Just like his physical for the Texas Air National Guard, apparently.
we've been playing WAR GAMES for the past 7 years! WHY do these fuckers keep booking the likes of this creep? WAR GAMES MY ASS HOW ABOUT SOME DAMN PEACE GAMES... ECONOMY GAMES...SOMETHING!!! UHHHHHHHHHH....
StirFry @ 48:
Please televise that! It would be, hands down, the funniest fucking thing evah on TV
seevee @ 42:
yes! the phone and O'LIElly. How could you? *ROTFLMBBAO*
The thing about war games is that those who stage them create rules to achieve a predefined outcome. Often times those who break the rules win the game but are chasticed for cheating and their ideas discounted.
Two such cases are a part of history.
After World War I the navy staged some war games to prove their ships were invulnerable to air attack. The thing was the pilots "cheated" by dive bombing and sank all the ships. They were severely chastised.
The other war game was conducted during World War II. Romel played the Allies and invaded Normandy during bad weather conditions and one. The other Generals said he cheated because it would never be done and made no sense.
What war game is it exactly that we should have our candidates play? And by whose rules?
The Pope met with Chimp, went to St. Patricks, grandstanded at Ground Zero for a photo-op and then left. Seems there was something he should have done while here......maybe met with some poor, sick and diseased folks? No wait, that would have been Mother Teresa, the Pope can't get her dress dirty.
If a war game is the best way to judge the qualifications of our next President then I NO longer want to be an American. Count me out; I am done; the Federal Government needs to go!
chuck @ 68:
Yeah, let the corporations run the country. They always do the right thing.
Ruthless People @ 67:
The pope met with a bunch of victims of sexual abuse. Seems this pope is into the sloppy seconds. Yeah I know, I deserve an ass-kicking for that one.
I wionder what BamB
rooksled thinks of this:chuck @ 70:
Ass kicking? I was thinking more like a high five!
chuck @ 70:
you'll have to get in line after the pope ans the bishops who followed his direction to reassign the predators. On 2nd thought, you get a pass, they don't.
xoites defends Constitution @ 69:
I thought they have been?
I have a better idea. Let's have a minimum IQ test for presidency (and I'll be kind and make it 85). And have a United States history, laws and constitution test for presidency.
Ruthless People @ 74:
They are trying as hard as they can.
This is not random. Brooks is too close to:
April 14, 2008 "According to a Lexington Herald-Leader, Rep. Geoff Davis, R-Ky., said Saturday that he had recently participated in a "highly classified, national security simulation" with Obama, and said that exercise showed that Obama can't be trusted to make difficult decisions. "I'm going to tell you something: That boy's finger does not need to be on the button," Davis said. "He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country."
OBVIOUSLY, this is an emerging STRATEGIC mem of the Republicans that already is being aggressively seeding into the body politic. No doubt it has already been extensively tested and vetted by the right wing psych-op brain trust.
It destroys me that “progressive” sophisticates can be so behind the curve on this stuff. Please, please, please, open thine eyes, grow up, and start endeavoring to cut them off at the pass… Because one thing is for sure—they are you, over and over again.
xoites defends Constitution @ 66:
well, the navy played war games in the straights against a fictional Iranian fastboat navy. they changed the rules after they lost. then they lost again. they finally decided to continue planning and would ignore the possibility of losing. you gotta love that "military intelligence".
Isn't he special? He wants a president to pass a test? Just like they did to African-American, Blacks and any thing that wasn't white way back in these racist's hay-days.
chimpy has been failing tests from way back until this very second. I don't remember this nut whispering foul. What a dumbass.
Pope goes around with a tall hat that resembles a bee-hive hair doo, wears a dress and red Prada shoes.
Gee, I wound were the Catholic underlings would have gotten the message it's ok to be a closet queen?
PJ @ 77:
There is a huge difference between being a participant in a war game and being in the Situation Room during a real crisis. Obama probably chose to do something someone else pre ordained the best action. So what? It means nothing.
Nothing at all.
I should say pre ordained NOT TO BE the best action.
I play war games all the time. Been playing one all day. Want me to be a General or the President?
If so you are out of your mind.
Otay @ 75:
Let's not forget a test in Micro and Macro Economics...
Karen @ 13:
Yes! Let politics be about politics!
He (David Brooks) should be careful what he wishes for. He just might get it.
Does he really want people to see McTemper overreact in the middle of a war game?
Let's say this is the scenario; Jordan intelligence has unconfirmed intel that Al-Qaeda has set up a training base in Iran just a few miles across the border. Jordan intel says Iran is not aware of it. US spy photos of that area from a few days ago just reveal a few recently built buildings and a truck. Your planes are busy bombing innocent civilians/Mahdi army positions in Sadr city, so they're out of the picture, but you do have unmanned Predator spy drones (no missiles) and a Aegies Destroyer that can shoot a Tomahawk.
The game gives you three options:
1) take no action
2) call in an airstrike with a Tomahawk cruise missile
3) send in the Predator to take photos and gather intel.
What would McCain do? I'd say #2 without hesitation.
What would Obama do? Dunno; more likely #3 than #1. He sounds like a guy who wouldn't bomb without confirmation.
What would Clinton do? Probably #2 AND #3 at the same time so that way Repubs won't say she's weak b/c she's a gurl.
Which option would you choose? Check next post for the result.
Seriously, rule number one of any "presidential wargames test" would be:
"Do not let an idealogical agenda drive you into invading another nation".
Of course, this would disqualify pretty much every conservative.
Hmm... maybe it's not such a bad idea after all...
chris @ 84:
Okay. I've studied both, so I can appreciate the need to understand the elements of both. But that would eliminate McCain.
how sad and telling that this man espouses a worldview wherein making war is a more important qualification for a leader and representative of people than keeping peace.
xoites defends Constitution @ 66:
They played the WTC disasters before it happened.
The more that Brooks talks, the more that he sounds like a nimrod. Brooks' brain has been abducted by aliens. I don't take anything that the out-to-lunch-at-times talking head with a grain of salt.
Loath as I am to admit it, I happen to think that Brooks has a point in this instance -- hell, even a broken clock is right twice a day! Having worked for a number of years as a recruiter, I know very well that just because a candidate has a good resume is no guarantee that he or she will make a good employee. The label on the can doesn't always match the contents -- and at least occasionally, the candidate who lands the job is not necessarily the one with the most experience or strongest credentials but the one who succeeds in demonstrating most successfully (sometimes even in spite of less experience and fewer credentials) that he or she is the one most capable of doing the job. In a similar way, pretty speeches and pie-in-the-sky promises are a rather inefficient way of assessing a presidential candidate's true ability to lead this country.
One measure which many corporations use as part of their interviewing process is a behavioral exercise in which candidates are asked to describe in detail a specific instance in which they demonstrated a particular skill -- or alternately, given a hypothetical scenario and asked to describe as specifically as possible how they would handle it. While you see more of this sort of thing after the conventions once the nominees have already been selected, it seems as though it would be of equally good use prior to the conventions so that a qualified and worthwhile candidate is not dismissed out of hand simply because another candidate has more charisma. (Personally, I hold Kennedy partially responsible for that -- ever since him, far too many Americans have allowed themselves to be distracted by superficial appeal and whether someone "looks" Presidential or not which really has no bearing on whether he or she is equipped to lead the country.) I'm inclined to agree with Brooks that war games might be of some benefit to the run for the presidency -- although I think that diplomacy games or domestic affairs games would be even more appropriate since both require a delicate understanding of how and when to use the carrot vs. how and when to use the stick whereas war primarily only requires an understanding of how and when to use the stick. It's interesting (and telling) that apparently, the only scenario which came to Brooks's mind was a war game...
However, there is one serious flaw in what Brooks is proposing. There are studies which show that what people say they will do in response to a hypothetical or staged scenario sometimes differs widely from what they actually do when presented with that same scenario in real life -- especially when they know that they're being evaluated based on their answers and when those evaluations could have a significant impact on the outcome of something in which they are emotionally (and given the cost of running for office, financially) invested. That being said, I think that introducing a stronger behavioral element into the equation -- requiring the candidates to address as specifically as possible how they would face some of the real-life problems facing our country -- might at least an answer to some of the pandering and posturing which seems to have taken over so much of the presidential election process.
How about a simulation to determine who's better at managing the Peace...and, of course, keeping us out of war while promoting domestic tranquility - seems I heard that someplace.
At the same time I'd like to see a test for who should be a columnist - or some other kind of talking-head pundit. The one I'd like to try first is for Brooks to attempt to write a column before I could kick his rightwing ass. Yeah, that's what I'd like to see.
Here's the result(s)
IF you chose 1#: Jordan responds with Intel saying that their intel is wrong and that the base is 5 miles from THEIR border, not Iran.
IF you chose 2#: The Tomahawk blows up a Shiite children's religious camp. Iran is not pleased.
IF you chose 3#: The Predator arrives and photographs several adults standing outside. None resemble anybody on the Terror watch list, however one resembles a known Mahdi Army commander.
Did you make the 'right' choice?
Crooks and Liars: Greetings, Doofus Brooks.
Doofus: Hello, C&L.
Crooks and Liars: A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?
Doofus: Not play war? Traitors! Wusses! (coming from Doofus Brooks, that's got to leave a mark)
Crooks & Liars: Remember you told me to tell you when you were acting rudely and insensitively? Remember that? You're doing it right now.
Doofus:I'm rubber, and your glue, what bounces off me and sticks to you. Pthppt!
C&L: Doofus Brooks, after very careful consideration, sir, I've come to the conclusion that your mind sucks.
Doofus: I don't have to take that, you pig-eyed sack of shit.
C&L: Oh, I was hoping for something a little better than that from you, sir. A man of your education.
Zenrage @ 6:
LOL! Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan.
Kirk cheats by reprogramming an unwinnable war-game scenario, for those wondering.
.
.
.
I bet Brock would love to see a good round of war games. War games were scheduled and conducted as cover and a means to horribly confuse the thaeter on 9/11. Are war games going to become a distinguishing trademark of the neocons everytime they want to commit a terorist action against the "homeland"?
AgentX @ 94:
What was the question again? LOL.
Maybe a presidential candidate should have to take a test to see if they can answer basic questions about America and the rest of the world. I think that would have weeded out Bush.
I would like to think that the American people would be interested in more than just a person's performance in war games. I mean, come on!
PJ @ 77:
This is not random. Brooks is too close to:
April 14, 2008 “According to a Lexington Herald-Leader, Rep. Geoff Davis, R-Ky., said Saturday that he had recently participated in a “highly classified, national security simulation” with Obama, and said that exercise showed that Obama can’t be trusted to make difficult decisions. “I’m going to tell you something: That boy’s finger does not need to be on the button,” Davis said. “He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country.”
OBVIOUSLY, this is an emerging STRATEGIC mem of the Republicans that already is being aggressively seeding into the body politic. No doubt it has already been extensively tested and vetted by the right wing psych-op brain trust.
It destroys me that “progressive” sophisticates can be so behind the curve on this stuff. Please, please, please, open thine eyes, grow up, and start endeavoring to cut them off at the pass… Because one thing is for sure—they are you, over and over again.
There is a huge difference between being a participant in a war game and being in the Situation Room during a real crisis. Obama probably chose to do something someone else pre ordained the best action. So what? It means nothing.
Nothing at all.
------------------------
Ahh... They... are... ahh... they... are... not... talking... to... YOU. HELLO, tap, tap, is this thing on?
(They are not even talking to the conscious mind of anyone, not even the ego, they are targeting the Id of potentially wavering independent voters—and not even now—they are injecting the mem NOW so that it can have its ripened effect in November) It means nothing to you like a dog whistle doesn't. They aren’t blowing for you friend. ---
This is exactly what I'm talking about. We are in the midst of a raging epochal psychological war over the political soul of a nation and all too many progressives hear from the enemy is white noise.
Effective warriors constantly use all their senses to judge the direction, caliber, and multiplicity of incoming fire. They do or they die--leaving the innocents unprotected.
Watching rationalist progressives trying to politically triumph with reason is like watching baby harp seals trying to make eye contact with their slaughterers.
PJ,
I think the GOP's underlying fear message will be what Rep. Davis said: Obama is black and he'll have his finger on the button.
STOP George @ 96:
When I was watching 'Meet the Press' & heard dweeb Brooks mention a war games test, like many I immediately thought of the "no win scenario" which is why Bush41 & Scowcroft didn't go to Baghdad ie no end game, junior's 28% job approval rating must make daddy so damn proud!
What a dumb fuck.
Yes, let's have war games....... but they can only participate if they wear a flag pin...
And I'm sure any scenario would include attacking Iran for no reason, resulting in our troops being greeted as liberators, therefore making that candidate the only one worthy of sitting around in the Oval Office taking orders from fascist corporations that couldn't give a damn about loyalty to any country or Constitution or anyone's economy or bottom line but their own...
dang davy, that's a spiffy keen idea! i betcha i kin do ya even one better. how about we just take hillary and obama and thunderdome 'em? huh? huh? wouldn't that be neat?
then we could do the winner with mccain! no muss no fuss.
two men enter, one man leaves!
How about let's get the focus off this "commander-in-chief"/"warrior" status and let the war czar and or the Joint Chiefs do that. (Seriously, the USA is such a warrior nation.) Then the president could fix the economy. (ha ha ha, hee hee hee, harr harr harr)
PS I didn't watch the vid, cuz it reads as the stupidest idea ever. Video not required.
This is the most arrogant bullshit I’ve read yet from Brooks’ festering gob.
ATTENTION DAVID BROOKS: HERE ARE THE QUALIFICATIONS TO BECOME PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
Plus, GETS THE MOST ELECTORAL VOTES.
Got that, shit-for-brains? This is a Democracy. Not a military dictatorship.
May I complete my digital screaming fit by adding that there is something seriously missing from Brooks’ arrogant face: my white-knuckled FIST.
This has been a Slippy rant.
===================
I'll second that.
Bob in PA @ 10:
Make that 7,000 Americans back to life - with Gore in office, 9/11 would probably have been aveerted.
102 shiloh Says: STOP George @ 96:
Zenrage @ 6:
Two words: Kobayashi Maru
LOL! Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan.
Kirk cheats by reprogramming an unwinnable war-game scenario, for those wondering.
When I was watching ‘Meet the Press’ & heard dweeb Brooks mention a war games test, like many I immediately thought of the “no win scenario” which is why Bush41 & Scowcroft didn’t go to Baghdad ie no end game, junior’s 28% job approval rating must make daddy so damn proud!
===============================
In fact, it does. Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5livGi2YkTQ
Stupid, Dumb, Idiot!
Is Brooks saying that a state of war (and I'm giving him huge leeway in defining the "War on Terror" as war, and not as piece of semantic word twisting) is the normal state of affairs?
That is a very curious and strange attitude.
Do you know why debates are not working?
Look at the questions they ask! Now ask questions on real issues then the voter will actually know where a candidate stands and have a record on it.
Ask clear concise and thought out questions on issues that are facing everyday Americans and debates will work.
Brooks is often portrayed as a moderate. In truth, he's nothing more than a Republican hack.
David Brooks and Bill Kristol - how do these people who continuously spew moronic, consistently wrong observations which have no apparent basis in reality keep getting put on the air where they are treated as reliable sources of sage advice? Are they blackmailing or sleeping with powerful network executives or media moguls, or have they earned they earned their positions the old fashioned way - by selling their souls to the devil? The mentally ill homeless guy who stands outside a Starbucks in downtown wearing urine-soaked pants and shouting at passers by makes more sense than these idiots.
Don't forget a copy of "My Pet Goat" for republican candidates so they can sit there and read it while we get attacked.
McCain is an old fool who would get his ass kicked by any democrat.
There's a reason the presidency and military are kept separate Bobo. The U.S. tends to shun military dictatorships. Besides which, the president has outstanding military advisers at his disposal. The problem with Bush is that when he didn't like what his military advisers had to say, he fired them. Many of our Founders didn't even like the idea of a standing army, and for the very reasons we're seeing now-the temptation for empire building and foreign entanglements. I do however think it's reasonable that a presidential candidate undergo psychological testing to make sure he/she has the temperament and no other underlying problems (including early senility) that would make him/her unfit. I believe Bush would not have performed well on such a test. This has become a basic requirement for many top level managerial positions to make sure they can handle the stress, make decisions under pressure, multi-task, etc. I love the way that now since McCain is a presidential candidate rethugs are trying to make military experience a necessary requirement for the position of the Commander-in-Chief. The bulk of McCain's military experience was spent as a POW, not commanding troops. He was also at the bottom of his class. Perhaps McCain is going to use the HC ploy of experience by association. You know, since his father and and grandfather were admirals, then by osmosis he has military command experience.
While his solution is stupid the point is legitimate. I'm watching two candidates spiraling into oblivion. The result is candidate fatigue among even their supporters. The wrong person is winning this campaign.
Yet another sign of the oncoming Apocalypse, I am gonna sorta agree with David Brooks. No, the war game idea is totally stupid. But saying the campaign's are too long, that's right on point. I think there should be a strictly controlled time period, say three months before a general election and two weeks before each primary, in which a debate (A real frakkin debate with positions pro and con argued according to established rules not photo op settings) can be held, a few TV ads run and then vote. No makes up their mind until the last minute anyway. The primaries can be financed by candidates, the general by public funds. Voting would be on weekends or at least a voting holiday during the week established. I would also like to make it mandatory. I expect howls from "free speech" people, but what we have now is the most expensive speech ever with the whole country paying the price and getting none of the benefit.
PJ @ 77:
In other news, Republican representatives make shit up.
Lovely parapraxis. Test of leadership = war games...
Join the C&L facebook group!
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19987359032
Is this all this country has come down to? War? It is actually the problem with the country. Why are no other nations on the planet, other than a few hotspots of failed countries, pursuing war? Should war be the only thing that qualifies a candidate to be President? Pursuing terrorism is an intelligence and police action. No war needed. You have to ask yourself has war in both Afganistan and Iraq actually made things better or worse?
Didn't they use that on Star Trek to test new officer candidates?
Brooks: "We should have war games."
ok, how about a nice game of battleship -- then would could settle candidates economic bona fides with a game of monopoly.
. . . jackass
it's obvious brooks and others can't put the genie back in the bottle and their desperation shows. the american people are fighting to regain control of this process and it kills these media boobs to know things may not shake out the way their corporate masters wish. the american people may ACTUALLY want to think for themselves this time.
regardless of how long it takes, this is our demcracy we're fighting for and it's worth every long drawn out second.
Matthew Broderick for President!!!
steve @ 123:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFPlTWcnNMA
David Brooks, you are an idiot. Simulated war games?
Instead, why not put each of the candidates in a room with 1000 people and give them the task of developing a health care program that is affordable and covers all of them. See who finishes first and with the best plan.
Or any other domestic program America needs right now, like corporate oversight and control.
Or how to prevent or end wars instead of initiating them? And yeah, what about illegal wars against sovereign nations -- can we shoot the candidates who recommend them?
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4811
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/14/news/mccain.php
I've an even better idea. Let's let everyone who supports illegal wars pair off against each other with swords and fight to the death. Then the winners can move on to fight their fellows left standing in new pairs. On and on until there's only one winner left. Then give the winner a lollipop.
Count me as one of the few that think this is a good idea...
Our military conducts war games all the time to test for readiness. Why not do the same for presidential contenders?
Many candidates have had the opportunity to test their legislative skills at some point in their careers, so what's one more test.
David Brooks does come up with an oddball thought or two every now and then, but I think he's one of the better commentators out there.
According to Rep. "That Boy" (R-Ky), Obama has already participated in a war simulation.
I have an idea, how about we waterboard David Brooks and see what kind of information we can get out of him.
Just for fun, of course.
131 Jacques Says: I have an idea, how about we waterboard David Brooks and see what kind of information we can get out of him.
Just for fun, of course.
==============================
Sure invite him to "the games." He could be "collateral damage" or an "enemy combatant", with no rights. (Can we have a "play" Gitmo too?) Just for fun, of course.
Stratego first , followed by a game of Risk, followed by the building of a full scale model of the Battle of Gettysburg complete with buckets of pig's blood to simulate reality, followed by a full report on the "successful" Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
For extra credit, a complete dissertation on the effect the war in Afghanistan had upon the economic solvency of Russia in the 1980's.
Hey everybody! I have a crazy f*ckin' idea! People could look at a candidates voting record! I know, I know. You're thinking: "That is some crazy sh*t right there!" But it's just crazy enough to work.
Our military conducts war games all the time to test for readiness. Why not do the same for presidential contenders?
Great idea. Even better, we could just let the generals pick our presidents so we aren't bothered voting for them. Even better, we could let the military run the whole government themselves. Hell, we could let them run the whole damn country.
I know! We could borrow the "My Dad is Better Than Your Dad" tv reality set and have all three candidates get into the giant vats of goo and make them spell out the letters in the goo.... which just happens to say: "No More Wars!" Then MAYBE they would get the message. Or Not.
Who is this David Brooks ass-clown, and who thinks up this bullshit? The criteria for president is now the ability to make war? What about diplomacy? This is what happens when you let short, sexually-frustrated, angry white males dictate policy.
Yeah , let's use this method ; someone who crashed 5 planes in real life definitely has no business in the Oval Office.......................
Of course there needs to be more objective ways and means to assess candidates. War games are a possibility but the candidates may just say what is politically expedient to get elected. We have recently been there, done that with the flip-flopping of the current incumbent.
We need nationally approved questions by impartial panels, not by the privately owned press with their own agendas
Hmmmm. I would say something about the military war games on 9/11/01 but that would be a conspiracy theory, now would't it?
Jacques @ 131:
After having read his column for years, I can assure you that David Brooks contains no useful information.
I think Brooks is on to something. I hate debates, they are extremely artificial and you don't get a good sense about whether or not a candidate would be a good president. But i don't know if war games would be the solution.
I think that an intelligence test would be the best. Like a jeopardy game about foreign affairs, economics and who world leaders are would be much better. then there would be a definitive winner and we could all judge who really knows their shit the best.
Great... say we have a war test..... and say McCain wins...... Does that mean that he is the most qualified to be President? Why? What if he sucks at the economy?, what if he wants to take all your personal freedoms away...? What is he is terrible on the environment and education? etc. etc. I am not even sure he would even win the war prize, as he graduated third from the bottom of his class of nearly a thousand graduates at the Naval academy...? He also really did not get very high in rank in the military....
Here's a brighter idea than yours Mr. Brooks:
We force you to watch your neocon idols slowly hang by rusty piano wire, then publicly waterboard their media accomplices (for example you, Rush, et al) for a good six months.
Brooks and his other ass-kissing media bootlicks have been wrong so often, it's almost like they are fucking us up deliberately.....
AgentX @ 86:
4.) ask the iranians what this is about?? because they dont know?? work with them because IT IS ON THEIR SOIL!!!!
David Brooks, wrong and stupid.
And to think he graces the pages and airwaves of the two liberal iconic media. The NYT and Public Television.
Why?
WAR GAMES?
We already seen the Bush Adm is not very good at transforming real world into fantasy world.
And maybe we can put the candidates in church and listen for the most sincere prayers?
IDIOTS, They still see nothing wrong with Hannity giving questions to George Stepho to ask in a DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY.
You expect that in the General election. But hannity is not a reporter or journalist. He is simply a paid partisan hack opinion splatterer.
These TV icons need to get out more. They just lazily feed off each other and still get paid.
The networks could save money to just outsource these goofs jobs to India. They would be just as in touch.....................................................
Not knowing exactly what David Brooks means by "war games", I disagree with John Amato and think Brooks had a good point. There is probably a better way to choose a candidate.
If he is talking about an actual war room. For one, I'd like America to know who would bomb Iran faster, admitting the biggest problem with this is that msm has spun bombing Iran into a good thing. But I didn't read actual "war games". To me, I think he meant "a real presidential situation", not necessarily in the context of war, and that is something I'd love to see. It would be nice to choose a president by how they make a critical decision, compared to how well they can spin it.
However, I don't think this would be better than a debate, just better than what ABC is calling a debate.
Maybe the candidates should be put in a room with David Brooks and handed a sock full of quarters. Whoever can make him cry out for Allah first is the winner.
Ahaaaa! War games! To test performance in a crisis! That's a great idea!
Quick---hand each candidate a copy of My Pet Goat.
Login or Register to post comments.