Read time: 4 minutes

The Moral Schizophrenia Of David Brooks

Four days ago, Mr. David Brooks had a very public meltdown in the pages of the New York Times. Four days later, Mr. Brooks has the nerve to declare that Bernie Sanders is not a serious candidate for president.
The Moral Schizophrenia Of David Brooks

Four days ago, Mr. David Brooks had a very public meltdown in the pages of the New York Times, lamenting that his Republicans party had become a shithole of incompetent, bombastic monsters and "masters at destruction" who "can’t even acknowledge democracy’s legitimacy" and for whom:

Compromise is corruption. Inconvenient facts are ignored. Countrymen with different views are regarded as aliens. Political identity became a sort of ethnic identity, and any compromise was regarded as a blood betrayal.

And now, four days later, Mr. Brooks has the fucking nerve to declare that Bernie Sanders is not a serious candidate for president because he refuses to embrace the Republican's latest Rovian ratfuckery: whanging away at Hillary Clinton over the damn emails.

Using Fox News' own perennially favorite phrase for cowardly Liberals -- "raising the white flag of surrender" -- Mr. Brooks bashes Senator Sanders for not morphing into Trey Gowdy in order to Atwater his way to victory.

The fun begins at around the 3:20 mark:

Brooks: The one advantage the Republicans have is that a bunch of them want to be president. On the Democratic side it appears only one person wants to president, and that's Hillary Clinton.

Crosstalk

Moderator: There's going to be a lot of Bernie Sanders who are going to disagree.

Brooks: Then why doesn't he challenge her? His one... just as a matter of political tactics, uh, he really has only one avenue, uh, to beat her and I don't think it's going to be ideological. People are going to have to decide she's not trustworthy enough, she's not viable enough, on character and personal grounds to be elected. And when he takes the email off the table, uh, he's really taking away that lever. And, so, I think he basically raised the white flag of surrender and really strongly and very powerfully diminished any chance he might have had of getting the nomination.

Later that same day on PBS we find Mr. Brooks doing what he does best: redacting inconvenient parts of his own immediate past in order to further advance a fundamentally terrible idea:


↓ Story continues below ↓

Brooks still stuck with the Rove/Limbaugh-trademarked line about the Senator Sanders running up the "white flag of surrender" for not going after Secretary Clinton over her character and trustworthiness --

DAVID BROOKS: ...But the other factor is, the Republicans are actually arguing and fighting with each other. And what I saw up there was Hillary Clinton performing extremely well, and four other guys lying down and let her, letting her have the nomination. It’s like Bernie Sanders held up the white flag of surrender when he refused to really go after her on the character and moral issue, which is his only way in.

-- but he was now denying that he was in any way suggesting that Senator Sanders should have fallen in with Trey Gowdy's despicable email witch-hunt...

DAVID BROOKS: He doesn’t have to go after her on e-mails. Democrats don’t want to talk about e-mails. But he has to go after her on the only piece of leverage he has. I don’t think he is going to win because he’s further to her left. He has to win because somehow she’s seen not quite — we’re not quite sure if she’s trustworthy, electable...

...even though, just hours earlier, that was, word for word --

And when he takes the email off the table, uh, he's really taking away that lever. And, so, I think he basically raised the white flag of surrender

-- exactly what he was saying.

One of the great liberties of being David Brooks must undoubtedly come from the sure and certain knowledge that your colleagues are such useless, timorous blobs of pusillanimity that you are absolutely guaranteed to never be held accountable by any of them for anything you ever say or do.

Speaking of which...

As I mentioned up top. it's now been four days since America's Most Ubiquitous Conservative Public Intellectual took his Mighty and Unequivocal Dump on the Republican Party in the pages of the New York Times, thus upending the entire Both Siderist scam which has been the bread and butter and mortgage payments of the Beltway media since the Clinton years.

And thus far, none of the Village media elite has dared to touch a word of it with a barge pole.

And I doubt they will.

Because the privileged, inbred, dysfunctional Village deals with periodic, embarrassing truthblurts from members of their clan in the same way the privileged, inbred, dysfunctional Cleary family dealt with granny's periodic, wildly inappropriate outbursts in front of company in the Wedding Crashers: by bundling the offender off to bed and pretending it neeeeever happened:

Crosspostes at driftglass.blogspot.com

Comments

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Any comments that are sexist or in any other way deemed hateful by our staff will be deleted and constitute grounds for a ban from posting on the site. Please refer to our Terms of Service (revised 3/17/2016) for information on our posting policy.