Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Brooks: Blackmail works. Probably. Please.

David Brooks outdoes himself in today's column. He actually argues that we should reward the GOP's last four years of scorched-earth blackmail by electing Romney - and justifies that by admitting that Romney has no convictions. "He would also observe the core lesson of this campaign: conservatism loses; moderation wins. Romney’s prospects began to look decent only when he shifted to the center. A President Romney would look at the way Tea Party extremism had cost the G.O.P. Senate seats in Delaware and Nevada — and possibly Missouri and Indiana.To get re-elected in a country with a rising minority population and a shrinking Republican coalition, Romney’s shape-shifting nature would induce him to govern as a center-right moderate." And he claims that although "conservatives would be in uproar. Talk-radio hosts would be the ones accusing him of Romneysia, forgetting all the promises he made in the primary season. There’d probably be a primary challenge from the right in 2016," nonetheless "Republicans in Congress would probably go along."


What a ringing endorsement. And what a sad, sad state to come to: arguing that your man would be better for the country because your party will "probably go along" with a hypothetical "shape-shifting" president who would have learned that "moderation wins" and betray his base after he gets into office, while acknowledging that "Republican House members still have more to fear from a primary challenge from the right than from a general election challenge from the left" and that therefore whatever Obama wants to do, the votes won't be there. 

So, shorter Brooks: my party is such a cesspool of extremism that the only way "big things" (which, by the way, are not progressive things) can get done is by electing Romney, because otherwise only "small-bore stasis" (like, he says, " some new infrastructure programs; more math and science teachers; implementing Obamacare" - you know, little things). Romney will give us "bi-partisan reform" (meaning "tax and entitlement reforms" with some "serious concessions" like "abandon the most draconian spending cuts in Paul Ryan’s budget; reduce the size of his lavish tax-cut promises"), "Bi-partisan" because the Dems will work with Romney too while the GOP will work with him only, and "reform" because, well, because.


Labels: , , ,


At 2:00 PM, October 30, 2012 Anonymous Kathie had this to say...

Was this your handiwork?

Q. What do you think of David Brooks' column where he essentially says we should vote for Romney because he's a flip-flopper and the Republican Congress will work with him, whereas Obama has firm principles and the Congress will continue to stonewall him? I'm still picking my jaw up off the floor.
– October 30, 2012 1:08 PM

A. Eugene Robinson:
I just hope David's next column isn't about how we need strong presidential leadership.
– October 30, 2012 1:13 PM


At 3:31 PM, October 30, 2012 Blogger The Ridger, FCD had this to say...

No. But I approve of it!


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post

Links to this post:

Create a Link

     <-- Older Post                     ^ Home                    Newer Post -->