David Brooks whimpers "Please don't be a big meanie to us!"

[CTyankee]

Honestly, the man is a total disgrace to the OpEd page of the NYT, ONCE AGAIN. Cowering in the corner, he writes

"Some on the left are suggesting that he adopt a strategy of confrontation and conquest. The president should use the advantages of victory to crush the spirit of the Republican House majority, they say. Reject the Grand Bargain approach. Instead, take the country over the so-called fiscal cliff. Blame it on the Republicans who are unwilling to even raise taxes on the rich. Wait until they fold, and then you will have your way.

The first thing to say about this strategy is that it is irresponsible. The recovery is fragile. Europe may crater. China is ill. Business is pulling back at the mere anticipation of a fiscal cliff. It’s reckless to think you can manufacture an economic crisis for political leverage and then control the cascading results.

Second, it’s terrible politics. Obama could probably triumph in a short-term confrontation, pushing through higher tax rates on the rich that wouldn’t even produce enough revenue to cover a tenth of the deficit. But he’d sow such bitterness that it would be the last thing he’d pass for the rest of his term. The Republican House majority isn’t going to magically disappear."

Link to full article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/opinion/brooks-obama-the-dealmaker.html?ref=global-home

Hey, David, would you like some cheese with that whine?

[CanonRay]

1. To Republicans, elections only mean something

when Republicans win. They'd like us to roll over and play dead, "compromising" by doing what they want to do, which is their definition of compromise.

[IdaBriggs]

2. "The recovery is fragile." - So, Obama has managed to create a recovery, eh?

Gee, when did that happen? It must have been from all of the "helpful advice and support" the Republican House has provided.

We should totally listen to the people who only notice 'the truth' when it suddenly becomes convenient for them!!!

[Doctor_J]

3. False assumption by Brooks

he’d sow such bitterness that it would be the last thing he’d pass for the rest of his term.

Dear David - they hate his guts, and would rather crash the country than let him succeed. For the president to agree/work with them on anything would be pure folly. THAT would be terrible politics.

Shoo.

[CTyankee]

5. Yeah, where was Brooks when the Grand Bargain fell apart because of Republican intransigence?

I don't recall him slapping down the Republicans for not dealing THEN?

[Fumesucker]

4. Remember that Brooks is a moderate and beloved by the totebaggers who hang on his every word

[bongbong]

11. Not a moderate

He's a repig. And typical of repigs, he lies & tries to cover up that fact by appearing moderate. Has he ever praised progress and Liberalism?

NO!

[Fumesucker]

13. Of course Brooks is a moderate

He's constantly saying that both sides do it.

That's the very definition of moderate.

Here's how moderates think..

[bongbong]

17. Tom Tomorrow always hits it out of the ballpark

BTW, the reason those wars are greeting with "meh" from the public is that the MSM has been ordered to keep news about wartime dissent to an absolute minimum.

Since those wars are pretty much nothing other than a gigantic (multi-trillion dollar) transfer from Middle Class taxpayers to the rich class, don't look for the trend to stop anytime soon.

[libinnyandia]

6. His columns are a waste of ink and paper. I never could understand why The Times hired him.

[PETRUS]

7. Rebuttal

From Dean Baker of the CEPR:

David Brooks Is Worried About Non-Existent Economic Crises

It's so cute to see all the serious people who are so worried about economic crises that do not exist. They are constantly telling us how the "job creators" (a.k.a. rich people) who run businesses are just so nervous and uncertain they don't know what to do. The current concern is that taxes could rise at the end of the year and government spending will fall.

Of course this would be bad news, but would it be a crisis? As many people have pointed out, this is called "deficit reduction," which is exactly what most of the people now complaining about an imminent crisis have been advocating. The tax increases and spending cuts would weaken the economy and, if left in place over the course of the year, would sharply slow growth and likely push the economy into a recession.

But none of this happens in January. In fact, almost nothing happens in January except the Bush tax cuts expire, substantially improving President Obama's bargaining position. This is bad news for Republicans, but so what?

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/david-brooks-is-worried-about-non-existent-economic-crises

More at the link.

[CTyankee]

8. thanks! that was refreshing! He sounds a lot like Paul Krugman who has been essentially saying the

same thing.

Brooks is truly delusional if he doesn't know that we are on to his game and have been for some time.

[PCIntern]

9. Fuck him and the black horse he rode in on...

I'm good and goddamned sick and tired of their "you have to be careful when you win" meme...

[bongbong]

10. Fuck your hypocritical ass, Brooks

Come to think of it, that's my reaction to anything Brooks (or for that matter any repig) writes.

[Skidmore]

12. What it boils down to is that the media which has served this nation so poorly is peopled at the top

by overpaid gasbags who are trying to protect their large salaries by covering for the wealthy.

[99Forever]

14. Slither back under your rock, Brooks...

.. you slimey POS. Take the rest of your ilk with you. We won, you lost, you don't get to dictate terms.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

15. that it is irresponsible????????

But it wouldn't have been irresponsible to gut SS and Medicare if a Romney Ryan win had been reality?

No Grand bargain please, and no more whining RW cheerleaders that seem to forget every GOP insult to the American people and Democracy.

[stopbush]

16. "higher tax rates on the rich that wouldn’t even produce enough revenue to cover

a tenth of the deficit."

So, we shouldn't raise taxes on the rich because it won't wipe out the entire deficit? Er, I'd say that wiping out 10% is a great start!

Conservatives throw this phrase out, hoping that people infer their hidden message, "geez, it it would only cover 10%, then why do it at all?"

[bongbong]

19. Stewart had a piece on this hypocrisy a while ago

repig: "Taxes on the rich will only raise a few trillion, nothing worthwhile. But cutting funding Planned Parenthood will save 0.00001% of that, thus that's absolutely necessary!"



(BTW: I call the Daily Show host "Stewart" because he occasionally has some inane False Equivalence story on, plus he allows lying repig scum like Huckabee airtime to flog their books. I'll never call Stephen by his last name

[CTyankee]

20. Isn't it amazing that they don't think we are onto this game?

Chris Hayes stopped Edward Connard in his tracks on last Sunday's show about this argument. Basically, it doesn't make any sense NOT to do it. The RWers can't get it thru their thick skulls...

[Barack_America]

18. Ha ha ha, Gergen. Remember the "Contract with America"?

Yeah. Welcome to the flip-side.

Nasty politics always originate on your side of the aisle.