HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » senz » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Fri Jan 1, 2010, 03:15 PM
Number of posts: 11,945

Journal Archives

David Brooks is a rhetorician, a propagandist, a shyster.

He tries to appear the neutral observer, but everything he says, he says "for effect." His purpose is to persuade his listeners/readers toward the free market anti-government viewpoint while appearing to be "just talking." He has been doing this for years. He does it in his NYTimes columns and in his appearances as a TV commentator. Quite frequently, Brooks tells outright lies. His lies are usually small and tucked into the broader discourse so that they are less likely to be noticed and analyzed. He wants people to accept these little disparaging falsehoods as simple "facts," knowing that over time such "facts" can slant a person's worldview.

Recently, he has been saying -- quite off-handedly -- that Bernie Sanders gets his big crowds by playing to "college towns." The term "college town" is dog-whistle for "liberal elite, ex-hippie, out-of-touch intellectuals." The term is intended to minimize and marginalize Sen. Sanders. (Clearly, Brooks considers Sanders a threat.)

Not too long ago, in a PBS Newshour discussion of the ACA, Brooks casually mentioned that the initial Internet-based rollout of the ACA failed due to the ineptitude of "government IT workers." That, of course is a lie: the ACA online system was developed by private contractors, not government employees.

Listen to Brooks carefully, knowing that he is always spinning, always calculating. He's like the duck who moves so smoothly across the water, all the while paddling like mad just out of sight. Sometimes he gives himself away by glancing around nervously as he talks.

I need to talk to you, misterhighwasted & hope you haven't put me on ignore.

I saw this thread last night but was too sleepy to reply and almost didn't find it today. But I want you to know that what you say has some truth to it, even for me. I can understand how you feel, up to a point. When Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992, I danced all night with a crowd of happy revelers and burst into tears when they played "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow." After the hideousness of 8 years of what may have been irreparable damage inflicted upon our nation by that phony actor Ronald Reagan, and after 4 years of the seemingly nice but actually cynical Poppy Bush, it felt like the sun was finally shining on our fair land when we had a Democrat in the White House again.

Despite Bill Clinton's questionable moves (WTO, NAFTA, 1996 Telecom Act, repeal of Glass-Steagall, harsh welfare reform), I supported him throughout the 90s. A large part of my support was a reaction to the attacks by what Hillary correctly termed the "vast rightwing conspiracy." I spent the 90s (and ever since) enraged by what they were/are doing. The newly developed Worldwide Web connected me with fellow angry Dems who were finally opening up about our shock and anger at Republican viciousness. I burned at that putrid sh!t Kenneth Starr's impeachment website and a little later, my online cohorts and I read Joe Conason's The Hunting of the President and exploded at what the Supreme Court did to our country on December 12, 2000.

But nothing made me angrier at Republicans than what they did to Hillary Clinton. I couldn't believe it when, early in Bill's presidency, some southern state repubs hung her in effigy. They seemed to hate her even more than Bill -- and she was only the First Lady. I read faces fairly well and could see how shocked she was and how frightened inside, even while putting on a very brave front, which I think she has done ever since. So I do feel for her.

But then her image began to crack. It happened in bits and pieces and wasn't an orderly process in my mind. One of the early fissures was when she decided, seemingly out of the blue, to run for the Senate from New York state. New York? Neither of them had ever been New Yorkers. This bit of carpet bagging was jarring. Then she voted for Dubya's war. What? Who is this woman? Then I read somewhere that Bill really missed the White House, and fairly quickly it became apparent that Senatorial ambitions were merely a stepping stone to regaining the White House -- and the pro war vote was mere ash-covering, keeping her record strong for her true ambition. Most people run for president after having run and served in the interest of their actual beliefs. Never has she expressed strong belief in any cause beyond women and children. Concern for the bread and butter lives of average Americans seems foreign to her. Then I caught some TV footage of Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea moving very slowly and deliberately through a crowd of people, walking in a sort of slow syncopated march with their chins up, eyes half-lidded, very serene, very above it all, and I realized that they saw themselves as royalty -- above and beyond the mere groundlings, those ordinary, plebeian Americans. I guess they think they're the new Royal Family. That's a whole lotta ego. And not much heart.

Then came the 2008 campaign. That was when Hillary finally blew it for me. She conducted herself without a shred of ethics. It became obvious that she would do and say anything, without any filter from a conscience, to get what she wanted. There were the lies, but what finally blew my stack was when she was asked if Barack Obama was a Muslim, and she replied with something like, "Well, he says he isn't, so, I don't know, probably not..." My jaw dropped, and I couldn't believe what I was hearing. Then I admitted to myself what I'd been avoiding for years: Hillary Clinton has no conscience left in her soul. After that, news of the secrecy, the distrust, the punishment of any apparent disloyalty, didn't surprise me. And her recent behavior -- refusing to address Americans as if they mattered, putting emphasis on getting rich, hiding her views from the public, etc. Gross. And Chelsea's first job out of Stanford was with a hedge fund? Really? And then she married a hedge fund manager? Really? It just gets uglier and uglier.

When Elizabeth Warren came along pressing for a fairer, more equitable economy, I couldn't believe our collective good luck. When she didn't want to run (perhaps fearing Clinton retribution?), I had hopes for Martin O'Malley, whom I still like. As a long time fan of Thom Hartmann, I've loved Congressman, then Senator, Sanders forever, so when HE decided to run, that was it, for me. No he's not a Dem, but he's a better Dem than Hillary will ever be. Democrat is more than a party; it's a state of mind.

What do I think happened? Unless she was this way from the start and I missed it, I think the rightwing abuse hardened her to what she is now. If she ever had ideals, I think they're gone. I believe that all she cares about is herself and her family (possibly just her daughter). Period. I would not trust the American people's fate to her. But if it ends up either her or a Republican, then I will, with great regret, vote for her. And you will be jubilant that "she" got what "she" wanted. For herself.

Misterhighwasted, rightwingers LOVE the1%. Slavishly. I don't "play RW talking points." You have

no idea how much I LOATHE rightwingers. As for Emily's list, they endorse women. That's their right. But you've probably figured out that many of us Bernie supporters find a bit too much of the rightwing in Hillary. You may adore her, but so far the Democratic Party is big enough for both of us, and if you believed in small-d democracy, you'd understand that.

So please don't give me that condescending little "Bye." It makes you look bad.

Jimmy Carter knows the Bible quite well and has a good understanding of Jesus.

Anyone who has read and pondered the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) knows that Jesus was not the least bit interested in our sex lives. Jesus cared about hearts and souls -- how humble, kind, loving, and good we are. He would never castigate two people of the same sex who want to enter into a lifelong caring, loving, committed relationship. He would certainly not snoop into their bedroom.

It's too bad so many of his supposed followers are obsessed with sex. It's one of the things that separate them from him. Unfortunately, this unhealthy obsession also manages to taint the entire religion.

Open your eyes, DanTex

DanTex opines,
"The argument for Bernie doesn't do so well in rational, nuanced world, which is to say, the real world."

Real world? Are you not aware that Bernie has about 20 times the government experience of HRC. He is tried and true, having won elections for Mayor, for U.S. House of Reps (numerous times) and for U.S. Senate.

He knows how government works, and he works well with others. He gets things done and makes friends, not enemies. Unlike Hillary, his ethics and honesty are right out there for all to see. Unlike Hillary, he can't be bought. Unlike Hillary, he doesn't pull strings behind the scenes to get what he wants. Unlike Hillary, he is not secretive.

Bernie Sanders has the qualities we need in a president.

Odds are, our chance to support him is from now until the Dem primary

...and even if Hillary beats him, our efforts will not have been wasted. The media, the public, and the powers-that-be need to know that Bernie's goals and values are passionately held by many, many (maybe most?) Americans. This is how we let them know. We must come out in numbers for Bernie.

And if Bernie beats Hillary, then we go ALL OUT to support and defend him, because the powers that be will try to destroy him. (And they are NOT "nice people."

I hate to say it, but this might be our last chance.

A "true liberal" sides with the poor and the powerless

against the rich and powerful.

Bernie is a true liberal.

That's just a PARTIAL list of what needs to be done before a progressive president have an impact.

The best president in the world can't do it single-handed. The Big Boys (unelected) would destroy him/her in no time.

Obama's done dozens of good things for this country, but each one he had to squeeze through by the skin of his teeth. I hope someday he'll write an honest book about what it was like, but for his and his family's safety, he might not be able to.

He COULDN'T close Gitmo

The Republicans wouldn't let him.

He's president, not dictator. He shares power with the other 2 branches of government.

Bet you didn't know that.

Your post isn't fair to him, LWolf.

For instance, you emphasize his words "the answer is . . . a third way" but leave unbolded what he actually means by that phrase:

New international rules and institutions to ensure that globalization goes hand in hand with higher living standards, basic worker rights, and environmental protection."

and you bold quote this, "We need greater choice, competition, and accountability within the public school system," which is immediately followed by:

not a diversion of public funds to private schools that are unaccountable to taxpayers.

and this, "Conclude a new round of trade liberalization under the auspices of the World Trade Organization," which is followed by:

Strengthen the International Labor Organizationís power to enforce core labor rights, including the right of free association. Launch a new series of multinational treaties to protect the world environment.

In other words, your bolded quotes, which are all that someone skimming the material would see, give a false impression of what O'Malley is actually saying. Reading the bolded quotes alone, he sounds like a neocon. But if we read the entire paragraphs, we see that he is anything but.

Also, the document you are quoting from is dated 2010, so it is unlikely that he was saying it with a presidential run in mind.

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 Next »