… and Kristol. Remember the year of Bill Kristol’s hilariously bad column.
2 Likes
Certainly true. And the NYT’s roster is nowhere near as bad as the stable full of dingbats at the WaPo (Will, Rubin, der Krauthammer, etc.). TBH, Brooks is usually just so pathetically weak that I can’t bring myself to hate him.
2 Likes
David, I am one of those NYT subscribers who says that. You have no original thoughts. Quite frankly, your column should be in the book review section, since all you ever do is write columns about books you have read or are reading. Please, just go away.
That could be any year since the little pisher learned to write.
David, maybe you should actually listen to your readers. Who, exactly, are you writing for? Yourself?
Brooks was definitely better when Mark Shields’ hand was up Brooks’ butt, pulling on the lever as he talked.
Probably assumes he’s speaking hard truths to people who need to hear them.
Just another DC Villager living inside a well padded limousine.
Does Brooks understand that producing work that is such crap that it only manages too escape the utter contempt of most intelligent people by the fact that it doesn’t merit that much of their attention is not an accomplishment?
What’s with all this vitriol? I appreciate the articles written by both of them.
He’s not always wrong:
Palin represents a fatal cancer on the Republican Party
1 Like
Brooks “doesn’t have a lot of ideas”, full stop. He recycles the same tired old common wisdom BS over and over again from his undeserved sinecure at The Times. And as to his surprise that people hate him and think Krugman is great, it’s pretty simple: He does suck, and Krugman is great. It doesn’t matter Krugman is a liberal, and Brooks is a limp-wristed middle-of-the-road common wisdom “conservative”; it’s that Krugman has great ideas backed up by hard data, is often right, writes clearly, persuasively and well, while Brooks rehashes old arguments poorly and has few ideas.
So really, David ol’ bean, it’s pretty simple: You suck and Krugman is great. Get over it. Or improve.
1 Like
David Brooks is not Rush Limbaugh: he’s polite; “he looks… clean.” Thus his mandate to speak for Conservatives who also want to believe they’re not the slightest bit like “that awful Limbaugh, even though sometimes Rush does have a point…” etc.
Unlike just about every other conservative pundit or politician out there, Brooks does have a self-effacing sense of humor. (Something he shares with Krugman).
I don’t blame him for not reading his hate mail - really, what’s the point? But on the occasions when I read his column, I’ve always been impressed with the careful rebuttals that fall down the page when one sorts on “Readers’ Choice.”
People really are on to him and his superficial reports from his mostly-fantasy world.
2 Likes
doesn’t “have a lot of ideas” meaning he doesn’t have any ideas. He is just another corrupt columnist selling his space to the billionaires.