“History is a long record of men like [Donald Trump] temporarily rising, stretching back to biblical times.”

brooks-body-quote

David Brooks will be vilified by many for his column yesterday in the New York Times:

Donald Trump is epically unprepared to be president. He has no realistic policies, no advisers, no capacity to learn. His vast narcissism makes him a closed fortress. He doesn’t know what he doesn’t know and he’s uninterested in finding out. He insults the office Abraham Lincoln once occupied by running for it with less preparation than most of us would undertake to buy a sofa.

Trump is perhaps the most dishonest person to run for high office in our lifetimes. All politicians stretch the truth, but Trump has a steady obliviousness to accuracy.

This week, the Politico reporters Daniel Lippman, Darren Samuelsohn and Isaac Arnsdorf fact-checked 4.6 hours of Trump speeches and press conferences. They found more than five dozen untrue statements, or one every five minutes.

“His remarks represent an extraordinary mix of inaccurate claims about domestic and foreign policy and personal and professional boasts that rarely measure up when checked against primary sources,” they wrote.

He is a childish man running for a job that requires maturity. He is an insecure boasting little boy whose desires were somehow arrested at age 12. He surrounds himself with sycophants. “You can always tell when the king is here,” Trump’s butler told Jason Horowitz in a recent Times profile. He brags incessantly about his alleged prowess, like how far he can hit a golf ball. “Do I hit it long? Is Trump strong?” he asks.

In some rare cases, political victors do not deserve our respect. George Wallace won elections, but to endorse those outcomes would be a moral failure.

And so it is with Trump.

History is a long record of men like him temporarily rising, stretching back to biblical times. Psalm 73 describes them: “Therefore pride is their necklace; they clothe themselves with violence. … They scoff, and speak with malice; with arrogance they threaten oppression. Their mouths lay claim to heaven, and their tongues take possession of the earth. Therefore their people turn to them and drink up waters in abundance.”

And yet their success is fragile: “Surely you place them on slippery ground; you cast them down to ruin. How suddenly they are destroyed.”

The psalmist reminds us that the proper thing to do in the face of demagogy is to go the other way — to make an extra effort to put on decency, graciousness, patience and humility, to seek a purity of heart that is stable and everlasting.

The Republicans who coalesce around Trump are making a political error. They are selling their integrity for a candidate who will probably lose. About 60 percent of Americans disapprove of him, and that number has been steady since he began his campaign.

There is much more and all of it worthy.

I’m completely aware that Mr. Brooks has in the past disappointed conservatives and for that reason alone, some will dismiss this piece.  Others of course will dismiss it because they’re Trump supporters and there stands no one in the world today more dismissive of truth than a Trump supporter.  Nevertheless, truth should be widely disseminated when it’s being trumpeted (no pun intended) and so I hope you’ll do your part to viralize Mr. Brooks’ column.

Carry on.

{Image source}

Originally published at Brutally Honest.

Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners March 18, 2016
Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
  • Walter_Cronanty

    David Brooks writing about Donald Trump. That’s like Pepe LePew writing about Foghorn Leghorn.

  • Paul Hooson

    At one time men like Trump were known as false prophets. They were good at great proclamations, but never could deliver the great miracles they promised…

    • Walter_Cronanty

      By that definition, Obama may be the biggest false prophet in our history.

      • Paul Hooson

        His administration has to be disappointing to any of his followers who at one time believed that it would be like the second coming of Bobby Kennedy. At the same time, many Blacks have to be disappointed that race relations or their economic well being failed to advance all that much. And, I hope it’s not true, but an Israeli news service claims that Obama will seek to impose a two state solution on Israel based on the 1949 cease fire declaration which will also Jerusalem in two. This will seriously disappoint Jews like me.

        • Commander_Chico

          Too bad, America’s interests are not the same as your ethnic sentimentalism – same with Irish and Greeks.

        • Walter_Cronanty

          Race relations, like the economic well-being of most people, have gotten worse under Obama. The true extent of his catastrophic presidency won’t be known for decades.

      • Commander_Chico

        Obama is one of the biggest frauds in US history, true.

    • Retired military

      “They were good at great proclamations, but never could deliver the great miracles they promised.”

      Sounds like Obama and Hilary

      • Paul Hooson

        Obama is a proven disappointment. Hillary is a yet unproven quantity, but is prone to some huge failures as the failed Clinton Administration health proposal as well as some foreign policy goofs. Further, there is disputed claims she may yet face an indictment over the Email scandal and may not be the Democratic nominee…

        • Brucehenry

          Bunch of Sunday-morning talk-show conventional wisdom booshwah, sorry.

        • jim_m

          I disagree. Bill Clinton was not prone to the criminal activity that his wife seems to dedicate her life to pursuing.

          • jim_m

            In fact it seems that Hillary took the lesson of Nixon to be that how he behaved was the model for how to act as a politician. She is every bit as paranoid as Nixon was at the height of his paranoia.

          • Paul Hooson

            A year ago I watched an hour long video that detailed Whitewater and so many other scandals this pair were party to. I see them as much like Democratic Nixons. Both are highly skilled politicians, who often are able to achieve real results, but both are scandal prone and honesty challenged. The prospect of a Trump-Hillary race, only pits two of the most dishonest and self-serving wankers out there. That’s not much of a choice at all…

          • jim_m

            Bill lacks the malice toward others that Hillary possesses. I think even Trump lacks that. I think Trump would have second thoughts about letting people die in order to make himself look good, and I would think that he would also balk at sending people to prison in order to cover up his mistakes. We already know that Hillary will do both of those.

          • Commander_Chico

            Choice is clear. TRUMP!!

          • Paul Hooson

            No, Trump’s been neck deep in dealings with organized crime since the early 80’s and even had a convicted Russian mobster as an economic advisor more recently. He’s more authoritarian than Hillary and mows down people with his money funding bogus lawsuits to silence them. Hillary is no good and self-serving, dishonest, but is nowhere as dangerous as Trump is. The FBI have to have one heck of a file on Trump and criminal business associates. Neither of them are morally acceptable choices for me.

        • Retired military

          Obviously you havent looked at umm anything Hillary has done.

        • Constitution First

          She’s proven excellent at influence peddling and security violations…

    • Constitution First

      It’s going to be Trump vs. Clinton.
      If you’re having a hard time with that call, please stay home.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    This writer is spot on.
    “I am almost in complete agreement with David Brooks regarding his assessment of Donald Trump in his latest New York Times column:…

    So why am I almost in agreement with Brooks?

    Well, to put it very simply, what Brooks has written about Trump could just as easily be said of Obama….Last month, Brooks mused about how much he would miss Obama. He characterized Obama’s reign as “remarkably scandal free” which I considered a remarkable statement considering Fast & Furious, the VA, the IRS & Benghazi.” http://spectator.org/blog/65831/what-david-brooks-wrote-about-trump-could-be-just-easily-said-obama

    • Brucehenry

      That article was some weak stuff, Walter.

      • Walter_Cronanty

        Yeah, he should have added Obama’s proclamation about the oceans receding and the planet healing itself and the lies he uttered about gay marriage to get elected, and the lies he told about “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan” to get ObamaCare adopted with no R participation because, as he told Sen. McCain, “the election is over”, and his unconstitutional edicts, and……

        • jim_m

          I haven’t read the article yet, but I would hope it includes 0bama’s idiotic promise to be “the most transparent administration ever” and giving us the most closed, the most resistant to public accountability, the most arrogantly flouting of FOIA requests, ever.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Yeah, he forgot that, too. Bruce was right – weak article.

        • jim_m

          The planet is healing itself. Just go to the Animas River and Flint Michigan for proof.

        • Brucehenry

          Never miss an opportunity to recycle the same old talking points that failed to keep Obama from being elected and reelected. Yawn.

          • jim_m

            So your contention is that because he got reelected that is somehow proof that nothing happened? I take it hat you feel that Watergate was a bunch of BS because Nixon was reelected.

          • Brucehenry

            Watergate got traction because the allegations were true, not spin. And the article Walter linked to was nothing more than a rephrasing of “Nuh-uh, YOU are.”

          • jim_m

            Watergate got traction because the media pursued the allegations. The IRS scandal is true. The EPA scandal is true. The illegal withholding of documents is true.

            Your arguments are the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “La la la, I can;t hear you!”

          • Brucehenry

            If you say so, Jim.

          • jim_m

            Since you won’t oppose the conclusion we can all agree that I am correct.

          • Brucehenry

            Sure sure whatever forget I said anything, LOL.

            Interesting to see how Republicans are beginning to rationalize their coming support for the ridiculous proto-fascist buffoon Trump. “He’s no worse than Obama” will be the clarion call. It would be funny if the potential consequences were not so tragic.

          • jim_m

            And you think that the consequences of 0bama are not tragic? Fool.

            You think that the selection of candidates we have today is not a reflection of his outrageously pathetic administration? Guess again.

            Forget you said anything? You’d have to actually say something in order for us to do that.

          • Brucehenry

            The selection of candidates we have today and have had throughout this year’s GOP primary season are a reflection of the decades-long cultivation of rage monkey prion disease in the “base.” Commingling false (and even genuine) piety with over-fervent nationalism, ignorance, and xenophobia along with the encouragement of a long-dead Horatio Alger myth led to this. So we get buffoons like Carson and Trump, religious fanatics like Cruz and Huckabee and Santorum, and just plain cynical opportunists playing to rubes like Rubio and Fiorina.

            But I will agree that Obama’s failure to punish the big banks and to close Guantanamo and to push a “public option” among other disappointments, helped lead to the rise of Bernie Sanders.

          • jim_m

            You are wrong.

            The rise of Trump is due to the GOP refusing to listen to its base. The TEA Party movement was part of that. It is not about social conservatism, since that has always been a bone of contention. The larger issue for years has been the GOPe refusing to stand for limited government and constantly capitulating to the left on issues of governance. It isn’t about anything more than that.

            The same can be said for the dems and Sanders. He represents the fact that the dems have moved extremely far left and most of their base is from the very far left ( evidence the truth of that by looking at the # of state and local offices the dems still hold). That base is even more furious than the right that 0bama hasn’t turned this nation into a communist concentration camp.

            Hillary represents the Dem establishment that wants to hold on to power no matter what the cost. No matter who is sacrificed, no matter what the damage to the nation. You are part of that crowd.

            If you want the banks punished you shouldn’t be looking to people like 0bama and Hillary, who are both bought and paid for by those banks.

          • Brucehenry

            Well I reckon we are going to disagree, then, Jim, except for your last line. I don’t expect either Obama or Hillary to punish the big banks. Which is why I have supported Bernie.

          • Brucehenry

            Like I said the big epiphany is coming. By October all the Republicans now bewailing Trump will be proclaiming him a Good Man Being Unfairly Maligned. Including you.

          • jim_m

            No I won’t. Don’t bother projecting your own compulsion to endorse any means necessary. There may be a statement that he is the lesser of two evils but no more than that.

          • Brucehenry

            We will see.

          • jim_m

            I have consistently said that Trump will not get the nomination. I believe that he will still probably fall short of winning on the first ballot at the convention. He is not the best candidate and he won’t win the general election. If Hillary wins she will not serve out her first term, she will be indicted and forced to resign. Vote for her running mate.

          • Brucehenry

            But he probably WILL get the nomination. How will the GOP spin denying the nomination to the guy who won the most primary votes?

            And if he does NOT get the nomination, or maybe even if he does, there will be violence from his more thuggish supporters.

          • jim_m

            By having delegate pool to the second choice of their voters. If Rubio, kasich and cruz delegates all pool to one of those candidates that man will win. It is a reasonable position to say that “I voted for candidate x but since candidate x won’t win I want candidate Y instead of Trump.” You won’t find that reasonable because you lack the intelligence to see the truth of that.

          • Brucehenry

            It looks like Trump will arrive at the convention with a mathematically insurmountable delegate lead, though. If that is the case the only way his nomination can be prevented is through some kind of transparent monkeyshines.

          • jim_m

            He would have to have a majority. That is the only “mathematically insurmountable” lead possible. It is not assured that he will have that. I hope he does not.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes he would have to have a majority and it looks like he will have one. But Cruz the religious weirdo is almost as scary to me as Trump so I will still probably vote for Hillary, who I assume will be the Dem nominee.

          • jim_m

            Isn’t anyone who believes in God a “religious weirdo” by your definition? I think we pretty much established that last week.

          • Brucehenry

            Not at all but Young Earth Creationists like yourself are, as are Dominionists like Cruz.

          • jim_m

            I’m not a young earth creationist and have never once argued for that. It is a lie and a smear. You know it is a lie. You are being deliberately dishonest. Per usual.

          • Brucehenry

            OK JIm if you say you’re not a young earth creationist I’ll take your word for it and apologize for the “smear.” You sure sounded like one last week, though.

            EDIT: But I guess since you think calling somebody a YEC is a “smear” that means you acknowledge that there is such a thing as a “religious weirdo” and it is not a concept I invented.

          • jim_m

            NO. I argued that God was not responsible for every single event, that He did not cause to be every event in the universe.

            There is a difference between allowing things to happen and adapting yourself and your plans to them and deliberately causing everything to happen. You are unable to wrap your head around that so you deliberately mischaracterize what people say and lie about them and their beliefs.

          • Brucehenry

            You forget that everyone here has a scroll up button just like you do, Jim. Anyone interested in the truth of the matter could scroll up and see who was mischaracterizing whom in that thread. You looked ridiculous in that thread and everyone knows it. But let’s move on.

            There is indeed such a thing as a “religious weirdo” as you acknowledge by taking umbrage at it being said of you that you are a YEC. Those are weirdos, as are Dominionists like Cruz.

          • jim_m

            Yes, you find ridiculous anything you do not understand, which with your grade school education is quite a lot.

          • Brucehenry

            The whole point of that back and forth was that I did not understand, and you were of less than no help, but thanks.

          • jim_m

            As I said, because you lack the wit.

          • Brucehenry

            Jim, I’m willing to quit rubbing your nose in the fact that you spent that entire thread lying, and re-slaying the same dumbass strawman over and over, whenever you are ready to move on.

          • And at that he was educated beyond his native intelligence.

          • I will not be Bruce… that’s a solemn promise.

          • Brucehenry

            “All” the Republicans being a figure of speech.

          • Scalia

            All the Republicans?? Not this one!

          • Brucehenry

            I should have said “most” or “many.”

          • jim_m

            Funny that you say that and yet you get a chorus of conservatives saying no. And you desperately want to avoid the fact that the resident socialist, Chico, LOVES Trump and when you do admit that fact you try to paint him as a conservative despite the fact that every conservative here finds him repulsive.

          • jim_m

            Interesting that you shout about republican support for Trump when Chico is the loudest and most frequent supporter of Trump on these pages.

            Seems like you are missing something there.

          • Brucehenry

            Chico has never been a liberal, despite your repeated insistence that he is. You see jim, repeating a false claim over and over, even for years, doesn’t make it any less false.

          • jim_m

            He’s no conservative.

            His outrageous racist and misogynist views brand him as a lefty.

          • Brucehenry

            That is true. What I have gathered over the years is that he is a rather hedonistic and somewhat pragmatic cynic, with a slightly libertarian bent. And somewhat of a misogynist, of course. I always thought he was rather smart and still do, except for this blind spot about the ridiculous Trump (which I half expect is a joke or a trolling of some kind.)

          • Commander_Chico

            Chico is sincere in supporting Trump. He has excellent enemies and offers the only hope to bring the current system down.

          • jim_m

            The the rest of the left Chico desires the destruction of the US. Something I have claimed for years now and only just now has he finally admitted it.

          • Commander_Chico

            So you are in favor of the current corrupt system? Clintons and Bushes 4ever?

          • jim_m

            Not at all. I am in favor of reforming both parties and the bureaucracy, not tearing down the entire government.

          • Scalia

            If I recall correctly, Chico has praised Western European socialism. If that is indicative of his political bent, he’s definitely a lefty and not a conservative.

          • Brucehenry

            My recollection is that he has pushed back when rabid “conservatives” malign Western Europe as being some kind of hellhole, and not that he has “praised” anyone.

          • Commander_Chico

            Chico aligns more with European Christian Democrat parties.

            True conservatism preserves the family and cultural traditions by protecting workers and giving people space to participate in civil society, including religious, sporting and artistic groups.

            You can see an example of this right now in Spain, where thousands of people are participating in Holy Week activities.

            Life in the USA becomes more and more a brutal battle for average people, full of ripoffs engineered by corporate and foreign lobbyists, including by a government which takes taxes but provides few services relative to Western European countries. Tax money goes for foreign wars, and welfare like “missile defense.”

          • Ken in Camarillo

            You’ve still got your fingers in your ears and shouting “La la la, I can’t hear you!” ?

          • Commander_Chico

            Watergate had Nixon on tape, not 4th string underlings.

          • jim_m

            Um no it didn’t. It had underlings and an 18 min gap. We’ve got gigabytes of data Hillary erased. Not much difference really. Plus Nixon’s malfeasance didn’t come with a body count.

          • Brucehenry

            Again with the knowing nothing of history:

            http://watergate.info/1972/06/23/the-smoking-gun-tape.html

          • jim_m

            Oh, you mean talking about a cover up? That’s not the same as orchestrating the whole damned thing. We know that Hillary orchestrated the felony violation of national security law. But you don’t care how many felonies are committed if your side commits them. That we know beyond any shadow of a doubt.

          • Brucehenry

            LOL YOU may “know” that Hillary “orchestrated” this or that but WE don’t know any such thing.

          • jim_m

            Oh, so she didn’t know anything about an email server set up at her direction in her own home? You’re an ass.

          • Brucehenry

            That was no more of a felony than the practices followed by Rice and Powell were felonies, despite your imagining that it is a smoking gun.

          • jim_m

            There are over 1340 emails with classified information and at least 29 with information “Top Secret” or above. The classified emails constitute felonies. But as I stated. You don’t care because it is your side. You would piss your pants daily if it were Bush. The 0bama admin has prosecuted people for lesser offenses.

          • Brucehenry

            The classified emails don’t “constitute felonies” since they weren’t classified until after the fact. It’s fair to say that she shouldn’t have had them on her home server, but incorrect to say they “constitute felonies.”

          • jim_m

            Idiot. Go read the freaking law. It says that the material doesn’t have to be labelled. The information is classified, the document does not have to be labelled that way in order for it to be classified.

          • Brucehenry

            Time for “The Walking Dead,” see y’all later.

          • jim_m

            Yeah, because you can’t chew gum and walk at the same time.

          • Scalia

            Again, that is incorrect. The security agreement is with respect to content, not how they’re marked. To gain security clearance, she had to sign that agreement. She should have known they were classified. It is NO defense to say that they were not marked.

          • Brucehenry

            Some of these documents were news stories that were later marked (by whom?) classified. Totally innocuous material, as is often the case when material is classified.

          • jim_m

            The names of CIA operatives are innocuous?

            Again, you are just making excuses. You have called this nothing form the outset and don’t want it investigated so your initial pronouncement is ratified by nothing ever turning up. Even if she is indicted by the Grand Jury you will claim it is nothing.

            As I have said, you will excuse this no matter what. You would be pissing your pants if it were a conservative.

          • Scalia

            And several of them are highly classified. Where are you getting your news??

          • jim_m

            Sydney Blumenthal

          • Scalia

            As I posted:

            EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Clinton’s emails on her unsecured, homebrew server contained intelligence from the U.S. government’s most secretive and highly classified programs, according to an unclassified letter from a top inspector general to senior lawmakers.

            Fox News exclusively obtained the unclassified letter, sent Jan. 14 from Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III. It laid out the findings of a recent comprehensive review by intelligence agencies that identified “several dozen” additional classified emails — including specific intelligence known as “special access programs” (SAP).

            That indicates a level of classification beyond even “top secret,” the label previously given to two emails found on her server, and brings even more scrutiny to the presidential candidate’s handling of the government’s closely held secrets.

            [W]hile the State Department and Clinton campaign have said the emails in questions were “retroactively classified” or “upgraded” – to justify the more than 1,300 classified emails on her server – those terms are meaningless under federal law.

            The former federal law enforcement official said the finding in the January IG letter represents a potential violation of USC 18 Section 793, “gross negligence” in the handling of secure information under the Espionage Act.

          • Ken in Camarillo

            Making that claim this far into the “game” after all the information that is available about security laws marks you as nothing more than a shill.

          • Scalia

            Neither Rice nor Powell set up their own servers to receive their emails. They may have sent some emails to and from their personal accounts, but HRC stands alone for what she has done. And her dishonest defense that the emails in question were not marked classified at the time is a red herring. Her security non-disclosure agreement makes no distinction and specifically says that top-secret emails may be marked or unmarked. She is responsible for safe-guarding top-secret data, and she failed to do so.

          • jim_m

            Bruce doesn’t care. No matter how many people die because of Hillary’s crimes.

            Hillary Clinton’s e-mails included the names of CIA officers serving overseas and foreigners who are on the spy agency’s payroll — potentially endangering their lives, it was reported Monday.

            “It’s a death sentence,” a senior intelligence-community official told the Observer. “If we’re lucky, only [foreign] agents, not our officers, will get killed because of this.”

            The paper said the intelligence community is in panic mode trying to determine which agents may have been compromised.

            CIA officials assume foreign agencies intercepted unencrypted e-mails stored on Clinton’s home server while she was secretary of state.

            The State Department has released e-mails from the server under a court order, but said on Friday that it would withhold 22 of them because they contained “top secret” information.

            Bruce was all about making sure Scooter Libby went to prison for outing Valerie Plame. Not so much when it was revealed that a lefty did it. And he was still all over that issue despite the fact that it was ruled that Plame was no longer an agent and her identity was no longer protected.

            As I said. He cares not one whit who dies just as long as his side wins. He doesn’t care how badly national security is compromised as long as his side wins.

          • Scalia

            As you know, I’m not at all a Trump supporter, but I find it extremely odd for Bruce to wag his finger at Republicans who’ll justify their voting for Trump while justifying his pending vote for Clinton with a “they-did-it-too” rationale.

          • Brucehenry

            Except I’m not. I’m saying that Hillary’s actions are no different,. or not much different, than Rice’s or Powell’s actions — which weren’t wrong either.

          • Brucehenry

            “Unnamed sources” as reported by the Murdoch-owned Post. Ppffftt.

          • Scalia

            Newspapers routinely cite unnamed sources, Bruce. In fact, are you aware of any credible newspaper which doesn’t cite an unnamed source?

          • Brucehenry

            No I am not. But I don’t accept as irrefutable fact and take as Gospel stories which have as their sole basis unnamed sources. Nor should you.

            EDIT: Especially from a News Corp paper.

          • jim_m

            Jesus Bruce. Is there anyone that denies that these emails were classified? Even Hillary’s own excuse is that they weren’t labelled that way when she received them. And BTW, that is not an excuse, she is supposed to be able to identify classified material and treat it appropriately.

          • Brucehenry

            Jim, some of these emails that were labeled classified ex post facto were actually news stories.

          • jim_m

            So your excuse is that information that is classified at the time is later not classified?

            I suppose you would claim that once the CIA operative is dead that their identity is no longer classified so as long as Hillary’s emails naming them aren’t found until after the people are dead she did nothing wrong.

            What a stooge you are.

          • Scalia

            It doesn’t mean you ignore them either. It’s whether the reporter in question is credible or is known to have fabricated material.

          • Commander_Chico

            Bruce, the private server and email domain itself is an attempted violation of public records and FOIA laws. Except she is an idiot who thinks she’s a mastermind so she got caught.

            As for the classified information laws, what Hillary did far exceeds the violations Petraeus was prosecuted for.

          • Brucehenry

            Sez you guys on the internet but so far not DOJ.

          • Commander_Chico

            It’s obvious that using her own private server rather than the state.gov one is an attempt to control the public record. Not transparent.

            Are you being a zombie like certain other commenters on the other side?

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Obama was elected and reelected because many like you yawn at the truth.

          • Commander_Chico

            And because his opponents sucked so bad.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            They weren’t my first, or second, choices, but they beat the hell out of Obama.

          • Commander_Chico

            We will never know, but McCain’s warmongering has been a sign Obama was less bad. Romney a 100% Wall Street stooge.

          • Brucehenry

            And his predecessor.

          • jim_m

            Indeed. Bill Clinton can rape someone and Bruce doesn’t care. Bob Packwood kisses a woman against her will and he is hounded from the Senate. If Bruce didn’t have a double standard he would have no standards at all.

          • Ken in Camarillo

            I don’t think the problem is the “talking points”. The problem is the quality of a citizenry that would elect such a fraud.. twice!

          • Brucehenry

            Yes if you buy those talking points you WOULD think that.

            I got news for ya. Every time an election is lost, the losers think the people who voted for the winners are stupid. You should have asked me what I thought about anyone stupid enough to vote Bush in 04, after it had been revealed what a failure he was.

            Don’t get me started on anyone who defended the idiot after Katrina, and even after the 08 crash.

      • jim_m

        Yes, Bruce. The IRS scandal was a big nothing. The EPA scandal is a big nothing. The US government poisoning the public and covering it up is nothing. Benghazi was nothing, just ask the people who died in order to make 0bama and Hillary look good.

  • Brucehenry

    Brooks gets criticism from more than just today’s so-called conservatives:

    http://wonkette.com/599799/david-brooks-realizes-he-is-terrible-at-his-job

  • Retired military

    “Therefore pride is their necklace; they clothe themselves with violence. … They scoff, and speak with malice; with arrogance they threaten oppression. Their mouths lay claim to heaven, and their tongues take possession of the earth. Therefore their people turn to them and drink up waters in abundance.””

    Sounds like Obama

  • jim_m

    Brooks, like many center left commentators, fails to consistently apply the same principles to those he admires, like 0bama. You could edit Brooks’ column and replace Trump with 0bama and 99% of it could stand as correct without any need of alteration.

    • Brucehenry

      Hoo boy what predictable hogwash.

      • jim_m

        Yes, and you have made several comments to that effect without supplying anything to back it up other than you idiotic denial. That’s some impressive argumentation there Bruce. About as impressive as anything you have ever posted.

        • Brucehenry

          There is no need to back up the assertion that the same old talking points you guys have been repeating forever are hogwash. These “scandals” never get any traction because they are mostly baloney.

          • jim_m

            You have never confronted them a single time. That was my point and it stands as true.

      • Commander_Chico

        Neither Trump nor Obama were unqualified to be president, so in that sense there is a double standard, so I agree with Jim there.

        Other page in the NYT is a story about how GOPe will run 3rd party against Trump.

        Trump has excellent enemies.

        • Brucehenry

          You and I are technically qualified to be president but I don’t think either of us should be.

          Trump is temperamentally and intellectually unsuitable. Any man who is so insecure as to feel it is necessary to reassure us, on TV, that he has a big dick is unsuited to have the nuclear codes at his command.

          • Commander_Chico

            Speak for yourself. Chico would be up there with Eisenhower or TR at least.

            Both Trump and Obama had extensive life experience in different fields. Trump has run a large international enterprise for many years.

            Perhaps Nixon and Johnson were the most prepared presidents ever. Were they great?

          • Brucehenry

            They were consequential. As Obama has been, and as Trump, God forbid, will be.

          • Commander_Chico

            Trump is the only antiwar candidate with a chance. Which is why the neocons like Brooks are so against him.

            With Trump, no war on Iran.

            Remember, Brooks’s son is in the IDF, not the US armed forces.

          • Brucehenry

            Trump has said the nuclear deal with Iran is a “terrible deal” and should be torn up. Why do you insist he won’t go to war with the Iranians?

            If a mullah claims he has a small dick he just might.

          • jim_m

            You mean the “deal” that Iran claims does not exist? There is no deal. There is only a desperate desire from 0bama to look important and to give a boost to enemies of our country. Iran claims that they have made no commitments to us and I cannot see where they are wrong in that claim.

          • Commander_Chico

            Except that the IAEA is still inspecting the shit out of Iran, neocon.

          • jim_m

            Not really. Plus, Iran says that they do not have to comply with inspections and only have to allow inspectors where they choose. There is no more regime for realy inspections. This is just that the left wing leaders from the west lost their resolve and are willing to let a bunch of lunatics get the bomb. While 0bama and you will celebrate when Tel Aviv is incinerated, you will feel differently when it is Paris and Rome.

          • Commander_Chico

            Yeah the Iranians are going to nuke Tel Aviv. Israel has a robust nuclear deterrent.

          • jim_m

            They’ve had a series of leaders who have threatened to do so despite such deterrent.

          • Commander_Chico

            I give allowance to campaign rhetoric and who hates Trump and loves Hillary and Cruz.

        • jim_m

          If 0bama was qualified to be President than anyone with a pulse is qualified.

      • jim_m

        Any day you want to argue that 0bama is not one of the greatest narcissists ever to occupy the oval office, we would be amused to see that.

        I would love to see you argue how the man who takes selfies at the funerals of other people is not a narcissist. http://cdn.crossmap.com/images/1/38/13854.jpg

        • Brucehenry

          Another example of the Great Rationalization that is surely coming “No more of a narcissist than Obama!” you will repeatedly say. (Hell you’re doing it NOW, lol.)

          Trump will be, like Romney, A Good Man Unfairly Maligned.

          • jim_m

            No. I am saying that Trump is every bit the narcissist that 0bama is . I am pointing out that you refuse to admit that fact. You refuse to admit that the man you worship as a god is actually a pig.

            Waiting for you to explain how electing 0bama is what stopped global warming.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes, you are doing exactly as I said you would do. The election of Trump will be cast as the lesser of two evils, because Trump will be rebranded as no more of a narcissist (or a fascist, or a hedonist, or a demagogue, or whatever pejorative you choose) than Obama.

            Already.

          • jim_m

            Moving the goal posts much? What a liar you are! Just an hour or so ago you said that I would be claiming that Trump was unfairly maligned. I said he would be the lesser of two evils and you saw the difference in that statement. In fact you replied in such a way as to acknowledge that there is a difference between the two positions.

            And need I remind you that Trump is not running against 0bama. He will be running against Hillary, the most criminal candidate to run in our lifetimes, if not ever.

          • Brucehenry

            Republicans spend every election season running against Jimmy Carter, LBJ, and FDR so Trump will, in that sense, be “running against” Obama.

            If you say you won’t be making the arguments I am predicting will be made by Republicans well, good for you, but I bet you will. We’ll see.

            Of course you already have here in this thread but maybe you won’t from now on, lol.

          • jim_m

            No. I have not. I have not once argued that Trump is unfairly maligned. I have argued that he is fairly maligned but that you refuse to look at your own candidates with the same honesty.

            But why should you look at your own side with honesty when you cannot even discuss this issue with me in an honest fashion?

          • Brucehenry

            Yes, re-reading this thread I see that I have misrepresented you, or rather changed my argument in midstream. You have not — yet — claimed that Trump is being unfairly maligned, and yes, you have simply said he would be the lesser of two evils.

            My point should have been that Republicans will find SOME rationale to justify voting for the odious buffoonish thug Trump and that some of them will claim he is being treated unfairly and others, like yourself, will claim he is only the lesser of two evils and after all, is no more of a — fill in the blank — than Obama.

            I apologize for and regret mischaracterizing your argument.

          • jim_m

            Thx

          • Brucehenry

            Wasn’t hard at all to do. You should try it some time 😉

          • jim_m

            I have.

          • Retired military

            Meanwhile democrats would have us beieve that they spend every election cycle running against Hitler.

          • jim_m

            Just because every dem candidate since FDR has made that accusation…

  • Retired military

    “there stands no one in the world today more dismissive of truth than a Trump supporter. ”

    Unless you talk about the antiTrump zealots who would rather see Hillary as President but hey if their nominee is the GOP candidate then by golly you better vote for them even if they are nothing but a RINO.

    • Not sure I’m following this… isn’t Trump the ultimate RINO?

      • jim_m

        I think most people see Trump as being apart from the GOP so a RINO designation is pretty much redundant. Most use RINO to refer to someone who is a politician by profession

  • Tanuki Man

    Brooksie isn’t impressed with the crease in Trump’s trousers? Viralize anything by this elitist douchecanoe and you’ve lost me.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    “Insapundit” Professor Glenn Reynolds has written an excellent review of this article, and put it in its proper context. It’s worth reading in its entirety, but I believe these are the money quotes:

    “…Yet the tea party movement was smeared as racist, denounced as fascist, harassed with impunity by the IRS and generally treated with contempt by the political establishment — and by pundits like Brooks, who declared “I’m not a fan of this movement.” After handing the GOP big legislative victories in 2010 and 2014, it was largely betrayed by the Republicans in Congress, who broke their promises to shrink government and block Obama’s initiatives.

    So now we have Trump instead, who tells people to punch counterprotesters instead of picking up their trash.

    When politeness and orderliness are met with contempt and betrayal, do not be surprised if the response is something less polite, and less orderly. Brooks closes his Trump column with Psalm 73, but a more appropriate verse is Hosea 8:7 “For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.” Trump’s ascendance is a symptom of a colossal failure among America’s political leaders, of which Brooks’ mean-spirited insularity is only a tiny part. God help us all.” http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/03/20/donald-trump-political-establishment-elites-tea-party-bourgeois-working-class-column/82047484/

  • Jwb10001

    Islam commits an act of terror and Donald Trump gains another 10 million votes, thanks in no small part to the likes of David Brooks and the republican establishment that he represents. I’m no fan of Trump I think he’s dangerous, but I completely understand his appeal. He speaks in direct terms that have been lacking in our political class for decades. I know our liberal friends will rush to blame Bush and US actions in the mid east, fine, but the issue is here now and needs dealt with. Blaming the past actions of whites, Europeans, Americans, the crusades is pointless, we’ve been doing that for years the results of taking blame isn’t working. Reasonable leaders need to understand that a large number, perhaps a majority of Americans are done with political correctness and leading from behind. If the leadership doesn’t want Trump they need to understand their own failures and change accordingly. Otherwise we’re going to have the mid wife of the Libyan debacle leading our country during this time.