Brooks: Liberal Blogs Are “Semi-Nuts and They Insist on a Stalinist Line of Disciplineâ€
By on Feb 12th, 2006 at 10:32 am
Brooks: Liberal Blogs Are “Semi-Nuts and They Insist on a Stalinist Line of Disciplineâ€
From this morning on the Chris Matthews show:
DAVID BROOKS: Whoever the Democratic candidate, that is the weakness of the Democratic party, they’ve got the blogs and the netroots who are semi-nuts and they insist on a Stalinist line of discipline.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: I love your objectivity.
DAVID BROOKS: It’s objectively true. I did a psychoanalytic test.
We love you too David.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Since when is David Brooks a psychoanalyst? Psycho I believe, but his analytical abilities are at minimum, well, minimal.
February 12th, 2006 at 10:36 amcurley and moe, do these jerks live in a cave or what? I do love the threat the wingnuts feel from bloggs, they must hate freedom of speech…lol.
February 12th, 2006 at 10:37 amI don’t think Bobo really conducted any psychoanalytic tests. I think he just borrowed Tom Friedman’s Moustache of Understanding and thought that was the same thing..
February 12th, 2006 at 10:38 am“Stalinist line of discipline”? You mean like not allowing comments or something like that? It rather looks like Brooks can’t tell his left from his right.
February 12th, 2006 at 10:41 amHe actually meant to say, “I was given a psychoanalytic test.” He left out, “I failed.”
February 12th, 2006 at 10:46 amI wonder how much Davey had to pay for the lobotomy. Was it covered by insurance?
February 12th, 2006 at 10:49 amI really don’t believe he could pass a psychoanalytic test. But it is nice that he admitted to taking one.
February 12th, 2006 at 10:58 am“It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”
– Joseph Stalin
February 12th, 2006 at 10:58 amPlease peeps…don’t attack the messenger…Chris has got loads of these “experts” lined up, with a waiting number, just to tell us what to believe. If not David Brooks…then, who will tell the people…objectively? Hah!
February 12th, 2006 at 10:59 amThanx Judd, I can’t watch this stuff.
He must have been reading troll posts – especially those where Mighty Aphrodite argues with herself.
February 12th, 2006 at 11:00 amHeh. They really are feeling the heat.
By the way, Bobo: I’m a trained psychologist. Just because you know an analyst, it does not qualify you to sling analytic bullshit.
February 12th, 2006 at 11:00 amCould someone please locate an explanation of this test of which he speaks?
February 12th, 2006 at 11:00 amRepublican response: I’m right, just ask me!
February 12th, 2006 at 11:02 amThey hate bloggers because bloggers are clearly better journalists and pundits than they are.
They are embarassed as they should be, and are lashing out at people who believe in facts and reason, who expose and challenge, right wing talking points.
“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.” – Ghandi
February 12th, 2006 at 11:03 amI think Krauthammer administered the test.
February 12th, 2006 at 11:03 amLet me share how I see the right wing mentality:
1. They are people that claim their religion is the only one because religion for them is not about how to be…it is about solidifying an identity….shoring up an insecure ego.. and an extremely fearful one. This is why religious intolerance is so bad and so evil. It causes wars…..just look at the harm religious fundamentalism has caused in history–far more harm than good.
2. They don’t anaylize things deeply….they feel things deeply. They feel threatened by people who lead the examined life in terms of reason. They are fundamentally emotional in their thinking and are afraid. Life is a mystery but they can’t handle that. They fight tooth and nail for views that make them feel secure
3. They have felt excluded from mainstream society for a long time and now that they have some power they are ecstatic…but extremely worried about losing it.
4. Religion for them is not about love, learning how to live with diversity, or humility which involves the recognition that we as humans really know very little
5. They are authoritarian based and focus on power before love. Love is about letting go and welcoming all…..power is about holding tight and excluding many.
6. This group of people needs to be worked with.
Let me ask this:
February 12th, 2006 at 11:06 amWhat do people see in the above lists that are openings for us to heal the divide in this country? i.e. how do we take the reigns away from Rove and the Bushies in their “pit the right and left against each other so we can do our dirty work in secret” game plan? I think that the Democrats need to learn how to help right wing fundamentalists feel: 1. safer with Dems in power. Because their need to feel safe is PARAMOUNT 2. Don’t rub the fact they supported the monsters that are now in power, just welcome them back to sanity. Because these people’s weakness is they cannot admit being wrong 3. Learn more about what makes them tick…they are just people. And they are not bad people, just ignorant. 4 don’t fall for the personal attacks anymore. Just stay on target when talking to them…sort of like the scene in Star Wars “STAY ON TARGET!” as the fighters are buzzing around the pilot that blows up the death star. Just keep coming back to the issue/idea being discussed OVER and OVER, ignoring the personal attacks.
It is pretty clear that left-wing blogs have
February 12th, 2006 at 11:12 amthe GOP establishment and their media minions very
worried. Good. It is about time.
Brooks, the man who puts the anal (& psycho, now that I think about it) in psychoanalytics!
But seriously, folks … has he hired Jon Stewart’s writers to do his material? That’s viking hilarious! That’s Monty Python & Blazing Saddles quality sardonic & subtle sycophancy!!
February 12th, 2006 at 11:15 amHey David…PROJECT MUCH?
February 12th, 2006 at 11:15 amBill Frist can diagnose illness from a videotape.
David Brooks can determine sanity from a bloggers posts. George Bush can look at a persons soul and tell you if they’re good or bad.
Shouldn’t these guys have spandex costumes like the X-Men.
February 12th, 2006 at 11:23 amI’m with you mparker ha ha ha ,
February 12th, 2006 at 11:27 amSuzanne, fantastic post. I’ll try to keep it in mind before responding to posts from trolls. But more importantly, as you said, we all need to think about ways to include them.
February 12th, 2006 at 11:27 amHere’s the latest from “Our Ms. Brooks,”
February 12th, 2006 at 11:29 am“It’s objectively true. I did a psychoanalytic test.”
“It was a Rorschach test where they took the words from liberal blogs and used them to form the pictures. I saw Stalin every time they showed me one.
Really! That’s objectively true!”
True is true, you don’t need to qualify it with “objectively.” And, Ms. Brooks, your “objectivity” always seems to be subjective.
Now, which side of your mouth is your foot in?
No, you’re wrong. I guess you really can’t tell right from left, can you?
Now, be a good little girl and goose-step home to your right-wing pals…
BROOKS IS A DORK.
‘NUFF SAID.
February 12th, 2006 at 11:29 amspandex — Ewwwwwwwww!
February 12th, 2006 at 11:29 amI’d be interested to see the response if Brooks made the same statement on The News Hour.
February 12th, 2006 at 11:30 amBrooks just as Lieberman is a judas iscar1ot .
February 12th, 2006 at 11:37 amBrooks put lefty bloggers’ answers in an online test at quizilla, and discovered their SG1 character would be a prior. Righty bloggers got the Nox, cuz they’re so advanced. The only reason they didn’t get the ascended ancients is because righties actually use their vast intellectual powers for good. Psychologically pwned, leftwads!11!!!
February 12th, 2006 at 11:38 amHey you done been PSYCHOAMBILIESED
February 12th, 2006 at 11:41 amSuzanne:
Your post was amazing. Thanks.
February 12th, 2006 at 11:43 amI don’t think the GOP is really worried about blogs so much as simply laying the groundwork for another meme. This one advances the idea that the last realm of real liberal dissent – blogs – is tainted by Stalinism. One you accomplish the task of demonizing any messenger in conflict with your agenda, you no longer have to argue cogently or persuasively. Your talking points now function like a squawking parrot in the minds of citizens. Of course, this is pretty much a variation on the #1 meme: liberals are to blame for everything.
February 12th, 2006 at 11:44 amIt sounds so crazy, only the mentally ill would believe it.
February 12th, 2006 at 11:45 ami’ve yet to see the term Stalinist appear in the pyschiatric literature.
February 12th, 2006 at 11:50 amon a general level, he may have a point, there’s a huge disjnucture between the apparent mental health of those who write the articles on political blogs and those who comment on them. mind you, if the blog writers had mighty aphrodite and I-right-I adding in their bullshit as they typed, then the picture might be different.
Uh, isn’t psychoanalysis the used to determine childhood causes for present day mental problems? If he didn’t say that it was “objectively true” in the sentence before, I’d think he was just pulling it out of his ass.
February 12th, 2006 at 11:51 am“Stalinist line of discipline”? Is he sure he isn’t talking about the BushCo White House? Incomptence, corruption and plain stupidity won’t get you fired there, but dissent will. Sheesh…
February 12th, 2006 at 11:53 amI think he meant “psycho-analist”, but I could be wrong. BoBo is just the pits. Explaining Democrats and the left to America and making helpful suggestions on how we can “better ourselves” and win more elections. Thank you so much, you are too kind.
February 12th, 2006 at 11:54 amHe is talking about Stalinist slef-discipline as the mouthpiece of a party that will not allow any criticism of their leader.
Christ, they can’t even put the date of Bush’s alleged departure from office on a statue for fear of angering Dear Leader.
-GSD
February 12th, 2006 at 11:54 amOh yeah. Let these wolves in chimps clothing continue to marginalize and ignore us. All the better to sneak up on them and slap them across their caviar smeared lips.
-GSD
February 12th, 2006 at 11:56 amI don’t know why (didn’t see the clip) but I thought of the scene in Harold and Maude, where Harold’s mother answers the psych test questions…maybe that was Dave’s method too?
I think the ‘Stalin’ reference may just be a ‘grab’ to throw communism into it as part of their belligerent and persistent attempts of control. Like a sheepdog barking and running around the sheep. But a goofy looking sheepdog.
Suzanne, I’m thinking that even if the left became the absolute manifestation of perfection and goodness, somehow the ‘media’ just won’t see it our way. I’d say that #2 on your list seems to be a good possible match with the ‘Culture of Corruption’ theme I think the dems are expected to focus on in the short term.
Going beyond this election, I think that by maybe putting the Constitution next to some of those ‘10 Commandments’ displays some of it would sink in?
Seriously though, one additional value to add to the right-wing mentality is ‘pride’. They have been told how much better they are than everyone else in the entire world for a long time now. Perhaps a way to use their pride is to show them how valuable our Constitution actually is. Some sort of big trophy for best Constitution? Make them feel proud to actually believe in what our country stands for again?
February 12th, 2006 at 11:56 amIs that anything like the Stalinism that NASA’s top climate scientist accused the Bush administration of using to suppress dissent?
If Brook’s breaking stories is that there are nuts on the Internet, he’s about 20 years too late. Yes, we’re a bit nutty, and you can find every conspiracy theory under the sun on blogs, but I don’t hear left wing bloggers saying we need to pack our political enemies off to internment camps. Do you?
February 12th, 2006 at 11:58 am“Stalinist line of discipline� Is he sure he isn’t talking about the BushCo White House? Incomptence, corruption and plain stupidity won’t get you fired there, but dissent will. Sheesh…
Comment by Hyades
The more accurate term for the Bush WH would be “Hitlerist line of discipline.”
February 12th, 2006 at 11:59 am#39 Pride is a big part of it. Part of Clinton’s success was he enabled the right wing to think they’re better than us, enabling some semblance of bipartisanship. When they weren’t obsessing over his penis, that is.
Incidentally, that is also a good approach to take w/North Korea. Let Kim Jong Il think he’s right, that he’s better than us, that he’s winning, while surreptitiously opening up the society out from under him. But that approach would require the U.S. letting go of our pride, and Bush is incapable of that.
February 12th, 2006 at 12:01 pmHe is just protecting the interest of his group of sociopaths that pretend to be managing multinationals, but are gaining ever more power at the expense now of even their investors. Pure capitalism knows no boundries and has no conscience. Corporatism’s only obligation is to grab power of which the way to get it is to grease the skids with money. Money is just a means to facilitate trade, wether it be for good & services or power. Anyone or group that is not part of the power elite will be called a communist, socialist, fascist…(even though socialism and fascism are mutually exclusive but come to the same end, that of the few ruling over the masses in a totalitarian state).
Just as it is the job of the troops in Iraq to protect the largest US military and embassy facilities being built outside of the US (DC middle east) and not rebuild Iraq and bring democracy, our government, democrat and republican alike, never intended to rebuild the Louisiana coast line except for the oil lines and ports.
What Eisenhower identified during WWII as the Military-Industrial-Congressional complex of profiting from the misery of War, is now without a doubt the most power mad group of sociopaths ever to exist in this country.
February 12th, 2006 at 12:01 pm#41 NASA’s top climate scientist also referenced Nazi Germany when talking about the Bush administration’s treatment of his colleagues.
February 12th, 2006 at 12:02 pmHe did a what? A psychoanalytic test? Brooks has devolved into the lunatic in the asylum who thinks he’s the psychiatrist. The shrink goes up to Brooks and asks: “Do you know who I am?” Brooks: “No, but maybe you should ask the nurse.” What a putz.
February 12th, 2006 at 12:06 pmBe nice to Bobo… he actually believes the GOP crap and he’s mostly harmless. Just give him a teddy and a mug of warm milk and tuck him up for the night and he’ll be fine. He just gets confused, bless him.
February 12th, 2006 at 12:07 pmSince Kos and MyDD and Blue Jersey and TPM Cafe allow diarists to write anything they want without any editing or censorship, and since Atrios and others allow comments unedited, how is that “Stalinist line of discipline”?
I mean, just look at the fights that go on in commetns, for goodness sake. There is no discipline at all, much less Stalinist!
February 12th, 2006 at 12:10 pmTrue is true, you don’t need to qualify it with “objectively.â€
Nope. Truth, like beauty (cf. Keats, Ode on a Grecian Urn) is in the eye of the beholder. There are lots of different kinds of truth. But only scientific truth is (or at least is supposed to be) objective. Scientific truth is supposed to be independent of the observer. Other kinds of truth (religious, economic, military, etc.) are subjective. If a person believes it is true, then it’s true.
February 12th, 2006 at 12:13 pmLily,
I think I’ll just keep to the Stalinist phrase – no need to come up with a new term since Brooks and company are so good at coming up with them on their own…
February 12th, 2006 at 12:13 pmConservative GOP blogs are filled with fascists, morons, and goofballs on prozac, so who cares what Brooks a Bush lover thinks about Liberal fair-minded blogs!
February 12th, 2006 at 12:14 pmwhat’s the psychoanalysis of closet homosexuals who insist on controlling masses of people with spin and lies?
February 12th, 2006 at 12:16 pmThis is what the right wing does. Ken Mehlman calls Mrs. Clinton “angry.” Brooks calls the blogosphere “semi-nuts.” Kerry, the war hero, was indecisive and weak. They view their job as shaping people’s emotional responses in ways that marginalize their enemies. It’s not enough to call Brooks names — worthy of them as he is — it’s more important to understand the tactic, because we’ll see it more and more.
DD
February 12th, 2006 at 12:19 pmThen, when we take power, put Brooks in a gulag.
Whining f**k.
February 12th, 2006 at 12:19 pmBrooks’ attack on the blogs is simply indicative of his increasing fear of being dragged down off his perch as a real live pundit and exposed as the piece of human garbage he really is.
February 12th, 2006 at 12:19 pmChris Matthews, who cares about this Facist asswipes thinks?
February 12th, 2006 at 12:22 pmIt’s just a matter of time before Hardball is cancelled, and we won’t have to see his ugly, smirking fat face again.
As for David Brooks, who in the hell is David Brooks?
Over 50 comments proving Brookes’ point – excellent. You moonbats keep up the good work now…
February 12th, 2006 at 12:23 pmWhat an embarassing thing to say…”I did a psychoanalytic test”….Ridiculous!
February 12th, 2006 at 12:26 pmThat must be a joke; has Brooks ever read a right wing blog? They are so full of hate and the violent rantings of redneck racists and morons they make Mein Kampf read like Where’s Waldo. But of course, as they toe the GOP line of regurgitating talking points and ’stay the course,’ the likes of Brooks have no problem with their paranoid, delusional fantasies of a PNAC world dominated by the US. Brooks is a specious tool for the GOP, who reminds me of nothing so much as the nerd from High School who would change in the washroom for gym class.
February 12th, 2006 at 12:28 pmPerhaps Brooks would be interested in this piece of psychoanalysis:
“Paging Dr. Freud: Why Bush Acts So Tough.”
February 12th, 2006 at 12:33 pmpjr corrected for accuracy:
They [leftwing blogs] are so full of hate and the violent rantings of racists and morons they make Mein Kampf read like Where’s Waldo.
February 12th, 2006 at 12:35 pmYep, absolutely true. David Brooks psychoanalytically tested me over the Internet.
Of course, I had my Eliza subroutine answer for me.
He also thinks I’m a 16-year-old girl.
And hot.
February 12th, 2006 at 12:37 pmAnd the award for originality goes to … psycho analist!
February 12th, 2006 at 12:40 pmcynical ex-hippie,
You heard the full story on the guy who told him to stop talking to the press about global warming right? This guy was appointed by Bush to a top position in NASA. He was supposed to have a degree in journalism from Texas A&M. Turns out he didn’t even have a journalism degree, because he never finished school. Let alone having some type of science or engineering degree. It is another cronyism placement of an unqualified person who work on Bush’s campaign.
Needless to say, he retired the day after it was discovered he didn’t have the degreee he said he did. You know, lying on your resume, ala Michale Brown.
New York Times
February 8, 2005
A Young Bush Appointee Resigns His Post at NASA
Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him (Jan. 29, 2006)
Lawmaker Condemns NASA Over Scientist’s Accusations of Censorship (Jan. 31, 2006)
NASA Chief Backs Agency Openness (Feb. 4, 2006)
And Brooke’s is going to call us Stalinistic. Oy!
February 12th, 2006 at 12:41 pmhmmm – looks/sounds like our resident psycho little wally is back…
February 12th, 2006 at 12:44 pmad homenim remarks, edits and all…must ignore it…now you know…
My response when I read the Brooks comment was that this was parody. What a fuckin’ idiot! These guys are really feeling paranoid. Maybe they won’t be able to control the narrative any more. That day could not come too soon.
February 12th, 2006 at 12:45 pmDavid Brooks reminds me of the guy who follows the elephants in the parade., You know the guy….the little man, dressed in white, with a shovel and can on wheels. His job is to clean up the poop up as the elephants lumber along. Brooks does his job quite well.
February 12th, 2006 at 12:46 pmPsycho Analyst
February 12th, 2006 at 12:46 pmYou rarely see such a perfectly self-descriptive moniker for a troll. Did you choose it yourself or was it your boss at the RNC?
[...] Think Progress » David Brooks: Liberal Blogs Are “Semi-Nuts and They Insist on a Stalinist Line of Discipline” [...]
February 12th, 2006 at 12:47 pmCynical, I think it’s probably apparent to most people who “reason rather than feel” (thanks Suzanne), that, by definition, this administration is embracing fascism.
“…advancing ideas of strength and power as means of legitimacy, a might makes right that glorified war as an end it itself and determinant of truth and worthiness.”
“Fascism is also typified by totalitarian attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life: political, social, cultural, and economic.”
“Fascism uses explicit populist rhetoric; calls for a heroic mass effort to restore past greatness; and demands loyalty to a single leader, often to the point of a cult of personality.”
“A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.”
“Mussolini defined fascism as being a right-wing ideology in opposition to socialism, liberalism, democracy and individualism.”
“Fascism was, to an extent, a product of a general feeling of anxiety and fear among the middle class…”
“…the movement came to be supported by sections of the middle class fearful of socialism and communism.”
“…the use of systematic propaganda to pass on simple slogans such as “believe, obey, fight” ‘
etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
February 12th, 2006 at 12:48 pmgood morning spudge – you’re up early!
your comment to me last night (which i read this morning):
“SNL, it’s only 9:30
Comment by Spudge_Boy — February 12, 2006 @ 12:26 am”
when i posted it was 10:30 illinois time…and SNL was not even on… olympics…
February 12th, 2006 at 12:49 pmBrooks and Matthews have nothin. They’re running scared of us because they know we’re telling the truth, that the only thing we demand of them is the truth. Their day has come and is going, and they know it, and the only thing they have left is insults.
Anyone for a thorough investigation of Mr. Brooks? I’ll bet the man has tons of skeletons in his closet.
February 12th, 2006 at 12:49 pm“Stalinist” is Trotskyite code for liberal — interchangeable for anything proceding from the grassroots, don’tcha know? It’s revealing, nonetheless.
February 12th, 2006 at 12:53 pmWhere is the Greek Chorus? How can you tell what in Hellena is going on without a Greek Chorus? How is this comedy going to end?
February 12th, 2006 at 12:55 pmI’ve been reading ‘The Culture of Fear’. Very fascinating how the right is allowing themselves to be controlled by a nearly hysterical fear of things that are so remote, which ignoring, and frequently encouraging things that are killing us all (second hand smoke, cancer from environmental waste, etc).
I did some quick math on the odds of a 40 year old American being killed by a terrorist within the span of that 40 years. The odds are like one in a million. The odds for heart disease killing them is significantly higher – like one in a thousand. Yet they fear the terrorism, and not the daily Big Mac.
Pointing out these things has some impact on those who are rational. My cousin formerly would advocate that “Those people are trying to kill me and my children”, until I explained the statistics, and now she is emailing everyone anti-war messages along with breast cancer awareness. Sure, she’s still afraid, but at least of the truly dangerous things. And I think, if anything, as Suzanne pointed out, respectful dialog (of which I haven’t always adhered) sometimes does make a difference.
All we need is a majority.
February 12th, 2006 at 12:55 pmAll we need is a majority.
We already have a majority (check any poll, including the 2004 election exit polls). What we need is non-partisan control of vote counting.
February 12th, 2006 at 1:00 pmOkay let’s put “Stalinist” and “psychoanalysis” together. Wasn’t it the Soviets who shipped off dissenters to psychiatric hospital/prisons? Brooks is the actual Stalinist.
February 12th, 2006 at 1:01 pmGood points unbelievable and all, wanted to add on another one of your posts you mentioned MA argued with herself. You forgot the part that she looses those arguments. LOL…..Blessings
February 12th, 2006 at 1:09 pmFascism is of the left.
February 12th, 2006 at 1:10 pmWe already have a majority (check any poll, including the 2004 election exit polls). What we need is non-partisan control of vote counting.
Comment by Frankly, my dear, … — February 12, 2006 @ 1:00 pm
Maybe it will take a plurality then and not just a majority.
I’ve seen the 2004 election poll analysis. Pretty suspicious.
What we need to remind the Right is that it’s not an ‘us’ verus ‘them’, it’s ‘we the people’. We just have to find a way to find concensus and take back our country from the tyrants who would be king.
February 12th, 2006 at 1:11 pmGood points unbelievable and all, wanted to add on another one of your posts you mentioned MA argued with herself. You forgot the part that she looses those arguments. LOL…..Blessings
Comment by Sharon Cox — February 12, 2006 @ 1:09 pm
That she does… :)
February 12th, 2006 at 1:12 pmPsycho Analyst
February 12th, 2006 at 1:20 pmI repeat:
You rarely see such a perfectly self-descriptive moniker for a troll. Did you choose it yourself or was it your boss at the RNC?
Since you have absolutely nothing to say, why don’t you run along?
purvis ames, thank you for proving Brookes’ point for him one again.
February 12th, 2006 at 1:25 pmFascism is of the left.
Comment by psycho analyst
Please see post #69. Fascism, by definition, is right-wing ideology.
February 12th, 2006 at 1:27 pmIn the early 1950’s some leftists who were former Trotskites from City College were hired to “contain” dissent by marginalizing (through personal attacks) members of the former Popular Front, most of whom had been liberals but some of whom had been communists, who had publically supported or been part of the New Deal. (See Frances Stoner Saunder’s The Cultural Cold War.) Formost in this set were Irving Kristol and his wife Gertrude Himmelfarb. Their son is Bill Kristol. These people supported Nixon and Reagan after the six-day war and form the core of today’s neo-conservatives. They tend to intermarry and at a certain point in the 70s or 80s found the anti-liberal views of Leo Strauss (whom they conflate with Mario Puzo) congenial. Among themselves “Stalinist” is the worst form of insult.
February 12th, 2006 at 1:27 pmAdolf Hitler and his perverted Nazi followers loved to call their political enemies Communists, Stalinists, and Socialists too! The GOP and Bush lovers doing the same thing, proves that they are Nazi/Fascists bent on hatred!
February 12th, 2006 at 1:27 pmFascism by definition is of the left.
February 12th, 2006 at 1:27 pmGingrich cheers frustrated conservatives
By WILL LESTER
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON — Newt Gingrich, who led the Republican Party to power a dozen years ago, told cheering conservatives Saturday it is time to overhaul a balky, slow-moving government locked in the last century.
Citing multiple government failures after Hurricane Katrina, the former House speaker said the government meltdown at all levels illustrated how badly government needs to be updated in all of its operations.
“The system failed, the city of New Orleans failed, the state of Louisiana failed and the government of the United States failed,” Gingrich said. “When you see an American body on an American street sitting there for three days on television because the government can’t collect the dead, something has failed.
Yes NEWT its called the Neo-Cons and its YOU and YOURS thats the Problem. At least you ADMIT to it NEWT.
Who is David Brooks….?
funny that the Neo-cons are almost solely ‘Media Rooted’.
and he forgot to analyze Newt and the corrupt congressman.
Besides that how do you analyze all LIBERAL blogs Mr Brooks?
Stalinist? Lemme see Rummy runs around calling People Hitler and now your calling ALL Liberal Blogs ‘Stalinists’?
Wow,, I think Mr Brooks perhaps needs some analyzing.
February 12th, 2006 at 1:27 pmPA
February 12th, 2006 at 1:29 pmYou can’t even spell “Brooks” and “once” and I’m not feeding you anymore.
Fascism by definition is of the left.
Comment by psycho analyst — February 12, 2006 @ 1:27 pm
I can’t imagine how anyone could honestly say, that those tree hugging, do gooder liberals, have fascist tendencies.
Read the characteristics of fascism, and then tell me, that fascism is a trait of the left.
http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm
February 12th, 2006 at 1:30 pmPoor empty-headed purvis ames is reduced to spelling correction now! Funny!
More proof of Brooks’ point.
February 12th, 2006 at 1:31 pmFasicsm is clearly of the left.
February 12th, 2006 at 1:31 pm#86 psycho analyst
February 12th, 2006 at 1:33 pmPlease provide a link to back up your definition.
Fascism means the mating of corporate industry, military, and government into one entity > it is a right-wing ideology! It is not leftist >PERIOD.
February 12th, 2006 at 1:40 pm… our resident BANNED “psycho” little wally is back…
February 12th, 2006 at 1:41 pmad homenim remarks, edits and all…must ignore it…now you know…
Lily:
http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2005/10/what_is_jonah_g_1.html
February 12th, 2006 at 1:44 pmAnyone know what katy is babbling about?
February 12th, 2006 at 1:45 pmThe Bush administration condones torture.
The Bush administration uses prisons around the world so that it can detain people without the burden of U.S. law.
America under Bush arrests people and declares them ‘enemy combatants’ so that they can be detained indefinitely without legal representation.
President Bush uses executive privilege to subvert the will of the Congress, the governmental body meant to represent and protect the rights of the people of the United States of America.
The Pentagon under Bush has deemed peaceful protest groups ‘threats’ and has monitored them, presumably to protect us from the threat that they pose. [ http://progressive.org/mag_mc121605 ]
President Bush has been engaged in clandestine, warrantless wiretapping of American citizens in violation of Federeal Law under the guise, once again, of protecting the country.
The right wing keeps coming up with new and absurd ways of saying that it is wrong to criticize the president. [The newest example of this being Laura Bush saying that Hillary shouldn't say that the Bush administration is one of the worst in history because Hillary knows how much it hurts to have ones husband maligned. This is so absurd. Clinton was dragged through the mud for sexploits, but Bush is running this country into the ground. Clinton put experts in charge of key departments, and Bush uses buddies like Brownie. I believe that it is the job of a senator to criticize the president when he is doing a bad job (Iraq, Katrina, political corruption, the erosion of privacy rights, the national debt, the Medicare prescription drug 'benefit' ... exactly how many failures does a president have to preside over before it's okay to criticize him? The bar was certainly much lower with Clinton.) I don't even understand how it is that people don't see through the obvious political inspiration behind right wing calls to stop criticizing this president. AARGH!]
So let me see now. Precisely whose discipline was it that was Stalinist?
I want freedom. I want debate. And I am willing to make concessions for people whose views are antithetical to mine. That’s what I was doing the entire time I watched Clinton water down the liberal platform until it essentially became Republican-lite. But my acceptance of compromise was apparently misinterpreted as voicelessness.
So now we have a voice, and we’re using it. And it can’t be good for the right to realize just how wrong they were to assume that what they were doing was more in line with the desires of most Americans.
I believe that this maligning of lefty blogs is a new ploy by the right wing to force a wedge between liberal bloggers and the Democratic Party. I just hope that the pols don’t listen because even though David Brooks might think us extreme, we are absolutely more in tune with the desires of the average American than he is: we want health care, we want Roe v. Wade, we want the lives of the men and women in our military to be treated as sacred and not misused to secure oil fields in farflung places, we want cleaner air and water, we want sustainable and environtmentally sound alternatives to fossil fuels and we want truth and fairness.
We sometimes get angry now because we see how wrong everything is going, but no matter what nuts like Brooks say [I try to read his pieces but have a great deal of difficulty dealing with the truthiness of them], we have to remember that what we are is not radical, it is practical. And what we want is simple: we want to make this country a better place not just for some, but for everyone.
February 12th, 2006 at 1:48 pm#96 PA
ROFL Did you even read from your link?
February 12th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
heh heh.
make that ‘Federal’.
February 12th, 2006 at 1:53 pmbeautiful grympypug…i’t like to add this one thing, at the end:
February 12th, 2006 at 1:56 pmAnd what we want is simple: we want to make this country a better place not just for some, but for everyone…for now and the future.
so sorry about the typos, grumpypug…
February 12th, 2006 at 1:58 pmJonah Goldberg lol > his mom is a card-holder fascist who helped Linda Tripp to smear President Clinton! Nothing Jonah spews is even remotely true! Fascism is a right wing idea and Republicans are fascists!
February 12th, 2006 at 2:06 pmEveryone must bring a casserole or baked goods to this year’s May Day party. Or you will be executed.
February 12th, 2006 at 2:10 pmThe Neo-Cons Split….
Greenwald Blog (constitution Lawyer ) Slams Conservatives for Mis use/Use of the Word ‘Liberal’
Reading Alexandra’s post, I learn that I have “sold out” due to my “blind loyalty to the liberal cause of sabotaging the Administartion (sic) with whatever means available at any given time.” I’m “now simply dancing to the tune of the Daily Kos audience, and it is very disappointing to watch.” Her primary argument in support of this theory is that I have “attempted to pulverize the talented John Hinderaker and Jonah Goldberg,” that I hold “the brilliant Jeff Goldstein” to a “higher moral standard,” and that I say unkind things about the “relentlessly talented and courageous Michelle Malkin.” Seriously. That’s because my “posts have become a barrage of personal attacks on conservative bloggers which were not present pre-love affair with Daily Kos, Atrios, Digby and Crooks and Liars .”
I want to leave the personal issues to the side and examine a few of the substantive issues raised (unintentionally) by Alexandra’s post. It used to be the case that in order to be considered a “liberal” or someone “of the Left,” one had to actually ascribe to liberal views on the important policy issues of the day – social spending, abortion, the death penalty, affirmative action, immigration, “judicial activism,” hate speech laws, gay rights, utopian foreign policies, etc. etc. These days, to be a “liberal,” such views are no longer necessary.
Now, in order to be considered a “liberal,” only one thing is required – a failure to pledge blind loyalty to George W. Bush. The minute one criticizes him is the minute that one becomes a “liberal,” regardless of the ground on which the criticism is based. And the more one criticizes him, by definition, the more “liberal” one is. Whether one is a “liberal” — or, for that matter, a “conservative” — is now no longer a function of one’s actual political views, but is a function purely of one’s personal loyalty to George Bush.
One can see this principle at work most illustratively in how Bush followers talk about Andrew Sullivan. In the couple of years after 9/11, Bush followers revered Sullivan, as he stood loyally behind Bush, providing the rhetorical justifications for almost every Bush action. And even prior to the Bush Administration, Sullivan was a fully accepted member of the conservative circle. Nobody questioned the bona fides of his conservative credentials because he ascribed to the conservative view on almost every significant political issue.
Despite not having changed his views on very many, if any, of those issues, Sullivan is now frequently called a “liberal” (at best) when he is talked about by Bush followers. What has changed are not his political views or ideological orientation. Instead, he no longer instinctively and blindly praises George Bush, but periodically, even frequently, criticizes Bush. By definition, then, he is no longer a “conservative.”
February 12th, 2006 at 2:10 pmHe has no business analyzing anything!! Just as useful as the Bushies investigating themselves.
February 12th, 2006 at 2:11 pm“attempted to pulverize the talented John Hinderaker and Jonah Goldberg,†that I hold “the brilliant Jeff Goldstein†to a “higher moral standard,†and that I say unkind things about the “relentlessly talented and courageous Michelle Malkin.â€
Talented and Courageous? thats funny.
February 12th, 2006 at 2:12 pmMisleading Media Whores sounds much better
It’s a joke guys.
Besides him being right, you have no sense of humor!
February 12th, 2006 at 2:29 pmThe so-called blog dictatorships only apply to right wing blogs. I have never ever experienced this on progressive, liberal, democratic, or independent minded blogs. This is such common knowledge, that only someone trying to smear any blogs that don’t support the Bush White House would say such garbage.
Anyone who has ever tried to post anything even slightly off of the “GOP talking points” on a right wing noise machine like FreeRepublic for example, is immediately banned.
But, once again this is the way the Bush Republicans work: Accuse anyone who disagrees with you of doing that very thing which you yourself are most guilty of doing.
The new Bush Republican motto should be “Pot that calls the kettle black”.
February 12th, 2006 at 2:32 pm“You see,” my colleague went on, “one doesn’t see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for the one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even to talk, alone; you don’t want to ‘go out of your way to make trouble.’ Why not? – Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.
“Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, ‘everyone’ is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees none. You know, in France or Italy there will be slogans against the government painted on walls and fences; in Germany, outside the great cities, perhaps, there is not even this. In the university community, in your own community, you speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, ‘It’s not so bad’ or ‘You’re seeing things’ or ‘You’re an alarmist.’
February 12th, 2006 at 2:48 pmBloggers as Stalinists?…
So says the mediocre-at-best, out-of-touch David Brooks:DAVID BROOKS: Whoever the Democratic candidate, that is the weakness of the Democratic party, they’ve got the blogs and the netroots who are semi-nuts and they insist on a Stalinist line of disci…
February 12th, 2006 at 3:16 pmPolitics is such a wacky game, everything has to be looked at, analyzed, and evaluated for the underlying meaning. Sort of like Clinton’s “what is the meaning of ‘is’”, or Wolfowitz’s “it was a matter of emphasis”. For most of us, who have real lives, the 80/20 rule applies; maybe even less. 80% of what is said can be totally ignored, and 20% is actual truth and something that actually matters to us.
These folks in the administration, Karl Rove, are very good at propaganda, marketing, framing, obfuscation, manipulation to : attack, confuse, divert, draw-out. It is like leadership through mismanagement. Our country is not being lead by truth, integrity, committment, and great ideas. We are totally being lied to and manipulated so we lose focus on the mess and corruption of this administration.
A lot of things said today aren’t really believed by the people saying it, they just are following the talkingpoints. And, sometimes the talkingpoints are diversion tactics. Certainly Brooks will get more press and time if he says stuff like that… Blogs are our last bastion of liberty and democracy with an administration intent on killing it and silencing it. Sure Brooks would be against that, he sees it as a treat to their lies and his job security. With blogs success, we don’t need Brooks.
Does David Brooks really believe what he is saying? That is an unknown.
John McLaughlin’s One On One topic was, “Is The Army Broken?” His guest was Rep Murtha. McLaughlin repeated the number of reasons we were given for the war. And really, these folks will say anything, at anytime, to suit them politically. It is suppose to be our government, but these folks don’t give a darn about us. Their words mean nothing, they can not be trusted. We have over 5 years of watching these folks, although you could go back to when the Republicans took over congress lead by Gingrich’s ‘contract w/america’ and then the Clinton attacks, or you could even go back to Reagans time. Watch their actions.
I say, hold Brooks and others accountable, but don’t give them too much time and value, and more importantly don’t lose focus.
February 12th, 2006 at 3:29 pmLike the Islamists who object to a cartoon portraying them as violent by being violent, the liberals here object to being called nuts by posting an unending stream of nutty comments. Ah, the irony!
February 12th, 2006 at 3:35 pmHmm, let’s see, the daily Kossak and Stalin, yep, at least his linear thought process is working. I was channel surfing this morning and caught that inter change and i couldn’t believe it. It was quite a bitch slapping to the blogs. Blogs, think tanks, either one could run foreign policy, give us President and we’ll show ya. I’d like to suggest a Constittutional amendment to limit terms of a congress persons service. just in case some one who reads this thinks the whack job wing doesn’t have any ideas.
February 12th, 2006 at 3:50 pm[...] David Brooks says that liberal blogs maintain a “Stalinist line of discipline.” Think Progress has the transcript from today’s Chris Matthews Show — think Dumb and Dumber: DAVID BROOKS: Whoever the Democratic candidate, that is the weakness of the Democratic party, they’ve got the blogs and the netroots who are semi-nuts and they insist on a Stalinist line of discipline. [...]
February 12th, 2006 at 3:53 pmThe Mahablog, isn’t that Deroy Murdoch’s new site to substantiate connections between, Al-Qualude and Saddam?
February 12th, 2006 at 3:58 pmFascism is of the left though.
February 12th, 2006 at 4:00 pmRyan, question for ya When Manifest destiny was happening in this country, were we fascists? I think we’re heading towards a renewed Federalism like we had during Lincoln, butressed by a major war.
February 12th, 2006 at 4:05 pmHis IQ borders on the triple digits.
(That would be 3 if you’re having trouble counting ‘psycho analyst’.)
February 12th, 2006 at 4:06 pmRight wing blogs require passwords and kick off anyone who posts anything contrary to the party line. Sometimes Brooks is on another planet. And that’s a charge he himself levels at Republicans. Scary.
February 12th, 2006 at 4:12 pmIf David Brooks was doing a “psychoanalyst test” here’s how he would do it.
He would pull down his pants, pull down is undies, grab his ****, think for a moment as he does his psychoanalysing. When he’s concluded that he has what he thinks is his opinion, he pulls up his undies, pants, and he’s done.
That’s psychoanalysing.
February 12th, 2006 at 4:26 pmOh… and I also meant ‘environmentally’ not ‘environtmentally’.
So don’t worry about the typos katy. At least grumpypug isn’t even a real word.
And I also wanted to add that I’ve been thinking more and more lately about how desperate the right wingers seem as of late. This is just the most recent example, but honestly, they’ve destroyed their own reputations and the usual name-calling tactics and cries for self-censorship of political opponents aren’t working.
Being ‘liberal’ isn’t strong enough anymore. Now bloggers have to be ‘Stalinist’.
And implying that Affirmative Action promotes ’soft bigotry’ just isn’t cutting it. Now Mary Matalin, former assistant to George W. Bush and counselor to vice president Dick Cheney, is calling civil rights leaders, ‘nothing more than racists’ that are ‘keeping their neighborhoods and their African-American brothers enslaved.’
WTF?
I mean who are these people?
It’s like, they’ve had their chance to run things according to their faith-based [and by that I don't mean Christian (although that's in there), I mean unproven and fact-less] agenda, and it is failing. Miserably.
There is no way for them to argue that their policies and methods of governance are better, because it’s not theoretical anymore. I had major issues with Clinton, he was way too Republican for me, but at least the people he placed in charge of crucial departments were experts. Clinton had faith in expertise, Bush has faith in party loyalty. And Clinton believed in distribution, not concentration, of wealth. And in practice, Clinton’s policies were more successful, and the right knows this, and they know that they can’t win by spinning their policy pipe dreams anymore.
And so the fear mongering and name-calling are getting out of hand.
So far, we’re with the terrorists, we’re nuts, and we have a Stalinist line of discipline.
So who thinks that the next one slung at us will be that we eat paste?
February 12th, 2006 at 4:40 pmRoberts mamary pills, you truly are a spam toting critic aren’t you. You come in on one thread, complain it’s just gossip and then on this one you contribute your own 2 cents worth and the chastise the vehicle that you Chose to participate in. try a little salt, it’s used in the making of chocolate to reducess the Bitterness. Links if ya got em, I always try to read anything people suggest here, regardless of their degree of disagreement.
February 12th, 2006 at 4:42 pmJust reading this is a waste of effort. David Brooks is following the party line lockstep. I suppose he adores those warm and fuzzy people like Ann Coulter and Mary Matlin, and others like them. I notice the righties that post on our blogs are very nasty, both in mind and word.
February 12th, 2006 at 4:50 pm“A Stalinist line of discipline”? Such as slavishly following President Assclown as he’s leading them off a cliff? Unquestionably defending him even when he admits spying on them, getting their friends and relatives killed in an illegal and immoral war? That kind of Stalinist discipline?
February 12th, 2006 at 4:57 pmCalGal, I notice the lefties that post on your lefty blogs are very nasty, both in mind and word.
They are merely confirming Brook’s charge.
February 12th, 2006 at 4:57 pmSuzanne 16)
This is what I have been expecting from the wiser democrats. I expect them to talk to the right. Not the left. The left is already on their side. The right only knows the BS the neocons tell them and the attacks they here from the left. The democratic leaders need to talk TO the right when they are campaigning. They need to be REAL about abortion. They need to talk to them about Jesus. Dont be afraid to say Jesus. Jesus was not a Taliban wacko. He was a very good person and right wingers are not going to keep pusing neocon talking points if it requires them to say Jesus was “for war” etc. Talk to the right wingers about their fears of what TV is doing to kids. Dont deny that there is anything horrible about abortion or deny that TV has any effect on kids. Talk truthfully about these things and make them see that there are good and bad sides to everything …teach them to REASON.
February 12th, 2006 at 5:25 pmIf David Brooks is against truth and honesty, then he must be the type of person who cheats on his spouse and lies to everyone around him.
Anyone who’s been on the Internet for a while knows that news articles are being “blockedâ€. Plus reading anything that is sensitive includes someone who’s interest appears to want to stalk you while you’re on. On the other hand, if you look at TOO many sensitive articles, OR POST negatively against the lies and deceit that’s surfacing by Politicians, the stalkers do “other things†to your computer in hopes to cripple you. Taking this a step further, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least that the criminal element in our also Government has reporters who’s intentions are to try to stop those wanting change from lying and deceiving us. Could David Brooks be one of these? I don’t know for sure except, his behavior certainly says more about whom and what he is, than his mouth does!
Another point is, all anyone has to do nowadays is to look around at who is saying what “in the face of what’s happening†and know the real truth! It’s become most obvious!
February 12th, 2006 at 5:29 pmOh dear. I can only imagine what D r i f t g l a s s will do when he reads this.
February 12th, 2006 at 5:29 pmDavid Brooks and his comrades (I use the word advisedly) are engaging in propaganda via character assassination not rational discourse.
February 12th, 2006 at 5:50 pm[...] Via Think Progress. [...]
February 12th, 2006 at 6:16 pmIsn’t “objectively true” another bit of Trotskyite-Bolshevik jargon?
February 12th, 2006 at 6:53 pmTwo word response: Free Republic
(Talk about a Stalinist regime moderating a forum!)
February 12th, 2006 at 7:07 pmHow do you take a psychoanalytic test? Isn’t the psychoanalyst test, just talking about your problems until you have nothing left to say?
February 12th, 2006 at 7:23 pmBrooks is just one of many CHRISTOPHER (capitalized for emphasis as Peggy Noonan, one he is unabashedly smitten with when she calls him by such, is a hoot…!!) at anyrate CHRISTOPHER of late has a friday gig-dig of a a panel, usually the likes of Scarborough, Rita Crosby aand another to offer up their take on the week, which is usually unfiltered dem bashings …Its a hoot and figure trying to outFOX faux FOX renderings…Always love Mathews asserting his Dem credentials as an attempt to soothe his unmitagated disgust with all things Dem..Likes to toss in in his PC days, his time with Top and Carter and think even mentioned his son wonked for Dean during the capaign time as if that made him a moderator of some sort or other of which he is definitely not . Brooks, well Brooks is a long IGNORABLE, almost cartoonish really if one can further listen up to his babbles /takes on “the scene”. Little credit to either inputterings they offer, unfortunately there is quite a dearth of able articulates thou that could speak coherently for the progressive/dem positions. Will give credit, the GOPS have indeed mastered the art of spinnings , no matter how wrong, forcefully enunciating at every twist and turn of the airwaves and getting in all faces and repeating and repeating until somehow it is taken for granted that ALL take whatever they mumbo-jumbo’d as fact when quite not but rarely so recognized. (am one of those YET offended by way back in 2000 when the media informed the public that the public consensus was that few CARED if all votes were indeed accurately counted and were just wanting to move on in posthaste and get to the holidays or whatever reality show or whatever was supposedly the lifeblood interest of the supposed majority at the time…like ARRRRRRgh and thensome and have never forgiven the DEMS either for giving in so easily and not standing strong to have all votes tallied and verified and telling us all that was for the “good of the nation”…LOOK at how UN-GOOD these Bush years have truly been and the DIVIDE has never been healed , only more contentious and deeper and wider and …well, etc, etc,etc!!! That too was a gross, egregious mistake!!!)
February 12th, 2006 at 7:48 pm…m, they tal and talk and talk …supposedly all become too weary and just accept as fact…or so such as Mathews ad other mediaites tell us !!
February 12th, 2006 at 7:51 pmDavid’s pshychoanalysis shows that his secret fantacy is being administered some stalinist discipline by nutty liberals. He should stop yanking his chain.
February 12th, 2006 at 9:15 pm#20:”Shouldn’t these guys have spandex costumes like the X-Men?” The Busheviks refused such costumes because they realized that such form-fitting outfits would reveal the small sizes of their “packages”.
February 12th, 2006 at 9:44 pmthey’ve got the blogs and the netroots who are semi-nuts and they insist on a Stalinist line of discipline.
“We don’t see things as they are; We see things as we are.”
February 12th, 2006 at 9:52 pm- Anis Nin
lol post 143 > Bush put a sock in his underwear when he flew onto that aircraft carrier a couple years ago off San Diego > Rove told him to do it probably!
February 12th, 2006 at 9:58 pmFunny story: My rabbi knows Bobo personally.
February 12th, 2006 at 10:42 pmPsycho, repeating things over and over again doesn’t make them true.
I agree (”Stalinist Line of Discipline”), try and disagree on kos. They only want kudos … just saying. I call it Pop Liberalism .. ie care more about Alaskan oil drilling than the Repubs LOWERING of environmental standards! (which actually kill people)
February 12th, 2006 at 10:51 pmIs this how Republicans and their toadies act when they realize their ship is sinking because their incompetent captain has delusions of grandeur? Brooks (and Roberts) today are desperately flailing in the waters.
February 12th, 2006 at 11:06 pmBrooks has followed the Fox-TV, Limbaugh,Coulter crowd — when you can’t defend your man, just lob rocks at the opposition.
By the way, Bobo: I’m a trained psychologist. Just because you know an analyst, it does not qualify you to sling analytic bullshit.
Comment by Pachacutec
Hey he visits one ever chance he gets, but maybe not as often as needed.
February 12th, 2006 at 11:34 pmI don’t seem to recall Mr. Brooks ever revealing any credentials he may have, that make him qualified, in any way whatsoever to perform psychoanalytic tests, with the clear intent to use the “results” to justify his point of view. Can he provide this test? Any profiles of the “subjects” tested? Any actual proof of this event even happening? Or are we just supposed to “trust him”? Sorry, Charlie… no can do. Put up, or shut up. What an ass.
February 13th, 2006 at 4:31 amAnd what the devil does “objectively true” mean?
February 13th, 2006 at 4:34 am[...] David Brooks knows the truth about blogs (via ThinkProgress.org): DAVID BROOKS: Whoever the Democratic candidate, that is the weakness of the Democratic party, they’ve got the blogs and the netroots who are semi-nuts and they insist on a Stalinist line of discipline. [...]
February 13th, 2006 at 10:58 amI don’t do David Brooks…
…just like I don’t do Coulter, Limphog, O’Liely, Scum Vannity et al….
February 13th, 2006 at 1:14 pmIn both the NY times, and the Washington post, it seemed like this guy had his argument heard, where as they’d aspect you to be reading the blogs they were talking about to see what they meant by their acquisitions. Maybe he was calling them that because them being liberal would make them less of a buddy with the negative aspects of capitalism, and he wanted to call them Stalinist, even though Stalin was a totalitarian leader and not much of a communist, ideally communism would result in everyone being equal, but problems occur like Stalin, so I don’t feel like he would be accurately representing them if he was calling them Stalinist for that reason. I mean calling them Stalinist would imply that they liked Stalin’s regime. I mean, at least call them Castroist. At least he has health care for all of his citizens, a 98% literacy rate, and imports more doctors then any other country. I mean he said communists in that respect, then ok that makes sense, but if he saying that all liberal bloggers prefer someone worse then Saddam Hussein? That’s just retarded. I would aspect more out of someone writing for the New York times..I mean, does he know what a totalitarian leader is? Well, if you go to that link and are bothered by it reading what the guy posted under it is pretty refreshing. I can’t believe he aspects to use big words like “It’s objectively true. I did a psychoanalytic test.” After the non-sense he just said, I mean how can say that what he says is true when it isn’t, then he wants to use a magically test to have some rational way of proving it, I mean. The nerve of him and his degrading view of the public. I mean not only does he look like a complete hypocrite even taking that argument especially after its the one we generally use to our advantage. I just can’t believe that this guy is in the paper.
February 13th, 2006 at 1:19 pm[...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your ownsite. [...]
February 13th, 2006 at 2:54 pmFat Papa – I don’t care who you ‘do’ – TMI!!! I read lots from the left, lots from the right – you should expand your limited horizon.
February 13th, 2006 at 4:07 pm#150 – For once, Cyra you sound intelligent!!! Who did he test?? But where was you skepticism when RumPunch was discussing the hilariously concocted story about partisans? As usual liberal hypocrisy is easily spotted and quickly debunked.
February 13th, 2006 at 6:31 pmI Want To See David Brooks’ Psychoanalytic Data…
Hey, if he has the proof that liberal blogs are Stalinistic…let’s see the metrics:DAVID BROOKS: Whoever the Democratic candidate, that is the weakness of the Democratic party, they’ve got the blogs and the netroots who are semi-n……
February 14th, 2006 at 12:04 pmI have an idea.Let’s ask the New York Times to replace David Brooks with Albert Brooks for a while. David needs a breather.
My comments about Brooks’ comments are here.
It’s interesting that Brooks chose to say this on the Chris Matthews show. Two poor bruised ego cases who party with the elite while being paid handsomely acting as amanuenses for the Oval Office. We watch them become the new shadows of the once-great journalists like Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow.
February 15th, 2006 at 9:39 amOne of the most helpful tools in Florida for the Republican Party is the liberal blogs. When you do a search for various candidates a liberal blog will be listed with some out rageous comment. Thus those trying to find out information about a candidate cannot find real fact, just this whacked out stuff. So please keep blogging we could not pay enough for this internet help that you supply for free.
March 22nd, 2006 at 9:28 am[...] Remember what David Brooks said on the Chris Matthews Show? DAVID BROOKS: Whoever the Democratic candidate, that is the weakness of the Democratic party, they’ve got the blogs and the netroots who are semi-nuts and they insist on a Stalinist line of discipline. [...]
August 9th, 2006 at 11:02 am5fpC32wMmTjs Dja9HCasf8I iWejs60DS1
October 19th, 2006 at 11:12 amIf you really want a good belly laugh, read this “frank analysis” of left blogs from one of the most ding-dong nutjobs in the blogosphere.
The comments are even better-they prove that there are even foamier-mouthed wingnuts reading. The collective IQ of the poster and the readers combined wouldn’t light a 10 watt bulb.
March 1st, 2007 at 12:25 amConsolidation Consolidation
Credit card consolidation with consolidation offers that helps with primary consolidation.
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:14 amSex Gay Sex Anime Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 5th, 2008 at 5:16 amJessie
Thanks for the blog!
April 9th, 2008 at 4:15 amGay Sex Gay Ass Gay Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 12th, 2008 at 12:24 pm