Monday, October 15, 2012

The Power of Positive Thumb-Sucking




DAVID BROOKS: Yes. So, people are really interested. So [the VP debate has] very high ratings.

But then there's the discussion period about the debate. And that discussion period is mostly about Biden's manners. And so I personally didn't like the manners. I find Biden extremely engaging and charming and also annoying simultaneously.

And so, if I had interrupted Mark -- or if anybody came on the "NewsHour" and behaved the way Biden did, we would kick them off in the middle of the set. It is just not what discussions should be like.

And not only the "NewsHour." You could go on HARDBALL, and you don't talk that way. And so I do think the extreme condescension, the constant interruption, the weird smiling, I do think that will dominate the discussion phase.

And I do think that will turn off people because independents really don't like the way politics works. And I do think that will help symbolize it.

Because if Democrats are very, very, very polite and never mention the fact that the GOP is a rolling carnival of lies and bigotry, then the drooling fucksticks who run Mr. Brooks' party would (as one wag once put it) spontaneously grow opposable thumbs and climb down out of the Stupid Tree.

Or maybe Mr. Brooks calculates that our courteous martyrdom at the hands of the drooling fucksticks who run his party would be admired enough by the 7% of the American electorate who are congentially unable to make up their minds that they will remember us fondly in story and song after the Romney Regime reduces most of the country to permanent debt peonage to our plutocrat overlords?

Either way, Mr. Brooks will remain the Most Serious of all the Very Serious People who are paid enormous amounts to control our perceptions of reality.

UPDATE:  

Perhaps someone with greater access than I could very politely remind Mr. Brooks of the kind of sober, genteel forensic exercises 


his very, very good friend David Gregory presides over 

 


on the most influential public affairs programs in America. 

Can you defend any of this, Mr. Brooks?


Huh?  

Can you?  

Huh?  

Huh? 

Can you? 

8 comments:

ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said...

But then there's the discussion period about the debate. And that discussion period is mostly about Biden's manners. And so I personally didn't like the manners. I find Biden extremely engaging and charming and also annoying simultaneously.

Vapid Beltway b.s.?

David Brooks knows that number!
~

Fuzzbone said...

Didn't Romney interrupt the sitting President of the United States? One COULD argue that it wasn't the interrupting per se, but that Biden EXCESSIVELY interrupted Ryan. But that (at least your excerpt - I'm not going to bother to waste my time reading Brooks - thank you Driftglass doing so so I don't have to) is not what Brooks argued for.

So - once again IOKIYAR....

Esteev said...

Jeez... Brooks' shtick is so tediously boring.

"I like X and Y but, X and Y are also bad."

zombie rotten mcdonald said...

Is Brooks actually saying that on the pundit shows, nobody ever talks over another guest, or treats them rudely?

Although I do think he is right, they might kick a Democrat off the set for being uncivil. Not a Republican though.

Alatea said...

Has no one ever watched the McLaughlin Group on PBS?

Ormond Otvos said...

Yes, and Pat B got called on interruptions by Eleanor Clift right after he whined about Biden!

bluicebank said...

Is it just me, Driftglass, or does every David Brooks' column begin with a false premise?

By that I mean right out of the gate. First sentence, usually. And upon the premise he attaches more than a few floaters.

Take his latest: "Voters have been astonishingly clear. In 2000, they elected George W. Bush after he promised to change the tone in Washington."

In fact, no. Voters backed Al Gore; the Electoral College gave GW the push, thanks to SCOTUS. There was nothing astonishingly about the voters either way, even if they did, historically, make Brooks a liar.

My problem with Mr. Brook is that he is a sloppy liar employed by the Gray Lady. Back in the day, such liars were adept. Nowadays, they seem to get away with sloppy palaver that would barely make it past a high school newspaper editor.

Anonymous said...

...spontaneously grow opposable thumbs and climb down out of the Stupid Tree? So you think calling the Cons out would do all this? No.

As for Brooks, remember, he was calling for Hillary to end her campaign before the PA primary. I called for him to STF then.