From the New York Times (emphasis added):
The Unifying LeaderNOV. 24, 2014David BrooksOver the past two weeks, President Obama and Republicans in Congress have taken their conflicts to another level. I’m not here to apportion blame, but it would be nice if, in the future, we evaluated presidential candidates on the basis of whether they are skilled at the art of collaboration...The collaborative leader is willing to be vulnerable. Trust is built when one person is vulnerable to another and the other person doesn’t take advantage of it. Then that person is vulnerable back and the favor is returned. The collaborative leader understands the paradox; you have to take off the armor to build strong bonds....
Dear Mr. Brooks,
Congratulations!
The characteristics of the "collaborative president" you describe are eerily similar to those of a gentleman named Barack Obama, who came to Washington six years ago and -- in the wake of the unmitigated failure of the Bush Administration (which you backed to the hilt) -- did, in fact, try with superhuman patience to govern in exactly the manner you pretend to pine for until the relentless, raving lunacy, nihilism, paranoia, bigotry and lockstep strategic obstruction of your Republican Party made that impossible.
So Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuck Youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu.
How about you take off your armor, "collaborative president" style.And I'll wait for you in the alley, Republican Party style.And we'll see how that works out.
Yours in Christ,
driftglass
9 comments:
brooks REALLY am IN and FROM bizarro world! ONLY explanation that NOT make sense is that brooks is typing away from HTRAE....
If FDR had adopted Brooks's suggested approach, unemployment would still be 20%.
Christ, what an asshole.
If FDR had adopted Brooks's approach, unemployment would still be 20%.
Christ, what an asshole.
These are just Cliff Notes summaries lifted from a number of academic pieces on "collaborative leadership" that are shoe-horned into DFB's fantasy world of Whig comity in order to bash Obama for fun and profit. It bears absolutely no relationship to objective reality at all. I think it may be the most intellectually dishonest piece DFB has ever written.
What an asshole, indeed. And what an asshole Pinch is for tolerating such mendacious claptrap.
Driftglass,
I love you man, but I must take issue with your lead photo masterpiece, it is unfortunately an insult to little girls everywhere to show what was originally a little girl with the face of Mr. Fucknut Fucktwit Brooks face. I’ve never met a little girl who wasn’t far more honest and interesting in conversation than Mr. Fucktwit of the known universe. So, please, in future exposure of Brooks, leave any association between little girls and Our Mr. Fucknut out of it. All the little girls in the world would appreciate it. Maybe a picture of a Fucknozzle with Brooks face and some associated paraphernalia would be more appropriate.
And one more slight oversight: Your fuck you to Our Mr. Fucking Fucknut-nozzle wasn’t nearly long enough nor in large enough type, might I suggest something in a 72 point font as a starting place for the proper fuck you response to the escaping bilge water that is leaking from the rotting sponge that is the so called brain of Brooks from the valley of the fucknuts.
Yours in Pagan repose,
Bob the anonymous
If FDR had adopted Brooks's suggested approach, we'd all be speaking German right now.
~:|
I hope the day comes before I die (I'm in my 30s) that someone with a sufficiently respected profile/reputation points out that David Brooks and Ron "Severe Dementia" Fournier ARE ARGUING IN 100% BAD FAITH.
They know goddamn well what has happened and who is at fault. And they're fucking pleased about it. The Conservative Zombie Army decided in November 2008 that Obama had to be destroyed. Brooks and Fournier got their marching orders. They've played the part they were assigned to play - that of fake "concerned" centrist/nonpartisan/moderate commentators who, unshackled by partisan rancor, can declare from their perches atop both-sides-bullshit mountain that everything that's wrong with the federal government is almost entirely Obama's fault and why can't he just leeeeeaaaaad like a leaderly leader does. And you can trust them because they're nonpartisan, you see. Pay no attention to the voluminous record of all manner of GOP leaders declaring, in public, in front of mics and cameras, that they would never work with Obama, that he's an illegitimate president, that his policies will destroy the universe, that the deficit he inherited is his fault and will also destroy the universe so let's hold the debt ceiling hostage and preemptively destroy the economy instead, that he is simultaneously a lawless tyrant and a feckless wuss. No, you see, that's what opposition parties always do and it's uniquely Obama's fault they won't work with him in good faith. If you think it's the GOP's fault you're just a blind partisan.
Dammit. Pustules on this country's body politic.
My spouse was telling me last night that one thing chimpanzees sometimes do to express discontent with a human is to rip his/her face off. It sounds gruesome and not something one wants to think about, until one thinks about it happening to a particular sort of really deserving person.
As someone quipped a couple of years back, people who don't want to play the blame game are usually losing. Because Brooks' side is overwhelmingly in the wrong, successfully selling "both sides do it" is a victory. As usual, Brooks makes his planned concession about conservative faults so he can pivot to his "both sides" bullshit (often followed by pitching a conservative position as the essence of moderation and compromise).
Post a Comment