Both Sides Don’t, cont.

The ever-polite Ezra Klein ever-politely rips a new hole into David Brooks for his latest preposterous column in the NYTimes. Here’s my favorite exchange:

DB: In my ideal world, the Obama administration would do something Clintonesque: They’d govern from the center; they’d have a budget policy that looked a lot more like what Robert Rubin would describe, and if the Republicans rejected that, moderates like me would say that’s awful, the White House really did come out with a centrist plan.

EK: But I’ve read Robert Rubin’s tax plan. He wants $1.8 trillion in new revenues. The White House, these days, is down to $1.2 trillion. I’m with Rubin on this one, but given our two political parties, the White House’s offer seems more centrist. And you see this a lot. People say the White House should do something centrist like Simpson-Bowles, even though their plan has less in tax hikes and less in defense cuts. So it often seems like a no-win for them.

DB: My first reaction is I’m not a huge fan of Simpson-Bowles anymore; I used to be…

…which is about as ham-handed a way to change the subject as I’ve ever seen. But it was either that or admit that he is a pontificating poltroon who doesn’t know what he is talking about.

Let the facts lead you to a conclusion as Bill Moyers used to say. And the fact is thus submitted into evidence: David Brooks doesn’t know what he’s talking about. The conclusion of course is that the paper of record just got swatted on the nose, and they need to get rid of Bobo sooner rather than later.

Why Brooks agreed to talk to Klein will remain a mystery of the ages.

This entry was posted in Bobo, Pundits who make me crazy. Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to Both Sides Don’t, cont.

  1. Mr DeBakey says:

    I love this kinda shit.
    Brooks has no idea – its funny to see it detailed in one, nice compact pile.
    Here’s my favorite bit, is Incoherent spelled with an E or an A?:

    DB: Here’s something I’m confused by: how much they still believe in top rate reductions. I would say in the conservative economist world I think I know almost nobody, maybe there are a few exceptions, who’s super motivated by top rate reductions anymore. I don’t think that’s true with Republican members of Congress. I think there’s a lag between the wonks and the legislators. The second thing is, for them, the big issue is overall size of government. When they try to explain why growth is so slow, it’s because we’re saddled with this large, unproductive public sector, and they need to bring that down. And cutting tax expenditures would generate money for a bigger more unproductive public sector.


  2. Topjob66t says:

    To Mr Debakey: I will go with the ‘A’ in this case. That quote from DB made my eyes hurt as they went out of sync. And then my brain suffered the after shock as it tried to assimilate the blur of words.


  3. At this rate, King David will dethrone Mooselini as the reigning Queen of the Word Salad!!!


  4. janut says:

    Wowza. It does not compute.


  5. DB: My first reaction is I’m not a huge fan of Simpson-Bowles anymore; I used to be…

    Damn Obama ruins everything.


  6. Also, “DC Dubstep”? WTF? It’s like Brooks hears a word that’s become trendy and he wants to incorporate it into his writing in order to seem hip, not even knowing what the word refers to. I wonder if he thinks nightclubs have salad bars.