David Brooks was on C-SPAN over the weekend promoting one of his books. I caught a bit of his remarks and they reflected his shallow editorials. Apparently, both parties are on the decline -- the Republicans are surrendering small government principles to keep power, while the Democrats are just whining about how bad Bush is. This meme, which is sold pretty well, is childish. The thing is that nasty childish tactics do the trick these days. It is unclear why it is wrong for Democrats to state the truth -- the Republicans are not just power hungry (implicitly just more of the same, nothing worse or nothing better than usual), but particularly bad. They also are in power across the board. So, just as the Republicans did before they regained power, attack is an appropriate strategy.
The claim, one I shall repeat is specious, is apparently that Democrats are just pissed Bush has power. So, they whine about him ... the fact said "whining" is based mostly on fact is put aside. You know, if the facts aren't on your side, go with what you got ... And, Democrats in various cases -- respectively compared to the ideas (messed up war, "Social Security reform," Republican based entitlement expansions based on shady statistics, tax cuts without fiscal responsibility mixed in, etc.) on the other side, have "ideas" as well. One might suggest -- I know this is complicated -- that competent non-corrupt government is also an "idea" as well. It wasn't enough for Kerry -- the truly idiotic in my eyes view that strongly lousy leadership (sort of an oxymoron, I know) trumping blandness won out -- but so it goes.
Anyway, David Brooks -- as his presence on that PBS News Hour show with Tom "the nerd's nerd" Oliphant (I say that with respect, Tom, really) suggests -- is supposedly not just a Republican hack. So, he should recognize such things. Brooks should not just shill the Republican line. He does, so people rightly find him distasteful. But, they are just whiny Democrats, so they are not to be taken too seriously.
Btw ... it's time to get rid of Judith Miller. Spending millions of dollars to not print news "fit to print" -- not quite the Pentagon Papers Case -- and defending a rogue reporter who decides she prefers not to fully assist in the report that finally airs out the whole Miller mess, after lying (saying she was not among those involved in the leaks, saying she was willing to write a story when her editor says not so, etc.) and saying things (like that she cannot recall who leaked key information to her) that just cannot be taken seriously.
This fifth columnist in their midst is likely to hurt a real reporter's case in the future when they are jailed for protecting a source that actually helped that write a key story. Does the NYT not have any shame?