Brooks, as vintage Limbaugh

David Brooks' latest scolding:

Obama, who sounded so fresh in 2008, now sometimes sounds a bit like Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi. Obama, who inspired the country, now threatens to run a campaign that is viciously negative. Obama, who is still widely admired because he is reasonable and calm, is in danger of squandering his best asset by pretending to be someone he is not. Obama, a natural unifier and conciliator, seems on the verge of running as a divisive populist while accusing Mitt Romney, his possible opponent, of being inauthentic.

I shadow Brooks more than other conservative scribes because he sets the pace for the kind of GOP Establishment critique that will soon be wallpapering hosannas to Mitt, the GOP's inevitable -- and, to the Establishment, inevitably disappointing -- nominee. It's cheap and easy intelligence gathering; no muss, little fuss. I've modified that cliche, however, because Brooks has entered an undisguised fussy stage, one in which he can't quite warm to the barren reality that Obama faces, brought to the president by Brooks' own, extraordinarily "vicious," "divisive," "inauthentic" party.

True enough, for two years of Obama's presidency he demonstrated all of the sophisticated qualities that Brooks notes: He graciously bowed to the minority party's concerns on the stimulus package and healthcare and taxation, far more than his base desired. But this summer -- at the 2.5-year mark -- with the minority party then the majority, in the House, it characteristically overreached; it bolted, it bounded, it utterly soared into the vast beyond of abject unreasonableness over the debt ceiling. And Obama got burned. Bad. Had the president refused to politically adjust in the debacle's aftermath, one could sensibly add "delusional" to his list of personal qualities.

Nonetheless, Brooks wishes to pretend that President Obama should proceed into 2012 as though all is pretty much well, except for Obama's mistakes: as though Obama's opponents are traditional, honest brokers of an honest conservatism; as though Obama is "viciously" pushing a false populist narrative of needed, fundamental reforms; as though Obama is somehow tragically transmogrifying into a frenzied, irrational demagogue who adores division and malice.

This is vintage Rush Limbaugh crap; a despicable op-ed playbook of table-turning offense designed for susceptible nitwits and rubes. It's hyperpartisan, it's tactical, it's deceptive and devious -- and it's unworthy of David Brooks, who generally has trended analytic. 

Comments

[caribbeanobserver]

At the end of the day the GOP playbook vis-a-vis the analysts/pundits/hosts/pols will blame and attack Obama for all and sundry and be as disingenuous as ever with their spin and slant. I have reached the stage where they don't even reach me with what they say or do. I simply shrug and say...What's new?
Stop acting as if you are surprised with 'them'. They are simply who they are- a bunch of (as they say in the Caribbean ) 'robbertalk' folksies!!

[SueMe]

Your last paragraph says it all. Actually, I've never like Brooks much. He is as phony as Romney.

[eveingeorgia]

Please send this to David Brooks. He needs some strong "therapy".
I once respected him, but now I fear he is a dissembler.
He has to know better!

[tamiasmin]

I would not have thought of New York Times readers as "susceptible nitwits and rubes." But now that they're paying for the privilege of reading David Brooks, you may be right.