Brooks bites the big green weenie - again (with canned reply)

here "was" the deal...

The Democrats would allow votes on a few of the blocked judicial nominees (Priscilla Owen, William Pryor and Janice Rogers Brown, I'm told). In exchange the Republicans would drop a couple of the nominees (probably Henry Saad and William Myers).

The Democrats would promise not to use the filibuster, except under extreme circumstances. The Republicans would promise not to exercise the nuclear option except under extreme circumstances.

That was the deal, and a very fair one, too. But of course these are moderates.

(more)

As we descend down this path, the moderates are being serenaded for their valiant efforts to find a compromise. I'm all for valiant efforts, but why do the independent types always have to be so ineffectual? Why do they always have to play their accustomed role: well-intentioned roadkill?

[M]any moderates are simply people who feel cross-pressured by different political forces, and their instinctive response is to shrink from pressure. They lack spirit to take risks, to actually lead.

These 12 senators believe the looming nuclear showdown will be terrible for their institution. They had a deal within their grasp that would have headed this off, a deal that was just and fair: up or down votes for nominees and respect for minority rights. But as I write, they haven't been able to put it together.

No more sweetheart press for the responsible middle. Put up or shut up.

fair, my ass... brooks is an asshole... you'd think, reading his articulate prose, that he had some idea of what he's talking about... but then you start actually THINKING about what you're reading...

(emailed to dabrooks@nytimes.com)

Mr. Brooks,

I'm all for moderation and reason. I'm all for finding a workable middle ground. I'm all for courage, conviction, and spine. But, sadly, by conveniently ignoring the Republicans' jaw-dropping power grab in their attempt to put the cap on a one-party state, the staggering implications for separation of church and state of confirming the most extremist of the Christian fundamentalist judges who will be holding sway for an unforeseeable number of years to come, the abrogation of constitutional checks and balances by giving a blank check to the executive branch, the destruction of the Senate as our only truly deliberative body, and the arrogant, in-your-face, "I-dare-you" attitude of the president in re-nominating previously rejected judicial candidates, your oh-so-reasonable plea for moderates to "put up or shut up," is the most bogus piece of journalism I have read in, well, forever.

Sincerely,

[Brooks auto-reply]

Dear friend,

Thanks very much for sending a response to my column, positive or negative. I'm afraid I can't respond to each message. My editors would wonder why I have no time to write for the paper. But I do read every e-mail, and I frequently learn from them.

So, again, thanks,
David Brooks

Submit To Propeller
Tweet