David Brooks again stands out
On Election Day every four years the “pundits” (people, almost all white male, who get paid an inordinate amount of money to say what they think you want to hear) go berserk with chatter. The feeling amount the “well informed” in matters of state is that there are so many people talking and writing and linking and filming that nothing anyone says can be held against him. So much noise must include a substantial amount of dross, so no one will point the finger at you if your own opinion is light on both facts and thinking (not to mention persuasiveness).
That consideration is generally well-founded. Who, after all, is going to give little nor not to mention long remember what they say here? Are you going to mention what you heard John King mention tonight to your friends tomorrow? Are you even going to admit you heard what Brit Hume had to say? If you remember tomorrow what a Washington Post columnist said today, you will undoubtedly feel ashamed of yourself.
But this rule is proved by its exception. And David Brooks is one exceptional fellow.
His column today makes a pitch for Mitt Romney. The argument, if that is what you want to call it, goes like this: If the President is re-elected things will go pretty much as they have. And we know that isn’t good. But if Mitt is elected, he is flip-flopper enough to get something good done because he will appeal to the crazies in the House and the socialists in the Senate. This is because … well, actually, I can’t tell you, because every time I start reading David Brooks, a buzzing sound get louder and louder in my head. In his something to do with that insipid smile he has. That smile means one thing: I don’t know how I have this column either, but I still cash the checks.
If you are dying to read one of the stupidest things put out on the Day of Stupid comment, here you go.