In Which One Of The Rubes

admits he’s a sap:

This wasn’t a speech to get something done. This was the sort of speech that sounded better when Ted Kennedy was delivering it. The result is that we will get neither short-term stimulus nor long-term debt reduction anytime soon, and I’m a sap for thinking it was possible.

Yes, I’m a sap. I believed Obama when he said he wanted to move beyond the stale ideological debates that have paralyzed this country. I always believe that Obama is on the verge of breaking out of the conventional categories and embracing one of the many bipartisan reform packages that are floating around.

What a fool.

[Update a while later]

Foolish little girl.”

6 thoughts on “In Which One Of The Rubes”

  1. The lie that is Obama was and is so blatantly obvious, it’s hard to understand how anyone could fail to see it. How stupid does someone have to be to believe a word the man says?

    If you voted for Obama in 2008 to prove you’re not a racist, you need to vote for someone else in 2012 to prove you’re not an idiot. If you believed all his hopey changey nonsense, you’re a fool.

  2. Don’t they say that admitting you have a problem is the first step towards recovery?

    David Brooks has long been an idiot in conservative’s clothing. I still seriously doubt that he is anything but a liberal, and with this article he appears to be joining the ranks of other liberals who are dissatisfied with the annointed one.

  3. I agree with Larry, well at least the first sentence. The second sentence is problematic. I never understood why people simply forgot about what Obama ran on during the primaries. He changed his tune after winning the ticket, but give his Obama his due, he’s lived up to his promises in the primaries (with the big exception of foreign policy, which neither he nor Hillary have lived up too). He’s still pushing redistribution and this latest deficit plan is a perfect example.

  4. What do you expect from David Brooks? This is a guy who supports the 20% position on gun control, i.e., supports denying people the right to defend their families, because the “educated class” supports it. No actual facts to support his position; presumably the EC just know the right answers due to their incredibly complex brain cells.

Comments are closed.