David Brooks, Resident Conservative at the New York Times, Really Wants Romney to Attack Perry
David Brooks, nominally a conservative columnist at the New York Times, is really really worried that Rick Perry may win the GOP nomination.
His persona is perfectly tuned to offend people along the Acela corridor and to rally those who oppose those people.
That would be, people like David Brooks and Peggy Noonan.
He does very well with the alternative-reality right — those who don’t believe in global warming, evolution or that Obama was born in the U.S.
So now rejecting global warming hooey is part of an “alternative-reality”? I see what you did there, Mr. Brooks, and I don’t like it.
Since Brooks doesn’t like Perry, he decides to give Romney some tips for attacking him.
First, Romney could accuse Perry of being the latest iteration of Tom DeLay Republicanism. On the one hand, he is ideologically slippery. The man who sounds so right wing today was the Texas chairman of the Al Gore for President campaign in 1988. The man who now vows to appoint only anti-abortion officials to relevant administration jobs endorsed Rudy Giuliani four short years ago. On the other hand, he is unwavering in his commitment to the government-cash nexus. Even this week — amid much attention to his pay-to-play proclivities — Perry named two big donors to powerful state jobs.
The second line of attack is to shift what the campaign is about. If voters think Nancy Pelosi is the biggest threat to their children’s prosperity, they will hire Perry. If they think competition from Chinese and Indian workers is the biggest threat, they will hire Romney. He’s just more credible as someone who can manage economic problems, build human capital and nurture an innovation-based global economy.
If only Mr. Brooks had devoted such attention to strategizing against Barack Obama in 2008. But back then, Brooks was too smitten with Obama’s fancy pants-crease to notice what a hard-edged lefty Obama really is.
“I don’t want to sound like I’m bragging,” Brooks recently told me, “but usually when I talk to senators, while they may know a policy area better than me, they generally don’t know political philosophy better than me. I got the sense he knew both better than me.”
That first encounter is still vivid in Brooks’s mind. “I remember distinctly an image of–we were sitting on his couches, and I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant,” Brooks says, “and I’m thinking, a) he’s going to be president and b) he’ll be a very good president.”
Not to put too tight a bow around that, but the lovestruck Mr. Brooks could not possibly have turned out to be more wrong.
For what it’s worth, it is evident that Romney will have to attack Perry now. He can’t get past Perry without launching some broadsides at him. I don’t think either of Brooks’ preferred lines of attack will work though. For the first, Perry can snap back about RomneyCare, a non sequitur that will put Romney on the defensive about his record while simultaneously pointing out that Perry’s record is solid. Former Democrat? Yeah, so are most Texas Republicans. Supported Gore? That’s way back when Gore was sane. Etc. For the second line of attack, anyone wanting an alternative to Nancy Pelosi would be hard pressed to find a more obvious one than the governor of Texas. Seriously. And neither Perry nor Romney are running against Pelosi anyway. They’re running against Obama.
Brooks would also do well to take a look at how Texas’ innovation-based economy has done over the past decade or so. There’s a reason companies as diverse as Caterpillar and Facebook have chosen to relocate to the Lone Star State. There are reasons more Americans are moving from other states to Texas than any other state. Romney just cannot beat Perry on that point, not when Massachusetts still has the reputation for being a tax-wild deep blue state while Texas boasts the nation’s most energetic economy.
That first encounter is still vivid in Brooks’s mind. “I remember distinctly an image of–we were sitting on his couches, and I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant,” Brooks says, “and I’m thinking, a) he’s going to be president and b) he’ll be a very good president.”
Every woman loves a sharp-dressed man. Oh, you’re a dude? Sorry.
Again with the “evolution” obsession—Brooks is worried because “Perry doesn’t believe in evolution.” I have no idea to what extent that is really true, as opposed to fast becoming a leftwing talking point—but true or not, it is wholly irrelevant. Perry’s views on Java Man and Olduvai Gorge have absolutely nothing to do with lowering taxes, or cutting regulations, spending, and irrelevant/duplicative/overintrusive/unconstitutional federal departments. They have absolutely nothing do to with being able to see America’s interests and protect and project them in overseas dealings. They have, in short, not a damn thing to do with the skill set necessary for being President.
Oh, and by the way—what the hell is it with pundits, Obama, and legs? Between Chris Matthews’ “leg tingle” and David Brooks’ obsession with Obama’s pants crease, maybe the American Psychiatric Association should add a new pathology to its list.
What frightens David Brooks most about Rick Perry? Not his views on science, be it evolution or AGW; rather it’s this: “I’ll work every day to try to make Washington, DC, as inconsequential in your life as I can.” This view is the antithesis of Brooks’ emotive communtarianism and antithetical to the role he feels that the federal government can and should play in promoting his preferred policies. Brooks has been known to think well of Theodore Roosevelt’s sensibilites when it comes to progressivism and national greatness.
The first quote gives his real objection:
“His persona is perfectly tuned to offend people along the Acela corridor and to rally those who oppose those people.”
Apparently, living along the “Acela corridor” qualifies you to be an absolute dictator.
of course he doesn’t have to believe in evolution. Malthusianism in biology-drag means dead people: dead Irish, dead subcontinental Indians, dead American Indians, dead Jews, dead Slavs.
Neither of my children’s grandmothers believe in evolution. That means they were Sunday School teachers. They also take the kids to museums with dinosaur bones, b/c the kids love the bones, and they love their kids.
Can you name one loving, kind, nurturing evolutionist? I can name ones that want to smother disabled infants. I can name ones that pay for abortions. I can name ones that founded Planned Parenthood. I’m not even sure I can name a committed evolutionist who even has kids. I know, in aggregate, populations with strong secular evolutionist beliefs reproduce at a much, much, much lower rate than populations with a strong conservative religious bent. Darwinian evolution can’t even persuade its strong adherents to behave Darwinian-ish.
It’s not a debate about biology. Perry is not a biologist. He’s a politician. Political Darwinian Evolution is a conversation about killing helpless, or not “in-group” people.
Perry likes live people. He likes mothers. He likes babies. He likes kids. He likes ‘em in all colors and shapes and sizes. What’s not to like?
The author of this post has no understanding of evolutionary biology. Is Evolutionist code for Atheist? Evolution and belief are not mutually exclusive. Strange…
And guys in pressed jeans and cowboy boots are smokin’ hot. Doing the boot-scooting boogy with an adorable nurse who thinks you’re the greatest? That’s Perry, and his wife on a Friday night, before kids, and kids sports. Perry at Nascar, having a good time? Did his kid play football? Perry and his wife at a high school football game in October, with their kid on the field? That’s major romance. Crisp air, homecoming mums, cheerleaders……it just does not get better, or more American bliss than that. Oh- wait- fighter jets!!!! Can we remake Top Gun to remind people how extremely hot-awesome fighter jet pilots are?
Sha-ah. He’s all over the O on the hot-scale.
Brooks is of the Bloomberg wing of the Republican party – meaning Democrats who find is politically or financially rewarding to carry the label but none of the thinking. I suspect he exists as a quote machine for the MSM who feel obligated to have a Republican point of view even if it is in name only.
Who reads him anyway? The progressives who subscribe to the NYT don’t. Conservatives don’t.
Maybe you are is only reader?
Brooks is the abused spouse of the Acela Corridor, he’s in need of an intervention.