Author Topic: David Brooks: 'Obama Has Run An Amazingly Scandal-Free Administration'  (Read 556 times)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
There are probably a lot of people who actually believe this.   :-\

David Brooks: 'Obama Has Run An Amazingly Scandal-Free Administration'
By Tom Blumer
May 31, 2015

One doesn't know what to do with the rubbish which follows beyond noting it and hoping that the ridicule which results will somehow and in some way have some kind of impact.

Despite 6-1/2 years of horrid governance and dozens of acknowledged scandals, several of which a few of the credible remaining outposts of liberal thought have actually agreed are scandals, David Brooks, the New York Times's resident fake conservative, asserted on Friday's PBS NewsHour, as if it's an indisputable fact, that "President Obama has run an amazingly scandal-free administration, not only he himself, but the people around him."
 
Here's the transcript of the Real Clear Politics snip, which transitions from fellow panel member Mark Shields's discussions of charages against Dennis Hastert (which, as egregious as they might be, appear not to have anything directly to do with his duties when he was a congressman or Speaker of the House:

DAVID BROOKS: First, if the allegations about the contact with the boys are true, well, we have seen that with the Catholic Church. We have seen a disturbing undercurrent in American life, I guess, and maybe in world life, of this sort of thing.

I am struck, as Mark just mentioned, the whole litany of people, especially of that era, who were involved in some scandal or another. Some of it was sexual. Some of it was more financial, even Tom DeLay’s, Speaker Wright. And it was just all concentrated in a lot of people all at once.

Does politics attract such people? I don’t know. Is it prevalent in society? It’s certainly a reminder of original sin. The other thing, though, I did want to say that there are people in American life to whom this has not happened.

And I have my disagreements, say, with President Obama, but President Obama has run an amazingly scandal-free administration, not only he himself, but the people around him. He’s chosen people who have been pretty scandal-free.

And so there are people in Washington who do set a standard of integrity, who do seem to attract people of quality. And I think that’s probably true of the current group. I hope it’s true of the current leadership group in Congress. But — so they’re not all involved in scandal.

MARK SHIELDS: David makes a good point. And I agree with him on this administration in particular.

David Brooks should know, and probably does, but he apparently doesn't care that Tom Delay "was formally acquitted" of "criminal charges of conspiracy to violate election law" in September 2013. That acquittal was affirmed in October 2014. All you need for a "scandal" in LeftyLand if a Republican or conservative is involved is an indictment (if that); apparently, no amount of acquittal or exoneration will ever cause the press to remove the "scandal" tag. Meanwhile, you can have literally smoking guns (e.g., the Obama administration's Fast & Furious scandal), and the press will never go beyond calling it a "controversy" — if that.

Shields and Brooks perfectly exemplify the utter contempt for the truth we have seen during the past seven-plus years going back to Barack Obama's first presidential campaign. It has been and continues to be nothing short of astonishing, even for those of us who expected the worst.

For those who want a healthy dose of reality to offset the utter fantasies contained in the transcript above, Dan From Squirrel Hill's list of 1,080 "well sourced examples of Obama’s lying, lawbreaking, corruption, cronyism, hypocrisy, waste, etc." — dozens of which objectively fit the definition of a scandal ("a disgraceful or discreditable action") – is here. -

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2015/05/31/david-brooks-obama-has-run-amazingly-scandal-free-administration#sthash.IFBSIuXV.dpuf

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
yeah, why can't David Brooks tow the line and join in the delusions of right wing nutjobs

Jack T. Cross

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4098
  • Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)
Does something require a reaction to be a scandal? Because maybe we've made such a ridiculous backdrop that it changed the standard for what makes one.


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Does something require a reaction to be a scandal? Because maybe we've made such a ridiculous backdrop that it changed the standard for what makes one.



By definition "no," but in practice "yes," because there will always be a reaction to a scandal. 

That David Brooks is one true believer.   :-\

Jack T. Cross

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4098
  • Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)
By definition "no," but in practice "yes," because there will always be a reaction to a scandal. 

That David Brooks is one true believer.   :-\

Isn't the reaction what makes the definition? Meaning that without a reaction, the same thing needs to be called something else (despite sucking just as hard)?

I'm thinking that's how stuff like this can be said with a straight face.

Jack T. Cross

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4098
  • Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)
...to say something that 'discredits', for instance.

It requires a reaction to discredit it, I think.

Jack T. Cross

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4098
  • Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)
Yeah, D.B is a smartass and a scumbag.

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Yeah, D.B is a smartass and a scumbag.

Actually he's a very smart and reasonable guy...I tend to believe what he says

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Actually he's a very smart and reasonable guy...I tend to believe what he says

this is why their party is a joke

they actually shit on the smart guys

Brooks is no fan of Obama's policies (which he has been very clear about) but he's also not a brain dead moron like many others in his party

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Isn't the reaction what makes the definition? Meaning that without a reaction, the same thing needs to be called something else (despite sucking just as hard)?

I'm thinking that's how stuff like this can be said with a straight face.

Arguably.  I think it's more the act itself that makes it a scandal.  For example, the Justice Department targeting James Rosen was a scandal, despite it's short shelf life and silence by many liberals.  

By the same token, I don't think Romney being an alleged tax cheat based on Harry Reid accusing Romney of being a tax cheat from the Senate floor was a scandal, despite the fact it had such far reaching impact and caused numerous people not to vote for him.  

Jack T. Cross

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4098
  • Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)
Actually he's a very smart and reasonable guy...I tend to believe what he says

Sorry to tell you that speaks against him, Andre. (no offense)

He puts out incomplete information for people who won't/can't/don't want to think much. That way they'll take on a big thought ("obama=honest", in this case), without ever needing to know any better. Saddening and maddening, it is.

Yes, sorry to know that about you. Because I know you're not a bad guy.

Jack T. Cross

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4098
  • Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)
Arguably.  I think it's more the act itself that makes it a scandal.  For example, the Justice Department targeting James Rosen was a scandal, despite it's short shelf life and silence by many liberals.  

By the same token, I don't think Romney being an alleged tax cheat based on Harry Reid accusing Romney of being a tax cheat from the Senate floor was a scandal, despite the fact it had such far reaching impact and caused numerous people not to vote for him.  

Yeah, once information is in the open, I suppose it'll depend who you ask as to whether it's called a scandal.

I'd say information that isn't up for open examination (or hasn't been examined enough to generate discussion), yet holds potential to be a "scandal", would be called conspiracy theory in many or most cases.