David Brooks takes on Obama "magic"

[Alma]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/opinion/19brooks.html?em&ex=1203570000&en=a37d78be1404f491&ei=5087%0A

Thoughts?

 

[jboy]

No thanks.

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

Not too many went into the article.

 

[jgmacg]

There's a great piece to be written about the role "charisma" plays in "leadership."

This isn't it.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

Clearly hard-up.

So he reaches . . . and misses.

Happens to almost everybody.

 

[GB-Hack]

Democratic Party: Blue. Obama: Magic.

Is he trying to say Barack Omaba is Frank Lucas? 'American Gangster' came out on DVD today.

 

[Pastor]

The first 50% of that piece was a hacktacular piece of hackiness. There was nothing of value in there.

“A sense of ennui began to creep through the nation’s Ian McEwan-centered book clubs.” Really? Why are the book clubs Ian McEwan-centered? An author that writes psychological thrillers has something to do with the Obama campaign? Really? That is quite a stretch.

After wasting away a lot of time on nothing, Brooks finally feels the need to make a point, I guess, when he writes about the spending of money on superdelegates. I will return to this later.

The comment about the “predictable liberal votes” is awful. It implies that someone thinking independently of others cannot come to the conclusion that other people have come to.

Up next is a comment about self-confidence. Why would this be a bad thing? Does **** Cheney not have a monumental ego? In everything he says at any point he talks, his ego is on display, yet I never heard it be considered a negative.

What this really comes down to is the comment on superdelegates. However, this is a quick comment and instead of being made an issue, is used as a simple one-liner during a fill of…nothing.

What Brooks really wrote was a rebuke of religion, Christian, Muslim, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. Faith without substance allows for “some invisible connection” to persist.

 

[Dangerous_K]

David Brooks is enamored with Joe Lieberman. That should say all that needs to be said.

 

[poindexter]

David, 1993 called.

They want their glasses back.

 

[Guy_Incognito]

What Brooks really wrote was a rebuke of religion, Christian, Muslim, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. Faith without substance allows for “some invisible connection” to persist.

No, it's a rebuke of religion centered around a person. Treating God like a God would certainly stand up to more of his objections than a guy, even if the guy speaks well.

 

[Pastor]

What Brooks really wrote was a rebuke of religion, Christian, Muslim, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. Faith without substance allows for “some invisible connection” to persist.

No, it's a rebuke of religion centered around a person. Treating God like a God would certainly stand up to more of his objections than a guy, even if the guy speaks well.

False. There was nothing said in that piece that could not be said about any religion on this planet. Disagree as you may but the facts are laid out in every philosophical argument against the books religions are based on.

The author certainly intended it to be exactly what you wrote. The problem is that Brooks' premise is built on air. As such, it should be applied where it is most applicable.

 

[Boom_70]

There's a great piece to be written about the role "charisma" plays in "leadership."

This isn't it.

That seemed to be where Brooks was trying to go but never really drove home the point.

At this point voters are willing to buy into Obama's big picture message of hope and accept that the devil is in the details.

At this stage Obama need to win the party nomination. There is no benefit in staking out specific positions that could cost him primary votes.

The rubber will meet the road come when he becomes the chosen candidate. He will then have to articulate the details of how all will realize their hope and dreams. Voters will then be fully focused on his ability to run the country as compared to McCain.

 

[Guy_Incognito]

What Brooks really wrote was a rebuke of religion, Christian, Muslim, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. Faith without substance allows for “some invisible connection” to persist.

No, it's a rebuke of religion centered around a person. Treating God like a God would certainly stand up to more of his objections than a guy, even if the guy speaks well.

False. There was nothing said in that piece that could not be said about any religion on this planet. Disagree as you may but the facts are laid out in every philosophical argument against the books religions are based on.

The author certainly intended it to be exactly what you wrote. The problem is that Brooks' premise is built on air. As such, it should be applied where it is most applicable.

No it couldn't. In a religion the assumption of an omniscient God precludes any Comedown - no inconsistency on campaign finance etc.

 

[Pastor]

What Brooks really wrote was a rebuke of religion, Christian, Muslim, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. Faith without substance allows for “some invisible connection” to persist.

No, it's a rebuke of religion centered around a person. Treating God like a God would certainly stand up to more of his objections than a guy, even if the guy speaks well.

False. There was nothing said in that piece that could not be said about any religion on this planet. Disagree as you may but the facts are laid out in every philosophical argument against the books religions are based on.

The author certainly intended it to be exactly what you wrote. The problem is that Brooks' premise is built on air. As such, it should be applied where it is most applicable.

No it couldn't. In a religion the assumption of an omniscient God precludes any Comedown - no inconsistency on campaign finance etc.

... an omniscient god presumably described through a text full of flaws (the "inconsistency...").

It is a flawed case attempting to be made. It was applied to the wrong subject.

 

[Guy_Incognito]

What Brooks really wrote was a rebuke of religion, Christian, Muslim, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. Faith without substance allows for “some invisible connection” to persist.

No, it's a rebuke of religion centered around a person. Treating God like a God would certainly stand up to more of his objections than a guy, even if the guy speaks well.

False. There was nothing said in that piece that could not be said about any religion on this planet. Disagree as you may but the facts are laid out in every philosophical argument against the books religions are based on.

The author certainly intended it to be exactly what you wrote. The problem is that Brooks' premise is built on air. As such, it should be applied where it is most applicable.

No it couldn't. In a religion the assumption of an omniscient God precludes any Comedown - no inconsistency on campaign finance etc.

... an omniscient god presumably described through a text full of flaws (the "inconsistency...").

It is a flawed case attempting to be made. It was applied to the wrong subject.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Pastor]

What Brooks really wrote was a rebuke of religion, Christian, Muslim, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. Faith without substance allows for “some invisible connection” to persist.

No, it's a rebuke of religion centered around a person. Treating God like a God would certainly stand up to more of his objections than a guy, even if the guy speaks well.

False. There was nothing said in that piece that could not be said about any religion on this planet. Disagree as you may but the facts are laid out in every philosophical argument against the books religions are based on.

The author certainly intended it to be exactly what you wrote. The problem is that Brooks' premise is built on air. As such, it should be applied where it is most applicable.

No it couldn't. In a religion the assumption of an omniscient God precludes any Comedown - no inconsistency on campaign finance etc.

... an omniscient god presumably described through a text full of flaws (the "inconsistency...").

It is a flawed case attempting to be made. It was applied to the wrong subject.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Of course...

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

"The Gang of 14 created bipartisan unity on judges, but Obama sat it out. Kennedy and McCain created a bipartisan deal on immigration. Obama opted out of the parts that displeased the unions. Sixty-eight senators supported a bipartisan deal on FISA. Obama voted no. And if he were president now, how would the High Deacon of Unity heal the breach that split the House last week?"

Jesus, can this guy not do snark. (By the way, David, you useless trend-sniffing foof, Mary Chapin Carpenter can write your pale ass around the block, so **** off with your lead, OK?) But I would point out that, in the above passage, two of the three items mentioned -- the "compromise" on judges and the surrender on telcom immunity -- the bipartisan solution resulted in infinitely bad public policy to which no serious progressive Democratic politician should ally himself. And the immigration deal was so popular in the country that McCain's still getting the stuffing kicked out of him for it.
"Bipartisanship" is one of those magic pundit words that result, in the real world, in a system by which the Republicans get pretty much what they want but the Democrats get to complain about it six months later.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

"The Gang of 14 created bipartisan unity on judges, but Obama sat it out. Kennedy and McCain created a bipartisan deal on immigration. Obama opted out of the parts that displeased the unions. Sixty-eight senators supported a bipartisan deal on FISA. Obama voted no. And if he were president now, how would the High Deacon of Unity heal the breach that split the House last week?"

Jesus, can this guy not do snark. (By the way, David, you useless trend-sniffing foof, Mary Chapin Carpenter can write your pale ass around the block, so **** off with your lead, OK?) But I would point out that, in the above passage, two of the three items mentioned -- the "compromise" on judges and the surrender on telcom immunity -- the bipartisan solution resulted in infinitely bad public policy to which no serious progressive Democratic politician should ally himself. And the immigration deal was so popular in the country that McCain's still getting the stuffing kicked out of him for it.
"Bipartisanship" is one of those magic pundit words that result, in the real world, in a system by which the Republicans get pretty much what they want but the Democrats get to complain about it six months later.

Ding.
Ding.