Reply With Quote
I guess David Brooks has lost his Obama man crush.
The David Brooks milquetoast method, at its best and worst, grasps uncontroversially true observables. This is a pretty good one for him, imho.
read the rest:Dullest Campaign Ever
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: July 30, 2012 387 Comments
A few weeks ago, Peggy Noonan wrote a column in The Wall Street Journal that perfectly captures my at ude toward this presidential campaign: It’s incredibly consequential and incredibly boring all at the same time.
Since then, I’ve come up with a number of reasons for why it is so dull. First, intellectual stagnation. This race is the latest iteration of the same debate we’ve been having since 1964. Mitt Romney is calling President Obama a big-government liberal who wants to crush business. Obama is calling Romney a corporate tool who wants to take away grandma’s health care.
American politics went through tremendous changes between 1900 and 1936, and then again between 1940 and 1976. But our big government/small government debate is back where it was a generation ago. Candidates don’t even have to rehearse the arguments anymore; they just find the gaffes that will help them pin their opponent to the standard bogyman clichés.
Second, lack of any hint of intellectual innovation. Candidates used to start their campaigns by giving serious policy addresses at universities and think tanks to lay out their distinct philosophies. Bill Clinton was a New Democrat. George W. Bush was a Compassionate Conservative.
But the ideological climate has ossified. Candidates know that they’d be punished for saying something unexpected — by the rich, elderly donors and by the hyperorthodox talk-show hosts. Instead of saying something new, now they just try to boost turnout within their own demographic niches and suppress turnout in the other guy’s niches.
Third, increased focus on the uninformed. Four years ago, Barack Obama gave a sophisticated major speech on race. Mitt Romney did one on religion. This year, the candidates do not feel compelled to give major speeches. The prevailing view is that anybody who would pay attention to such a speech is already committed to a candidate. It’s more efficient to focus on the undecided voters, who don’t really follow politics or the news.
Fourth, lack of serious policy proposals. Has there ever been a campaign with so few major plans on the table? President Obama’s proposals are small and medium-size retreads, while Mitt Romney has run the closest thing to a policy-free race as any candidate in my lifetime. Republicans spend their days fleshing out proposals, which Romney decides not to champion.
Fifth, negative passion. Both parties are driven more by hatred than by love. Both sides feel it would be a disaster for the country if the other side had power during the next four years. Neither side is propelled by much positive enthusiasm for their own side.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/op...r.html?_r=2&hp
I guess David Brooks has lost his Obama man crush.
He lost it about three years ago. Have you been asleep this whole time?
Good read.
This is easily the worst duo of presidential candidates in my lifetime.
"worst duo"
false equivalence. Gecko is MUCH worse, and much less worthy of the WH than Barry.
Agree with coyotes. Good read, thanks for posting.
I also think there's a sense of hopelessness due in no small part to Congress, the big elephant in the room, where the acrimony has gotten to the point where the country is frozen policy-wise because of the pettiness of the representatives. Party (both teams) has become more important than country, and it shows.
Gecko = Barry. Neither has a plan. The only difference between the two is that Barry wants to cover up his lack of a plan by poking a handful of richers with a stick and Gecko wants to cover up his lack of a plan by using his stick to poke Obama.
Gecko has a plan, it's Ryan's budget plan, and attack Iran with Israel. That's much worse than no plan
as nono noted, the corruption and paralysis in Congress is biggest problem, esp the extremist tea baggers. But a much bigger problem, out right, multi-decade catastrophe, would be the Repugs in control of HW and Congress.
Obama is slightly better than Willard, but only because he isn't a condescending, cold that can't choose an opinion on any issue, tbh..... we're still ed either way though.....
The best plan for the economy would be to leave it alone, and stop scaring people that more wealth will be confiscated.
"we're still ed either way though"
but ed, the 99%, much worse with Ryan's budget for the next 4 years.
I dunno, I think the 99% is equally as ed too. No President is going to fix that issue.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
