An occasional front pager here at Show Me Progress had a letter in the Tuesday Post-Dispatch about the way pundits go after Obama no matter what he says or does:
David Brooks marshals a kitchen sink-full of specious arguments to convince us that U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, is a sell-out “Fast Eddie” (“Obama: ‘Slick’ doesn’t even come close,” June 24).
Mr. Obama did not take positions on politically sensitive issues in the Illinois legislature? Never mind that his non-votes reflected solidarity with the strategies of the Democratic leadership on issues on which there was no chance of prevailing and where votes might endanger at-risk Democrats.
He finally disavowed the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s rhetoric? If guilt-by-association won’t work, crucify him because, after continuing provocations, he finally let Mr. Wright know that enough is enough.
You can read the rest of Willy K’s letter by clicking here and scrolling down to Working the Advantages.
Willy tells me that she had some second thoughts, actually, about the way she wrote the letter because she had to repeat Brooks’s arguments in order to refute them: “I prefer direct disputation of this sort, but the experts tell us that this is a real trap since one runs the risk of reinforcing the original charge rather than dispelling it.”
Indeed, that can happen.
but, speaking of the NYT, David Brooks is at it again–I would like to think that he was just getting all his facts wrong (the column I responded to above was just filled with false facts and spin), but I think I am beginning to see a pattern here. Too bad, I used to think that Brooks was a decent conservative.
you have to remember what the rest of the field is like. Think of Hannity, Limbaugh or O’Reilly and Brooks seems a miracle of civil discourse in cmparison.