Sep
16
2013

Concern Troll Watch: David Brooks is terrified that Ted Cruz (and Heritage) will succeed.

David Brooks is very upset at all those recalcitrant Republicans elected in 2010.

“What’s going on in the House, and a bit in the Senate, too, is what you might call the rise of Ted Cruz-ism,” Brooks said. “And Ted Cruz, the senator from Canada through Texas, is basically not a legislator in the normal sense, doesn’t have an idea that he’s going to Congress to create coalitions, make alliances, and he is going to pass a lot of legislation. He’s going in more as a media-protest person. And a lot of the House Republicans are in the same mode. They’re not normal members of Congress. They’re not legislators. They want to stop things. And so they’re just being — they just want to obstruct.”

Two things on this:

  1. David Brooks is apparently looking to build street cred among the Birther crowd. “Senator from Canada?” What’s next, arguing that the Moon landings were faked and that there are aliens on ice in Warehouse 23?
  2. …Yes, in fact, a critical number of Republicans in Congress “want to obstruct.”  And there’s a reason for that.  Let me show you a graph from 2011:

2011-deficits-obama

That graph shows budget deficits, as of 2011.  As you can plainly see, in 2009 our annual deficit went through the floor and (screaming) into the dark abyss beneath.  Not coincidentally, this was the first year where the Democrats had complete and utter control over the spending process, which they used to waste quite a lot of the taxpayers money to no good end.  The reaction to this was to put in enough Republican legislators in 2010 to stop more of that from happening. Obstructionism is the idea, in other words. Obstructionism has forced federal spending to verrrry slllooowllly stop advancing; obstructionism might even – Shock! Surprise! – get federal spending back to the pre-‘stimulus’ baseline*.

So, yeah, Cruz and House Republicans are being obstructionists.  It’s just that they’re firmly in the mainstream of Republican and conservative opinion on the subject, and David Brooks is not.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

PS: If you ever wondered whether killing earmarks was a mitzvah, wonder no more. Brooks, again:

“…a lot of these people just are not interested in the committee assignments, the normal leverage the leadership has, in part because the earmarks are gone, some of the spending favors.”

Translation: earmarks were potent bribes. Which. They. Were.

PPS: Brooks apparently also hates Heritage with the mildly warm irritation of a thousand tepid suns.  Personally, I’d take that as a compliment and put his non-endorsement on Heritage’s front page, but that’s just me.

*And don’t think that this isn’t a victory;  Harry Reid has been fighting like heck to get the supposed ‘emergency’ spending from 2009 to be made part of the new baseline.  That’s why we didn’t have a budget for so long.

5 Comments

  • jbird says:

    I’m sure Cruz would be happy to pass legislation and create coalitions if there were a conservative majority. As it is, what’s he supposed to do, vote for bills he and his constituents disagree with? It’s the same with the whole “party of no” meme. Republicans would be glad to pass plenty of legislation if it could get through the senate and the president would sign it. But as the government is currently constituted, all the Republicans can do is sink legislation they disagree with. Of course, when Dems are in the minority again, obstruction and dissent will be noble once again.

  • acat says:

    Moe, you didn’t mention the real horror of Canadian Texan Cruz, to one like Brooks…
    .
    I’m quite certain that Cruz “isn’t learning the right lessons” from the lack of invitations to the D.C. cocktail circuit .. “isn’t hobnobbing” with those who could “teach him the ropes” ….
    .
    Brooks is a sad, pathetic troll who needs to be mocked, preferably to the pain.
    .
    Mew

  • midwestconservative says:

    Man, I hate Brooks more than Rubin, if that were possible.

  • Herp McDerp says:

    As far as I’m concerned, the world would be a better place were David Brooks to ingest fecal matter and expire.
     
    By the way, did he ever refer to a certain Democrat as “Jennifer Granholm, the Canadian Governor of Michigan”?

    • acat says:

      Herp, you know Brooks likely never noticed the existence of Granholm .. her being one of those “flyover country” people and all that.
      .
      Mew

RSS feed for comments on this post.


Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com