The latest fecal excresence from Brooks sounds like a panicked 911 call for a Waaaahhhhmbulance. As the endgame of HCR draws nigh, the conservative cheerleading squad is freaking out.
Brooks' "thesis" is that reconciliation is a bizarre, obscure and aggressive parliamentary practice that is going to destroy the personal relationships and working environment of the Senate. To quote the summary of the article, which by the hysterical way is titled "The Spirit of Sympathy:"
The use of reconciliation threatens to destroy the humanizing function of the Senate
Of course, this is a different David Brooks than the one that lived from 2001-2009. I have taken the time to research Brooks' lengthy, thoughtful columns on the practice of budget reconciliation during the Bush era, and I've found them all compiled here. I've quoted a few of the better ones below, such as:
And this one is also a gem:
But, follow me below the fold for a more in-depth analysis of Brooks' position on reconciliation.
Now, the reality is we all know that the practice of passing minority-opposed legislation during the Bush era, especially with so aggressive and butt-hurting of a parlimentary procedure as reconciliation was as rare as a salad bar at an Applebee's.
No, during the Bush years, the legislative process was so conciliatory and bipartisan that Democratic Representatives and Senators were often found holding hands with their Republican counterparts and singing fucking Kumbayaa in the mother-fucking Rotunda. Yeah. With that guitar that Bush later played at the Hurricane Katrina Benefit Concert.
But what I wanted to call attention to, aside from Brooks' inane babbling about something he clearly is incapable of ever understanding, is the comments section of the linked article. Now, I don't know that there is anything resembling a policy on the NYT comment sections on how long they will leave comments open, but I did find it curious that Brooks, one of the Times' upper tier op-ed contributors, would only gather 20 comments to his article before the time to comment, unfortunately (so sorry, we apologize for the inconvenience) expired, and the comment section just had to be closed.
Or, did it? It looks like Brooks published egested this column sometime yesterday, and comments were being accepted shortly before 8:00 EDT this morning. However, it also appears that not all of the responses to Brooks' column regurgitated brain offal were sufficiently obsequious. Some choice responses:
Cdr John Newlin says:
Innate sense of fairness, Mr. Brooks? Like the fairness that George W. Bush and his henchmen in the Senate evinced when they used the reconciliation process to jam the funding for a war the public didn't want down the taxpayers throats?
Darrell Hampton points out:
"Reconciliation has been used with increasing frequency. That was bad enough. But at least for the Bush tax cuts or the prescription drug bill, there was significant bipartisan support. Now we have pure reconciliation mixed with pure partisanship." Mr. Brooks that entire statement is a lie! The tax cuts and the prescription drug bill were passed by reconciliation and the partisanship was so harsh the Vice-President, Dick Cheney was needed to pass Dubya’s crooked giveaway to his friends. Why is it that you Republicans think that everybody is stupid except you guys? We were there Mr. Brooks! We saw it and you saw it too.
And NYT reader Marie Burns notes:
Or, as another member of your righty-right brain trust defined reconciliation,
"It means that the bill will be pushed through the Senate with 50 votes instead of the usual 60." -- Megyn Kelly, Fox "News" Anchor
So, after the NYT server nearly collapsed under the weight of almost 20 comments that did not utterly and wholly agree with every nuance of His Greatness' Own Legendary Mind, it appears that the administrators of the site stepped in, pocket protectors strapped on, in full emergency mode, and halted the madness of people disagreeing to David Brooks' face.
I've seen NYT stories that had 200-500 comments. But I have also noticed that when Ross Douchehat or David Brooks in particular publish something that is obviously a sack of steaming shit, and the NYT readers start pointing it out, the comments section mysteriously closes up, or in some cases what was an op-ed suddenly gets converted into a far less-prominent blog posting.
I've already established that Conservatives have zero sense of shame. But I am only beginning to realize what thin-skinned pansies they are when it comes to losing a debate, or being called out when they're wrong.
I guess all that tough talk about mandates and political capital a few years back still has them aching from the butthurt. Like the man says, maybe it's time to nut up or shut up, David Brooks.