True naked ambition. (well, not actually naked)
(h/t blog.reidreport.com)
When David Brooks takes a break from bragging about his superior education, instructing us on precisely which of Plato's dialogs we should be reading, and asserting his masculinity, he should spend a little time with Rand McNally.
The crumbling edifice of Brooks' brain is in serious need of a reality restoration.
In today's op-ed for the Times, Brooks attacks Hillary for being a "nakedly ambitious demagogue" because of her stance on Dubai operating our ports. He is happy to report that Hagel and McCain passed the test of character that this issue presents. But Brooks does not seem to know that one of the ports in question is in New York, the state Mrs. Clinton represents. A cursory glance at a map of the U.S. might remind Mr. Brooks that neither Arizona nor Nebraska have a lot of ports.
He denounces Hillary because her husband's library accepted "up to a million dollars" from the U.A.E., but neglects to mention that George H.W. Bush's library accepted "at least a million." Generally, "at least" is bigger than "up to" a million. Brooks also complains of money that Bill earned from the U.A.E. in speaking fees, but forgets those collected by the Bush family.
He is even more scornful of Hillary's playing to the "rawest form of xenophobia." To Brooks, all Arab states are the same. He cannot make even the gross distinctions that Condi Rice's State Department can. Not all Muslim nations have been designated Level III human traffickers. (the worst level) But Dubai has. In not all Arab states are only 10% of the residents considered citizens. But that's how it is in Dubai.
Her stance reminds him of the "Clinton years at their worst: the me-me-me selfishness." How he can write a sentence like that after years of Republican corruption and thievery is utterly beyond me.
Brooks trashes her Presidential ambition in part because she "is the only presidential candidate who does not offer a break from the current polarization and bitter partisanship." He admits that "a lot of the bitterness would not be her fault," but goes on to say that "she is happy to be a crude partisan." So, who is to be blamed for the bitterness? Brooks fails to ask. Both Hillary and Bill are far closer to the center than the current Republican party. And opposition to Dubai's operating our ports is about as bi-partisan an issue as we have seen in five years of Bush's divisiveness.
His pompous conclusion is that "over the long run, people vote on character." Yes, he wrote that during the second term of George W. Bush's Presidency.
Comments