Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite Save As Favorite View Article Stats
5 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

David Brooks Almost Said Something Smart

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Become a Fan
  (15 fans)

opednews.com

For a brief moment I thought that the worst columnist for the New York Times and professional panderer for the status quo almost said something smart.  He explained why Mitt Romney would lose the general election if selected as the Republican nominee.

 

Brooks said:

 

“The leaders of the Republican coalition know Romney will lose. But some would rather remain in control of a party that loses than lose control of a party that wins. Others haven’t yet suffered the agony of defeat, and so are not yet emotionally ready for the trauma of transformation. Others still simply don’t know which way to turn.”

 

What I first thought smart was the statement that “some would rather remain in control of a party that losses than lose control of a party that wins.”  The words flowed like melting ice cream, ready to lick up and savor.  But then I started thinking.  What both major parties really fear is a nominee for president that would actually work to overturn the political establishment by eliminating the two-party stranglehold on our political system.  As partners in the criminal conspiracy both parties accept election losses.

 

Romney is NOT a threat to the two-party system.  He is a perfect status quo protectionist.  In that sense, he is just one of several ideal Republicans running for president.  Wait, now that I think about it, ALL the Republican candidates fit that category, including Ron Paul.  ALL the Republicans would not cause the loss of control by those now controlling the party nor pose a threat to the two-party mafia.

 

Just look at Ron Paul’s record in the House.  He was never a threat to the party or their leaders in the House.  By accepting Paul’s idealistic policy positions the Republican leadership placated the Libertarian crowd.  Meanwhile, Paul traded votes (and non-votes) to get piles of earmarks and billions of dollars for his district.  Paul never even got close to passing any legislation or cutting anything Republicans wanted.  Even in his current run for the nomination he has not used clear, hard, explicit language in condemning either his party or the Bush administration for their foreign policies that Paul supposedly finds abominations.

 

Turn to the Democrats.  Those in control of that party would surely prefer Hillary Clinton and any of the others would be acceptable, except Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, neither of which ever stood a chance of getting the nomination.  All the others would pose no threat to the political establishment.  Even John Edwards would sell his principles to party leaders and would focus on evil forces in the private sector but not their influence on the political system.  And anyone who sees Obama as a true rebel, ready to overthrow the two-party stranglehold is delusional.  At best, he would only work within the current system to achieve some modest compromises, but not have the guts to disassemble it.  I still maintain that the power elites want and will get a Clinton-Obama ticket.

 

This corrupt two-party world that I see is hopeless unless New York City Mayor Bloomberg decides to use some of his wealth to run as a third party candidate for president.  Every American that sees the current two-party political establishment as the key root problem should embrace his candidacy.  But only if he has the courage to vociferously speak out against the two-party establishment.

 

http://articlev.wix.com/statusquobuster

Joel S. Hirschhorn is the author of Delusional Democracy - Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government. His current political writings have been greatly influenced by working as a senior staffer for the U.S. Congress and for the (more...)
 
Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Americans Unready to Revolt, Despite Revolting Conditions

Entering a Hospital and On Medicare? The One Question You Must Always Ask

9/11 Truth Manifesto

Tea Party Terrorists

The Most Powerful People in America

Fight Economic Oppression, Target the Top One Percent

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
4 people are discussing this page, with 5 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)
This guy is a pathetic liar. He has been pumping o... by Tom Davis on Tuesday, Jan 1, 2008 at 4:27:03 PM
What a disgrace are all those many cult-like follo... by Joel S. Hirschhorn on Tuesday, Jan 1, 2008 at 4:48:44 PM
Tell me that comment doesn't reek of... by Tom Davis on Tuesday, Jan 1, 2008 at 6:34:24 PM
You're MAD because Dr. Paul is actually DOING ... by Louis Nardozi on Tuesday, Jan 1, 2008 at 7:23:08 PM
Joel: Meanwhile, Paul traded votes (and non-votes)... by Ingrid on Wednesday, Jan 2, 2008 at 6:10:33 AM