Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was. His words are responsible; his character is inspiring. But his actions betray a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice. As Clive Crook, an Obama admirer, wrote in The Financial Times, the Obama budget “contains no trace of compromise. It makes no gesture, however small, however costless to its larger agenda, of a bipartisan approach to the great questions it addresses. It is a liberal’s dream of a new New Deal.”
Laura Hollis warned of this, had David Brooks cared to read or investigate for himself, as did Thomas Sowell, David Limbaugh, and any number of lesser known lights. Here is but one example of an ordinary guy, doing his own research and posting on the web.
Now, David Brooks works for the New York Times, the "paper of record," the most mainstream of the Mainstream Media (MSM). He had the resources at his disposal, presumably, to find out just who Barack Obama really was, and to inform the rest of us before the other half of the population voted for this guy. Even if his editors would not have given him staff to do the research, surely he could have done it on his own. The sources others used are not that deeply buried. They did not rely on exclusive, anonymous sources. It would be a case of gross journalistic malpractice if Mr. Brooks truly did not know or understand who the "One" was. But I don't believe Brooks committed malpractice, and I also don't believe his is simply an incompetent boob. Which leave that the MSM knew exactly what it was getting, even salivated over the prospect, but is now having second thoughts. The best laid plans, Mr. Brooks?