New York Times columnist David Brooks stacks the deck with the greatest of ease by putting words into the mouth of an imaginary Trump supporter during an imaginary interview with "Flyover Man." Why not a real interview instead of this fake news?



WASHINGTON -- Recently, in Hanover, New Hampshire, former Vice President Joe Biden — the gaffable Joe Biden — stitched together a stupendous concatenation of gaffes that ought to put him out of the race for the Democratic nomination. But apparently, it will not. This is good news for those of us who like a good laugh or a whole string of good laughs. 



On Friday night's week in review on the PBS NewsHour, the taxpayer-funded network's dynamic duo of pundits upset the hardcore left by agreeing "the steam went out" of impeachment. But when it came to Joe Biden mangling the facts of a medal ceremony honoring a military hero, New York Times columnist David Brooks came rushing to Biden's defense, that unlike the president, he's not "mendacious" or "irresponsible" with the facts. 



On the PBS NewsHour on Friday night, liberal analyst Mark Shields and "conservative" analyst David Brooks aggressively agreed with each other, as usual -- this time, in defending Democrat front-runner Joe Biden after he brought up working with segregationist Democrats in the 1970s to get work done. Brooks, a New York Times columnist, compared segregationists to "homophobes," which is highly offensive if it's used to describe social conservatives and orthodox religious people. Shields shamed Biden's Democrat opponents as purists who would make a minority party.



It was bad enough when liberals like Thomas Friedman reacted to Hillary Clinton losing the election by calling it a "moral 9/11," which in no way represented anything like a set of terrorist attacks that killed 3,000 and wounded more than 6,000. But on Friday night, PBS NewsHour analyst Mark Shields returned to the scene of that rhetorical excess in reaction to the Mueller report. The investigations into Russiagate must never end. We need a "new 9/11 Commission." 



Cable news continued hailing Democrat Mayor Pete Buttigieg as the second coming Tuesday after he officially tossed his hat in the ring for President, Monday. Over at MSNBC, “center-right” columnist for the New York Times, David Brooks touted Buttigieg as the anti-Trump that America needed right now, in the wake of the “moral and spiritual crisis” that President Trump had created.

 



On the PBS NewsHour, New York Times columnist David Brooks is somehow expected to be identified as the conservative (or at least center-right) pundit, and he keeps sounding like a leftist instead. On Friday, he came out for reparations because "we're in a make-or-break moment on race" due to "the election of Trump," and "aggressive gestures" are needed to show "we're all part of the same country." 



In the latest series of attempts to raise the profile of South Bend Mayor and 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg, Never-Trumpers and liberals have attempted to highlight his Christian faith. New York Times columnist David Brooks tried to showcase the openly gay mayor’s “conservative family values” while USA Today’s Kirsten Powers hailed his “countercultural approach to Christianity.”



In the wake of the release of the Mueller Report, New York Times "conservative" columnist David Brooks seems to have done some soul-searching and has concluded that President Donald Trump is owed an apology. Of course, among those who owe such an apology to Trump is Brooks himself as we shall see in his Tuesday column, "We’ve All Just Made Fools of Ourselves — Again."



Friday night's pundit segment on the PBS NewsHour began in a predictable way, as both pseudoconservative David Brooks and liberal Mark Shields rained fire on President Trump declaring a national emergency to secure federal funding for a border wall. But after both pundits agreed that Democratic presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg was "impressive," Brooks was gently asked if the Democrats were getting too progressive, and he dropped a bomb. They were "somewhere to the left of Che Guevara."



Those who weighed in on this Covington Catholic High School student story include some members of the Catholic clergy, Catholic lay leaders, and non-Catholics. Some were temperate in their remarks and some were vicious. Some have issued a full-throated apology, while others have offered less than a complete apology. Others are sticking to their guns. Two persons went off the cliff.



Did columnist David Brooks put his New York Times gig at risk on Monday? Most people at liberal mainstream media outlets that have reported on the incident in Washington D.C. on Friday involving the Covington Catholic high school students, after having been made aware of the longer video and more facts about what actually happened, seem to be using the weasel type of position of saying something along the lines of "perhaps the incident is not quite like what it initially seemed but..." However, Brooks did not go that route. Instead he gave a full, flat out defense of those students as we shall see.