« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

David Brooks Gets Played

It is a familiar tactic that the Democrats have used lately — say it enough times and hope someone believes it. I was traveling yesterday and couldn’t comment on the David Brooks column, but it is more and more clear David Brooks got played.

The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, has talked about supporting a debt reduction measure of $3 trillion or even $4 trillion if the Republicans meet him part way. There are Democrats in the White House and elsewhere who would be willing to accept Medicare cuts if the Republicans would be willing to increase revenues.

This $3 to $4 trillion mysterious deal is the Democrats’ talking point du jour. On CBS, Delaware Senator Chris Coons said the same.

“The next decade we can cut $4 trillion in federal spending. We can achieve real savings, and we’ve had plans on the table since March to do it in a bipartisan, responsible way. It’s their intransigence, their refusal to consider any increase in revenue that has really stalled the talks so far. . . . I’m willing to make significant cuts in domestic spending and entitlement reform.”

There’s just one problem. This $4 trillion deal with entitlement reform does not actually exist. They may be saying that. David Brooks may be getting sweet nothings whispered in his ear by the White House. But there is no deal.This has become a familiar tactic by the Democrats in the past year when it comes to cutting the budget. We saw it with the continuing resolutions. We saw it with the Christmas 2010 tax extension deals. We’re seeing it again. They claim there is an offer made, a deal on the table, and recalcitrant Republicans blocking the way.

But all along there is no offer. There is no deal. Heck, there isn’t even a table.

They then rely on the media to whip up sentiment in favor of their mythical deal and wait for Republicans to fold. It’s been an effective strategy for them so far. And yet again, David Brooks plays along.

The sad part is that this Democrat strategy says more about the media and the media’s quest for deals and compromise and good government bias than anything else. The media gets played and played and played some more.

One exit point: the GOP should be on to this strategy. But we should pay attention to which Republicans actually fold in on this.

———————–
UPDATE: A friend points out that the Times has had to correct David’s column. He originally wrote it as a “few hundred million” in tax increases. It’s actually a few hundred billion. Was that a typo or did David get played that bad?!

COMMENTS

  • The Moat

    He loves saying hugely broad things that everybody agrees with, without ever getting into specifics. This accomplishes several things for him:

    A) Allows him to support popular goals (like deficit reduction) without taking the political hit for the less popular consequences (entitlement reform).

    B) Allows him to avoid blame/accountability on specifics that people don’t like (Remember when any criticism of Obamacare was deflected towards Congress? “Hey, THEY wrote it!”)

    C) Allows him to take completely contradictory positions on the same issue. (Remember during the campaign when he told one group that an undivided Jerusalem must remain the capital of Israel, and then turned around the next day and said it should be shared with a Palestinian state?)

    This is how he’s operated from day one. It’s why he’s voted “present” so many times in his legislative career — to avoid offending anybody. It’s a fantastic way to get people to like you and to build popularity, but as we’re all finding out first-hand, it’s a lousy idea if you wish to actually ACCOMPLISH something.

  • http://www.rightproadvisors.com erinmist

    If the “honorable” Senator Reid were talking about 3 to 4 TRILLION in cuts over the next TWO years, I’d be happy to close some loopholes (as the end game is really Fair Tax, with no loopholes anyway). But over the next TEN years????

    Sorry, no sale. Anything that doesn’t happen on their watch, while they are in office (or in the case of Harry Reid, while he’s still alive) is a non-starter.

    Shut it down, shut it down, shut it down, and make the interest payments on the debt so that there is no default. Anything less, and you will get primaried, and you will get defeated — if you are a wobbly Republican.

    I would argue that not since 1773 or 1859 have the American people been this angry…keep it up Mr. Chuckles, and you will see what a revolution looks like.

  • johnt

    How about now? Sure, raise projections by $4 bil, and then reduce the projection by the same amount. Only in Washington. But you can bet your ass the tax increases will be real, and once that ball starts to roll it will it will not stop with the millionaires/billionaires.
    If you can’t do it now, you’re not going to do it three years from now.
    This is a sop & escape hatch to the moderates[so called], and Brooks is a prime example.

  • Locked and Loaded

    I would say there is a VLWC (of which Brooks is integral), and it is the Republican – uhh – leaders who get played and played and played.

  • johnt

    jeszuz, the media is The player, not the played. The Dems as we know them would be crippled if not for the media. Pause, just who “plays” the NY Times for example? They & other sources help set , defend and cover for both the agenda and the Democrats.
    This on Redstate? Hope fades.

  • ss396

    All this time I thought that the biggest problem is that the Democrats are utterly and blindly partisan in their refusal to recognize the necessity of reigning in their out-of-control spending mania. That we always raise spending beyond whatever tax increase we’ve conceded in the past is totally forgotten in today’s press moment. Tell me again why ‘bipartisan’ means Republican concession? It never occurs to these geniuses that the Democrats are the ones who are refusing to accept reality.

    Yes, Mr. Brooks, you were played. One of the favorite media tricks has always been to interview Democrats about what the Republican Party should do. It looks as though you have joined that blathering gang. Have they issued you your membership card yet?

  • gawken

    I’lll gladly pay you next decade with a spending cut, for a tax increase today..

  • romeg

    Brooks is completely in the tank on this issue. Every Friday he and E.J. Dionne engage in a love fest on NPR and his hatred for the Tea Party movement is on full display on most of these occasions.

    But his employer is the NYT. Why would anyone expect anything less than a Limousine Liberal parading around as a ‘Conservative’ under such circumstances. There is a greater likelihood that MSNBC would give Rush Limbaugh his own full hour Prime Time slot than for the NYT to hire a true conservative to provide content for their opinion pages.

  • Adjoran

    for ten years, but no longer. Which is why the CBO wouldn’t even score the past Obama idea of “savings” over 12+ years. But it is possible to ensure the baselines are held for 10 years in a deal.

    Brooks may have been “played,” but he was a willing sucker – sort of like all those people who sent money to Christine O’Donnell and ensured the idiot-boy Marxist Chris Coons would be elected Senator. Christine, of course, is now living high on the hog off the over $1 million she had left over in her Senate campaign fund.

    Did you know it is perfectly legal to pay yourself a salary as “candidate” as long as you don’t hold a paid federal position? She does, and she’s laughing at her pathetic suckers just like the Democrats laugh at David Brooks.

  • tea4me

    And you see a difference? LOL!

  • AceInTX

    yeah you alluded to it when you said the Republicans should be onto this game but that’s too nice by half.

    Three words would say it all had you simply taken the following and added “and the Republicans”

    Thus:

    The media gets played and played and played some more.

    Becomes:

    The media and the Republicans get(s) played and played and played some more.

  • carolina

    to anything.
    All bets are off after the next election. The next Congress can do anything they want, no matter what this Congress decides.
    The CBO 10 year ‘scoring’ doesn’t indicate anything other than the way they have their modeling system set up (on some mainframe). Govt bureaucracies are not flexible, nor do they have current technology. They are always many years behind.

  • rickey5825

    If they pass a constitutional amendment and the president signs it and it has been ratified by the states then it would be binding and the next congress would have to go through the amendment and ratification process to change it.

  • rickey5825

    but they do so willingly because they are liberals.

  • http://www.editedforbias.com editedforbias

    Exactly as it always has been. I will gladly raise your taxes today for cuts ten years from now, cuts that never come. Tax increases with “projected” revenues, revenues that never arrive. But they all feel better, we all lose more money and more freedom.

    This is the GOPs last chance to show me they have learned from 2010! Their only fall back is that I have no place to go at this point.

  • http://www.StanOlshefski.com Stan Olshefski

    The President is not involved in the process of amending the Constitution.

  • http://www.periodictablet.com superamerican

    You got it wrong. David Brooks is a player, part and parcel of the vast, and highly effective Obama engine of relection. He will get reelected because his advisors are smarter — or more battle ready — than any conservative. As usual the Repubs are clueless and will dither and blather. The few that are on, get shunted aside by power-hungry Reps who — like the Dems — care not about the country only care aboput reelection.

    UGH on all of them.