i will come back next time i view or read his opinions with a specific... ok.
Thanks. I'd appreciate that.
He appears more critical than supportive of adm
He's in an unusual position for a conservative pundit. Most conservative pundits take strident, hyperbolic positions because they're preaching to the choir. The most successful of them are the ones that stand up most vigorously for that choir.
Brooks, OTOH, is speaking to the other guys. His purpose isn't to rev them up but to persuade them, of not not persuade them, at least mitigate their demonization of conservatives. To do that he has to do two things. He has to speak in their language, which is alien to the choir. And he has to sound reasonable, not like an extremist. I think he does a very good job of that. It's very hard to do.
I asked the question because, while someone who does what he does may, in fact, be less conservative, he may also seem that way because he doesn't sound like the other pundits.
He appears more critical than supportive of adm.
There's criticism from the right of the administration. Most of it is restrained but it's there. I certainly don't think criticizing the amazingly non-conservative things that Bush has done is being non-conservative. Disloyal, perhaps, but not non-conservative. Bush gets plenty of criticism from, say, Will and Buchanan and no one calls them non-conservative.
Plus the fact that, if Brooks is going to resonate with his audience, he has to concede a point here and there or he has no credibility but rather sounds like just another right-wing extremist.
Like I said, I think he does a good job. And, of course, I am always supportive of anyone who tries to bridge the gap rather than further cleave it. I hope the Times comes up with another conservative who can present a conservative point of view without turning off the Times readers. |
