Brooks on Emanuel
David Brooks’s op-ed today about Rahm Emanuel, whom he knows well, is interesting reading. The most interesting part was that every time Brooks has written a critical column about Obama, he has immediately heard from Emanuel about it. I didn’t realize that Brooks had that much clout. It’s a glimpse into the existence of the high level Washington journalist—the White House carefully follows what you write, and openly and undisguisedly tries to influence you to write things more to their favor.
Alexis Zarkov writes:
Can we trust Brooks to give us a straight story? Frankly I doubt it. Based on his past columns, I don’t expect him to either be truthful or perceptive. The man strikes me as a compete idiot.James P. writes:
“It’s a glimpse into the existence of the high level Washington journalist—the White House carefully follows what you write, and openly and undisguisedly tries to influence you to write things more to their favor.”October 6
Sage McLaughlin writes:
If that Brooks column reveals anything about the Beltway pundit, it is his solipsism. His ode to the even-temperedness of Rahm Emanuel is just a series of anecdotes, and it doesn’t seem to occur to him that perhaps Emanuel behaves in a particular way towards him precisely because he knows that whatever he says or does to a professional columnist could, you know, wind up in print at some point.Jim C. writes:
Brooks is the Jewish Spike Lee: no talent, big mouth.LA replies:
That is one of the oddest comparisons I have seen.Jim C. replies:
Brooks can’t write, and his opinions are as predictable as Charles Blow’s. I simply can’t stand him.LA continues (a few hours later):
But it’s less odd than I originally thought. The reason it struck me as being wrong and weird, is that Lee is very egotistical and brash, while Brooks is the opposite of that, he’s a gentle-mannered bureaucrat type.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 05, 2010 09:19 PM | Send