Biden Quoting David Brooks Should Be Disqualifying Alone

[Blue_Adept]

Link to tweet

Per pool report, Biden quoted David Brooks tonight at a fundraiser in Potomac, MD and admitted that his staff wishes he wouldn’t

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EEt4vLsWwAABIYb?format=jpg&name=small

[Loki Liesmith]

1. Not a story

[Perseus]

9. Of course not, lets close our eyes and ears to every gaffe and love him more for it

In some other circles people would be wondering if a cult is being formed around Biden where what he says or does not matter, the support and love will not be deterred.

What he says and does matters, it shows where his mind, his principles are, and where they are not. And that goes for every other candidate.

[Hortensis]

30. This ISn't a gaff. Uberpartisanship and demonizing lead to evil.

Our working center is broken. We're currently divided and conquered. Biden's trying to bring decent people who want to protect our nation together in a ruling majority by reminding that there's good sense to be found on both sides.

Remember, we've already a majority but need to grow more to overcome the electoral college. We're each of us either part of the solution or part of that hugely dangerous problem along with the trumpsters we despise.

[Act_of_Reparation]

32. Point of order:

David Brooks IS evil.

[LAS14]

71. Can you name a Republican pundit who is not evil? If not...

.... and you're right, then our two-party democracy has no chance for a re-boot.

Who would you want to see as leaders of the loyal opposition when we regain the presidency and congress and the loyal opposition regains its sanity?

[Cartaphelius]

80. Too easy LAS. I can think of

three. More if I stop napping...

What else you got?

[Hortensis]

87. Fwiw, I could name a bunch here I feel may have better ideals,

but are really just the the other side of the same hostile, irresponsible coin. Collectively, we have some real differences, but we're most of us far too much alike individually, especially those given to toxic hostility in both sides. Studies show all of us share the very same virtues and faults too strongly to be hating each other so delusionally.

Especially when none of us are going anywhere. Democracy can only function by people who disagree agreeing to come together. That's it. That's the representative government game.

If too many divided people refuse and fight to stay divided, the RW authoritarians will win. The combative left collectively just isn't as viciously ruthless and hate-full as its larger counterpart on the right. There are a lot more of them, and they're overall far more organized, committed, and obedient to authority.

On the plus side, the midterms brought out a lot more sensible people who aren't under the influence of toxic levels of delusional partisanship. But no one on the left should need to be saved by others from their own foolishness.

[Gothmog]

82. The hardest job for the next president may be fixing Trump's mess

This is one of the reasons why I think that Joe Biden is the best candidate. Who ever is the nominee will have to be prepared to fix all of the damage that trump has done to our government.

Link to tweet

Perhaps the most straightforward and least complicated undertaking, since it would be entirely within the next president’s purview, is rebuilding the executive branch from the corrupted ruin Trump will leave behind.

One of the most underreported stories about the Trump administration is its basic incompetence. Perhaps Trump’s biggest con of all was convincing his supporters that he was some sort of business wizard with a genius for management. In truth, the Trump Organization was a mom-and-pop family business that he repeatedly micromanaged to the brink of collapse. He is doing exactly the same with the government of the United States.

The White House itself is less like “The West Wing” than “Game of Thrones.” Courtiers vie for the favor of the Mad King, unable or unwilling to perform normal duties for fear of risking Trump’s ire. Usually, the White House is a place where information from outside sources is synthesized and digested so the president can make the best possible decisions. Under Trump, the flow is reversed — his whims, however ill-informed or contradictory or just plain loopy, are tweeted out and must be made into policy.

Agencies vital to our national security — including the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency — lumber along, month after month, without permanent leadership. “It’s easier to make moves when they’re acting,” Trump has said, but really the situation reflects his own insecurity. By keeping his underlings weak and beholden only to him, he limits their power — and thus hamstrings the departments they nominally lead.

Joe Biden is the best candidate to repair the damage done by trump. I think that the repair of this damage will keep the next Democratic President very busy.

Joe Biden is talking about the concepts that are necessary for the repair of the soul of our country.

[DownriverDem]

38. Oh please

Biden is our best candidate to win the Electoral College and beat trump. It's so clear to see.

[StarfishSaver]

42. I wonder if the "who cares if he quotes a writer who's spent his career undermining Democrats" pass

would apply if one of the other candidates quoted a favorable comment from Charles Blow - the guy who causes DU Primary heads to explode when he said Biden's positions on race are problematic.

I think I know the answer, but it's an interesting thought experiment anyway.

[njhoneybadger]

44. Ok I get it people in other circles believe Biden supporters are like tRump voters

But of course you would never suggest that

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

49. So right, these cringeworthy gaffes DO matter. Should go with a steadier candidate who's quick

on their feet.


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!! or
Elizabeth & Bernie 2020!!
Either way, welcome to the revolution!!!

[LAS14]

70. It wasn't a gaffe. It was exemplary of a healthy two party system. Which we have...

... lost and which I hope comes back. If Warren doesn't give us the revolution, then Biden's my backup.

[Butterflylady]

14. Warren supporter, of course.

[Blue_Adept]

29. She'd had my vote as my Senator for years.

[George II]

61. She has only been on a ballot twice.

[tonedevil]

64. That would be years. /nt

[melman]

75. Bazinga!

[Blue_Adept]

99. Yes, which with six year terms, means years.

[Sherman A1]

2. That particular quote is rather innocuous

But, I really agree with his staff.

[Blue_Adept]

4. All it says to me is that he likes more than just this from Brooks

And that's damn worrying.

[Demsrule86]

34. You know what worrries me? Warren gets the nomination and goes down in the general.

She can't take the states we need in the mid west...sure I would vote for her but it would be a disaster...could even lose the house...and you worry about an innocuous quote...you really must give me a list of who is bad and all...after all we must have purity. Thanks in advance for you help with purity info and all...

[George II]

62. That is precisely what would happen. Biden is battle tough and would prevail handily.

[Demsrule86]

66. Exactly...we probably get the Senate too...then we end the filibuster ...it is time...

and enact our policy for a change...will it be progressive as some want...probably not but we begin.

[Sherman A1]

63. What worries me is that we push too far to the center

and try to accommodate the notion of pulling in votes from the Right.

But, time will tell.

[Demsrule86]

65. We need votes in moderate states...Warren is run to far left for these states IMHO...but

time will tell.

[Sherman A1]

68. I am much farther to the Left than is Warren so while I agree that

we need all the votes we can get from every slice of the spectrum. I don't see pushing a moderate agenda as the way to get them. In my opinion we need a bold move to change things and I don't see a moderate approach as being the way to get there.

The primary process will tell us who comes out on top.

[Demsrule86]

72. A bold move...will be seen as socialist policies...I am a progressive but I don't make the error of

thinking if I am 'bold' about my beliefs,I will influence moderate voters...they will vote for the other guy or stay home...you have to sell progressive ideas before you can be bold about them...this has not happened. Maybe instead of taking blue seats...musical chairs...progressives could run for red seats in red or moderate states at all levels and get their message out. The presidential race is not where this should happen.

[Sherman A1]

74. We will have to agree to

disagree on the best approach.

[DownriverDem]

39. Warren: Senator, yes

President, no. Reality is right there for all to see. Sadly, too many voters will not vote for a woman.

[Demsrule86]

67. I am a woman and wanted Hillary desperately in 16, but I sadly agree with you.

[John Fante]

79. Nearly 66 million Americans voted for one last time

and she was demonized 100x worse than Elizabeth Warren. Hillary Clinton got more votes than any Republican candidate EVER.

Threads like this are silly, but if Warren navigates the minefield that is the Democratic primary and emerges as the nominee, she will defeat Dotard in a general election.

[Celerity]

25. this is where I stand as well nt

[True Dough]

51. Me too!

And our numbers are growing, I believe.

[monmouth4]

3. Brooks may seem like a "smart guy" to Biden, but Joe is not acting very smart. n/t

[crazytown]

5. Brooks: Marianne Williamson Knows How to Beat Trump

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/01/opinion/debate-marianne-williamson.html

[BeyondGeography]

6. He has a very good staff

[Celerity]

26. yes he does, and they have their hands full, lololol nt

[BeyondGeography]

27. I'm sure they're on standby fundraiser duty

Every one yields one unfortunate statement or another. This one is nothing compared with some others.

[mucifer]

7. Brooks said he was voting for Obama/Biden. He endorsed them.

[RelativelyJones]

8. Another self-appointed disqualifier. So tiresome.

[Cha]

10. The Voters will decide.. not those

who throw around.. ".. this is disqualifying.. ".

[Blue_Adept]

11. I'm the one that said it. And I'm a voter.

[Cha]

12. I'm talking about the majority of

the voters.. not the ones who throw around.. "this is disqualifying.."

The majority will decide what is "disqualifying".

[Demsrule86]

36. But like me you will of course vote for the Democratic nominee...even if it is Biden in a general.

I certainly would vote for Warren.

[DownriverDem]

41. How come

Biden leads in the polls, but left leaning websites support Warren? Tells me folks do not know how to win elections.

[samnsara]

13. i quote conservative ppl all the time.. sometimes they do say smart things.

..we just have to be willing to listen..

[oldsoftie]

17. Perfect statement.

But this is DU. You are not allowed to think for yourself! The horror!

[oldsoftie]

15. Horseshit. Grasping at silly straws.

So no one thinks an invisible moral fabric holds the country together? If the "right" person had said it, people would be cheering the comment on.

[still_one]

22. This is just nonsense, and that they don't realize what a disservice to the candidate they support

they are doing, because this trivial crap does influence people toward their candidate in a negative way, and in case anyone has noticed, there is still a lot of undecided voters out there who are up for grabs

[blm]

33. It shouldn't. I don't think less of other Democrats because of

the personal opinions posted by their supporters.

Why would any DU member’s post about their opinion on any story determine your regard for a Democratic candidate?

Most of us have been here long enough to know that getting through the primaries means letting the awkward and/or harmless opinion postings of others slide by.

[Demsrule86]

37. People say that all the time...about how they like your candidate less because of something you said

On edit this appears to say that you (personally) speak in such a way that folks dislike your (personal) candidate.

I did not mean this and will edit now to show my true meaning which is I have heard others (said to me and read it) that they dislike the (my in some cases) candidates of people who post what they consider offensive comments ...offensive being a number of things one might say.

I did not mean to imply that you have done this ever. Mea Culpa!

[blm]

45. No matter how annoying they can be, no one's posts here could possibly

make me dislike the Democratic candidate they prefer.

I keep my immature thoughts in the Lounge where they belong.

[Demsrule86]

52. I agree with you there...I will vote blue no matter who...maybe I should hang out in the lounge

a bit and lower my blood pressure!

[still_one]

47. I agree, but unfortunately I think it does. I think we saw it the last time, and I am concerned

that it may creep in this time, though I am hopeful most have grown up beyond that

Yes, people should look at where the candidates stand on the issues, and the differences between the candidates on those issues, not on the sniping that occurs from supporters of various candidates outside of those issues, but human nature being what it is, I think it does unfairly influence some against that candidate

[quickesst]

16. what is this....

.... 5th, 10th, 22nd, 35th " should be disqualifying alone" thread? Maybe the 36th time will be the charm. So please.....
?itemid=5832477

[Cha]

18. LOL..

really.

[quickesst]

20. Heh...

[cwydro]

19. Surely he should be able to speak an opinion on a columnist?

Come on now.

[Raven123]

21. I disagree. Quoting Brooks is not disqualifying

I do not agree with most of his opinions, but I think over the years he generally has been a respectful presenter of his ideas. It would not be hard for Joe to find common ground with Brooks.

[dsc]

23. This quote in and of itself isn't a problem

but the mindset is indicitive of my biggest problem with Biden. He seems to be convinced that the GOP is going to cooperate with him if he wins and frankly that is nothing short of delusional. The GOP has shown itself clearly to not care about public will.

[Demsrule86]

40. He wants to try...and maybe it will work...what is your plan to never cooperate ever and get nothing

done and then lose the next election? And the cycle starts anew...without cooperation which gave us all major legislation in the past...what path is there? We have an electoral college, we have red states with more cows than people that get the same number of senators as populous blue states...what is your plan...because little has been accomplished in the last decade...the one bright and shining policy achevement the ACA is under attack from the left and the right...so what can we do...fight with the GOP...get in a few zingers and all...yeah that will work.

[redstateblues]

50. Yeah. We should just give up

Our system of government depends on compromise. If we don’t control all 3 branches nothing gets done. Unfortunately it doesn’t look like we will win the Senate looking at the current polling.

[dsc]

95. No we need to be crystal clear

if you want the policies Biden or for that matter and Democrat is advocating you will only get them if you vote for a Democratic senator to implement them. It doesn't matter how much moderate mumbo jumbo they try to utter, they will do nothing, nothing, nothing to help advance Democratic policies.

[betsuni]

24. David Brooks' "Bobos in Paradise" is a good book.

[Otto Lidenbrock]

28. you are reaching

[evertonfc]

31. lol

Only those so enthralled in a campaign a year out that they follow pool reports, would even know Biden was at a fundraiser. That's about one half of one percent of even the most political heads. People are busy working, going about thier lives and taking their kids to soccer practice to give a hoot in hell that Biden quoted David Brooks at some fundraiser in Sept of 2019. The outrage makes me more likely to support Biden now.

[Demsrule86]

43. I didn't even know Biden was at a fund raiser...some have Biden derangement syndrome...

[themaguffin]

35. Oh the horror.

Yawn.

[Polly Hennessey]

77. I'm with you.

Oh, the horror, the horror. Some are becoming tiresome, tedious, and too, too predictable. Yawn!

[peggysue2]

46. Wearisome!

So, quoting columnist David Brooks is now disqualifying. Did anyone read the quote? Anyone have great outrage over the phrase 'invisible moral fabric' or the suggestion that it holds the country or any society together?

Oh, the horror!

This is just silly and frankly makes the tweeter look ridiculous. As well as anyone else getting on the silly train!

[LAS14]

73. Well stated. nt

[SharonClark]

48. Not disqualifying at all

But just a damn stupid thing to say, particularly the cutsy "my staff doesn't like me quoting" part.

[awesomerwb1]

53. Oh nooooooooooooooooooooooo

Disqualify him!!!! ImMeDiAtElY!!!!!!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

54. Oh, FFS. "Disqualifying" would be something like

having a felony record or a history of cozying up to foreign dictators. Or, constitutionally speaking, being under 35 or not being a natural-born citizen. It's not quoting a conservative-ish mainstream NYT columnist. Quoting Hitler, yes; David Brooks, no.

Jeez, people. Can't you find something more convincing to hate him about?

[Locrian]

57. I like Joe as a person...

But I don't like a lot of his record:

https://theintercept.com/2019/09/17/the-untold-story-joe-biden-pushed-ronald-reagan-to-ramp-up-incarceration-not-the-other-way-around/

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

58. Then support someone else, but all this nitpicking is just stupid.

[Locrian]

60. i agree the David Brooks thing is stupid....

Joe's history of crime and war on drugs (the article I linked) is not nitpicking.

[Sugarcoated]

55. Nonsense, lol

[treestar]

56. Disqualification can only be determined by the primary voters

Hillary still won though she was disqualified for speaking the Kissinger. The voters did not realize she was disqualified. The DNC must have hidden that.

[LanternWaste]

59. Ground bait thrown into the water to attract fish should be disqualifying as well.

But for some oddly convenient reason, chum is not illegal.

[LAS14]

69. For me David Brooks is a beacon of hope for resuming a healthy two party system. nt

[LonePirate]

76. I look forward to the day when our party leaders prefer the words and wisdom of actual Democrats.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

78. Now there's a headline I can get behind!

[Gothmog]

81. We are in a battle for the soul of this nation.

The soul of our nation is at stake and Biden is allowed to talk about the "invisible moral fiber" that holds our country together.

Link to tweet

I am supporting Joe because he is the best person to repair the damage done to our country by trump

[emmaverybo]

88. He has the strongest message for "the moment we are in." And he was the first candidate to call

for unity around our shared democratic ideals, right out of the gate. Some DUers were very angry
about that, but the cry has been taken up in the field, so now it’s not a counter-resistance ploy,

[melman]

83. Disturbing

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

85. As long as we're into dumb nitpicking, Ann Coulter kinda likes Bernie:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/04/18/coulter_i_could_vote_for_bernie_sanders_if_he_returned_to_original_immigration_position.html

Disqualifying!!!!

[melman]

89. It's not nitpicking

He's making a it a point to tell people his staff doesn't want him quoting right wing columnists but he's going to do it anyway.


Why is he doing that? What's the message there? And who is it meant for?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

91. Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn

and most other people don't either. It bothers me more that Ann Coulter likes Bernie.

[melman]

92. "most other people don't either"

Source for this assertion?

[rusty fender]

84. You can say that again

Sheesh

[emmaverybo]

86. I know. I know. Warren has been criticized for praising racist Francis Perkins, so you come up

with the David Brooks kerfluffle.

[blm]

90. If racist is the way you describe Francis Perkins, then I feel

sorry for you.

[emmaverybo]

93. Racist is how many black people characterize her statements and stances. Pro-segregation? Victim

of her time? Anti-integrationist? You pick your own euphemism. She lived to be eighty-five, plenty of time to evolve.

Personally, I doubt Warren had looked at her racial views. I don’t fault Warren.

But I sure don’t fault Biden for quoting anti-Trumper David Brooks for something he said that is
relevant and profound for our times.

[tonedevil]

94. Which black people are...

saying that Francis Perkins was a racist? Can you point out any pro-segregation statements she made except the one that is being bandied about in the other thread on DU? You may or may not be aware, but Ms. Perkins had a very impressive CV. She served as FDR's Secretary of Labor where she helped establish strict child-labor regulations, a 40 hour work week, unemployment insurance, and drafted the Social Security Act. Prior to that she had been the executive Secretary for the Committee on Safety that investigated the Triangle Shirt Factory fire and worked to get legislation to protect the safety of workers. Yet you would condemn her on the basis of a Cherry picked quote that was virtually unknown until yesterday.

[emmaverybo]

96. Hate to break it to you, but FDR had policies today considered racist and anti-Semitic. Her resume

was great. I am sure Warren had no idea what she has said.
P
Here’s a new look at FDR.

Snip———————————————————-
As a presidential candidate and during his four terms in office, Roosevelt had a close relationship with Southern Jim Crow Democrats (“Dixiecrats”) and often went out of his way to not disrupt the “southern way of life” of Jim Crow. Thus, he remained silent on segregation and in 1935 refused to support the federal anti-lynching legislation of the Costigan-Wagner bill. In 1937 FDR appointed Hugo Black, a U.S Senator from Alabama and known member of the Ku Klux Klan, to the US Supreme Court. Black went on to validate FDR’s decision to incarcerate Japanese Americans by writing the court’s majority opinion in the case of Korematsu v. United States. In 1941, FDR appointed James F. Byrnes, a former US Senator from South Carolina and staunch segregationist to the US Supreme Court. Byrnes left the court a year later to serve as FDR’s Director of Office of Economic Stabilization, and between 1943-1945 served as the Director of FDR’s Office of War Mobilization. Byrnes was on FDR’s short list for Vice President in 1944.

Catering to the demands of Dixiecrats, FDR excluded Black workers from key provisions of the New Deal, as Juan Perea of the Loyola University School of Law describes it, “to preserve the quasi-plantation style of agriculture that pervaded the still-segregated Jim Crow South.” To do so, the New Deal was crafted to exclude agricultural and domestic workers from the Social Security Act (old-age benefits), the National Labor Relations Act (union rights) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (pay and hours standards). At the time, sixty-five percent of the Black workforce were agricultural and domestic workers. Filipino, Native, Japanese and other subordinated groups also made up a significant portion of the farm and domestic labor force. Writing in the Ohio State Law Journal, Juan Perea goes on to explain:

During the New Deal Era, the statutory exclusion of agricultural and domestic employees was well-understood as a race-neutral proxy for excluding blacks from statutory benefits and protections made available to most whites. Remarkably, despite these racist origins, an agricultural and domestic worker exclusion remains on the books today, entirely unaltered after seventy-five years. Section 152(3) of the National Labor Relations Act still excludes agricultural and domestic workers from the protections available under the Act.

Immediately following the 1936 Berlin Olympics hosted by Nazi Germany, FDR only invited white US Olympians to the White House, excluding eighteen Black athletes, including the four-time gold medal winner Jesse Owens. Owens would go on to comment, “Hitler didn’t snub me — it was our president who snubbed me. The president didn’t even send me a telegram.”

https://truthout.org/articles/disrupting-the-myth-of-franklin-d-roosevelt-in-the-age-of-trump-sanders-and-clinton/


—————————————————————————————————
You know FDR signed an executive order for interning Japanese-Americans and that he was responsible for immigration policies that affected hundreds of thousands of Jews trying to escape
pre-holocaust?

Just saying, new scholarship looks at our most cherished heroes with different eyes than did history, which was written by white people and was white-centric. America was also gripped by anti-Semitic
fervor.

[tonedevil]

97. Yes I do understand...

that FDR while managing to save the country from fiscal ruin had a terrible record regarding race. Given the time it would be hard to seriously think that Ms. Perkins didn't at the least accept the view that non-white people were in some way inferior. I see no evidence that she was extrordinary in her racism or that she was particularly invested in it. White people were very racist at the time and in fact if you think we are so much better now take the Implicit Race Test https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/user/agg/blindspot/indexrk.htm and get to know yourself a bit. I know I was surprised.
As far as the new found concern that Perkins was a segrgationist other than the obscure interview, that I can't find evidence was ever published, there aren't any other incidence of her making such statements. If it is problamatic to praise Perkins due to the racism she participated in and aparently approved of there is no person that it isn't problamatic to praise.

[emmaverybo]

98. OK. Yes, probably no white person, huh? I do see what you are saying. And it seems we should

question what she is reported as having said, Thank you for the link.

[Blue_Adept]

100. Completely incorrect!

Thanks for playing though.

I only saw that afterward.

Things can be unrelated! Came across this on Twitter and with my own disgust toward Brooks over the years for some of his shit, agreed with tweet, posted tweet!

Conspiracy! Nope! Try again.

[emmaverybo]

101. Fair enough. I believe you. Not a tit for tat. Let's not go over the top, huh? Was hard for me to

fathom why you would post this. But o.k. you have a David Brooks thing.

[stonecutter357]

102. Elizabeth Warren was a registered Republican well into her 40s.

[Blue_Adept]

103. And there are plenty of people here who were Republicans once

Hell, I voted for a Republican governor back in the day here in MA (Weld) because he was the better choice.

[stonecutter357]

104. So it's OK to vote for and it's ok to be a Republicon , But Quoting one is Disqualifying ?