This is a damn outrage, to be honest. This is a guy who was a good Senator and he was a good Senator and a good conservative, but a good conservative who was trying to get things done. The Wyden-Bennett bill, which he co-sponsored — if you took the health care economists in the country, they would probably be for that bill, ideally. It was a substantive, serious bill, a bipartisan bill, with strong conservative and some liberal support. So he did something sort of brave by working with Democrats which more Senators should do and now they’ve been sent a message to him don’t do that.
The second thing is the TARP. Nobody liked the TARP. But we were in a complete economic meltdown and sometimes you have to do terrible things. And we’re in a much better economic place because of the TARP. So he bravely cast a vote that nobody wanted to really cast and now he’s losing his career over that. And it’s just a damn outrage.
Uh, David, old boy? Brooks is a senator from Utah. That means he’s supposed to represent the interests and desires of the people of Utah while tending to national matters. He was also seeking the Republican nomination; to do so generally means you have to convince the party faithful you represent their beliefs and interests. (And in Utah, Republicans and general-election voters largely overlap.) He failed to do the latter, so he was dropped from consideration for the nomination. How is that anti-democratic? How is it a coup? How is it an outrage?
The essence of what you’re saying is “Bennett knows better than you what is good for the nation, you flyover-country bumpkins! So sit down, shut up, and vote as your superiors tell you!”
David Brooks is nothing but an effete pseudo-intellectual and cocktail conservative who spends his time getting felt up by senators and contemplating Obama’s pant-crease. And now we know he doesn’t much like democracy, either.
Somehow, I sense an Iowahawk essay by T. Coddington van Voorhees VII coming soon….
(via Allah Pundit)
PS: I would have voted reluctantly for TARP, too, as it was originally presented: a plan to buy the toxic mortgages off the market, because the government helped create them (and the problem) in the first place. But, after passage, the money seemed to be used for anything but. Unlike Brooks, apparently, I would expect the voters to hold me responsible for my vote.
LINKS: More from Hot Air.