Centerfield

David Brooks, Tom Oliphant, and New York Times reporters hate the Bush administration? Wow. Stop the presses! This is the first I've heard of it. (Yes, that's sarcasm.)

As for the "Q & A," Bob, you should know by now that opinion polls reflect opinion, not reality. As Dominique de Villepin is discovering.

I heard Brooks and E.J. Dionne on NPR yesterday on this same topic and I think it is fair to say that Brooks is saying things now that he has never said before. Oliphant and Dionne, not so much.

Yup!
Brooks has been a long time war supporter. In fact, I think he said he still supports it. He's just willing to point out where the buck stops. I usually don't agree with his views, but I have always been impressed with his honesty. More so than with his usual sparing partner, Shields. Shields always tows the party line even if it sounds silly.

Tully,

Yeah, that French situation is ugly. I was going to post a thread on it but haven't had the time yet.

They're really stuck in a pickle over there. I'm no "laissez-faire" free-market fundy, but I definitely support what Chirac and Co. are trying to do. I understand the angst of of the rioters but this is a "chicken and egg" problem: Loosen labor laws to achieve better employement numbers may seem counterintuitive to these rioters given France's rigid labor market but de Villepin and Chirac are right in their solution because rigid labor laws stifles employment.

For these students, it's kind of a self-fulfilled prophecy to defend "labor security laws" that actually stifle job growth leading to higher unemployment and well...less security!

Their intentions are noble and fear justified but they have to loosen up a bit.

I'll decline the opportunity to bash Brooks (I actually like the guy, and he's not a robot). It's irrelevant save for noting the difference between facts and an emotive opinion expressed by an NYT columnist on a polemic written by a pair of NYT reporters.

(PS--it's "toe the line." As in "standing where ordered.")

I don't know if Oliphant lost his Globe column or left for greener pastures, but I sure haven't missed his voice. Talk about a whiny, one-note liberal neo-puritan, snoozer of a writer.

This blog seems to have turned largely into a forum for MSM--particularly, New York Times--bashing. It's getting silly. David Brooks may not be everyone's idea of a conservative but to say that David Brooks "hates" the Bush Administration is really jumping the shark. Oddly enough, on the left, the idea is that the MSM is too favorable to the establishment.) It's acceptable, apparently, to simply to assume that any negative comment about Bush is simply the result of anti-Bush animus. I can't really comment on Tully's statement about the book being a polemic, but, again, it seems that anything casting doubt on the war or on Bush's policy is immediately trashed. Where's the centrism here?

Of course, since we know how well the war has been managed, why would anyone have anything negative to say about the Bush Administration unless they are simply Bush haters?