disdain

Ah, that good old liberal media, influencing Americans' opinions here in Bizarro World where everything is upside down and backwards. Especially the radically left New York Times. You know, the same newspaper that brought you the White House's case for invading Iraq without so much as running it through a spell-checker?

Next time you hear that hogwash about the liberal media, here's a talking point for ya. Esteemed New York Times columnist David Brooks is on record as opposing democracy. David Sirota, writing in Working For Change, pointed this out:

Take, for instance, New York Times columnist David Brooks's piece yesterday - it is arguably the most brazen admission of elite disdain for democracy that has ever been printed in a major American newspaper. Before you dismiss that as hyperbole, read the third line of Brooks' piece:

"Polarized primary voters shouldn't be allowed to define the choices in American politics."

Yes, you read that correctly: According to one of the most prominent columnists in America, "voters shouldn't be allowed to define the choices in American politics." Sure, he tries to couch his statement by targeting "polarized primary voters" (because, of course, in the world of David Brooks - a chickenhawk who avoided military service himself but aggressively pushed the Iraq War - the 60 percent of Americans who are now "polarized" in opposition to the war should have their voting rights immediately revoked). But his underlying message is, again, right there in black and white: "Voters shouldn't be allowed to define the choices in American politics."

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the first major American newspaper columnist (at least in my generation) to officially go on record publicly demanding that American democracy be substituted with dictatorship.

. . . .

Brooks goes on to offer up the transparently dishonest claim that "Lamont's voters are rich." As evidenced by its repitition, this lie is clearly a talking point crafted right in the Republican National Committee headquarters, Joe Lieberman's campaign offices - or most likely, both. For instance, right-wing pundit Michael Barone wrote in the Wall Street Journal today that Lamont did not win "the lunch-bucket working class" in Connecticut, but instead was propelled to victory by "the secular transnational professional class" - an attempt, like Brooks, to portray Lamont's victory as just a product of a few wealthy limousine liberal voters. Barone then tops off his tirade with an attack on Lamont, for being "one of several members of a Democratic caucus who have made, inherited or married big money." Barone anger at Lamont for this doesn't seem to be tempered by the fact that Barone himself became famous for marrying into the billionaire Shorenstein family.

How do we know this is a lie? Just take a look at the results. Lamont not only won 7 out of 8 of Connecticut's counties, but he specifically won the poorest, most working-class areas of the state. For instance, Lamont won New Haven. That's not only Lieberman's hometown, but also "the seventh poorest community in the United States," according to the Department of Education, where "one out of every four citizens lives in poverty," according to the Yale Daily News. Lamont also won Hartford, the second-poorest city in America - one the American City Business Journals recently noted "is burdened with more socioeconomic stress than any other major city in the United States."

Sirota's post, with full links and comments, is found here. I haven't read Sirota's book yet, but I hear it's excellent.

Many thanks to our Redsock for the tip.