David Brooks and the Obama man-crush

David Brooks' Friday column was a paean to Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) -- a dream vehicle for the "Anybody But Palin" Coalition? -- but there was something obtrusive, as Ryan Cole notes at The American Spectator:

[A]s is the routine with everything Brooks' pen produces these days, an otherwise coherent piece is disrupted by the author's gratuitous displays of affection towards President Barack Obama.
After ticking off all of the qualities that might make Thune presidential material and the issues that may lead the country towards a GOP revival . . . Brooks (perhaps fearing the White House might construe this as some sort of criticism) quickly reminds readers that Obama is "the most talented political figure of the age." Really? After a year in the Oval Office, what tangible evidence is there to support this theory? Cash for Clunkers? . . .

Read the whole thing. I do not deny that Obama has political talent, most especially the oratorical power of his sonorous baritone. But Rush Limbaugh also has a great baritone voice. It takes more than political talent to be a good president, and political talent that is employed to advance bad policies is a net negative.

The reason that Obama is so effusively praised is the same reason he's a bad president: He is a liberal. It is Brooks' desire to be considered "thoughtful" by his liberal peers that causes him to engage in this ridiculous genuflections before their temple-cult idol, Obama.

Brooks is not a conservative. Being a conservative begins with the fundamental assumption that liberals are always wrong, about everything. If liberals generally admire someone, you may be sure that the object of their admiration is a deeply flawed personality (e.g., Bill Clinton). The frenzied enthusiasm for Obama (who is to liberals what Joe Jonas is to 13-year-old girls) exceeds even the worst excesses of Clintonmania, which is a sure sign that Obama will be a spectacularly bad president.

Please read "How to Think About Liberalism (If You Must)."