He does this in quite a stealthy manner as can bee seen in his editorial for the NYT today which is nothing more than a wishful screed which tries to box in Pres. Obama while ignoring the mounting problem of Republican and conservative obstructionism.

The stimulus package, the cap-and-trade legislation and the health care bill were all blends of expert planning and political power-broking. This project would have permanently changed government’s role in national life. It was not to be. Voters are in no mood for a wave of domestic transformation.

This is a linguistic trick used by many pundits and politicians of every stripe. However, the right-wing has been using it as their main communicative form for decades, and have only increased its use exponentially in the last decade. A statement with zero facts and simple but hollow claims. Here, Brooks offers nothing to back up his claim for "Voters are in no mood for a wave of domestic transformation", and thinks stating such makes it fact. Yet, nothing could be further from the truth if we take in to account the most empirical evidence of voters desire for transformation, the 2008 national elections, in which the public voted in droves for a positive and clearly stated overhaul toward domestic policy changes.

This was even admitted by Brooks earlier in the same piece:

There were actually two elements to the Obama campaign. First, he promised a less partisan government. Second, he promised a more activist government.

His latter point is negated by his former, yet Brooks seems tone deaf not just to the obvious populist sentiment for an overhaul, but to his own admission that this is exactly what the electorate therefore desired by electing Obama. Any claim that in writing an editorial and as such he is not constrained to the same journalistic standards is a fallacy. He can state his opinion as much as he wants, but as soon as he claims to know factually the will of people with no proof to back him up, he has overstepped his editorial purview and is therefore subject to far stricter journalistic ethic.

The economy is already introducing enough insecurity into their lives. Unlike 1932 and 1965, Americans do not trust Washington to take them on a leap of faith, especially if it means more spending.

Here Brooks, as is the norm in conservative punditry, states something that is incorrect on it face. The spending enacted by the government in the stimulus plan is not just working, but even Republicans knew it would and are know claiming credit for it. If such a policy was falling on its face, you know damn well NO Republicans would be touting it. Brooks again misses the mark by a wide margin.

Continuing:

The country has reacted harshly to the course the administration ended up embracing.

Unless Brooks has only had his attention gazing on the Tea Party movement, he must know something no one else does. Certainly when asked generally about the stimulus public opinion has gone down, there is broad support for of its functions. In other words, implementation is being questioned, not the overall policy behind the stimulus as Brooks would have you believe.

The country has reacted harshly to the course the administration ended up embracing. Obama is still admired personally, but every major proposal — from the stimulus to health care — is quite unpopular.

One wonders whether Brooks here is not simply delusional, but engaging in a bit of sophistry for his own ends. I know, but still I like to soften the blow to Mr. Brooks' ego sometimes. An ABC poll this week shows he is off target and again in his own red-faced populist world with Palin and cohorts, regardless of facts.

A new poll taken by The Washington Post and ABC News shows voters want comprehensive health care reform passed

From here Brooks goes on to indulge in the fantasy that somehow the inability to get legislation passed or a shift in policy is down solely to the administration and its handling of the process. While I am certainly not happy with Obama in many ways, Brooks like almost every commentator this side of Keith Olbermann maintains the meme that Obama (and therefore the Dems) are singularly to blame. But this is churlish at best. When a party says "NO" to every single proposal, even ones with the specific requirements the Republicans want in the bill, they still continue to obstruct, waffle and show little remorse for their blatant hypocrisy.

It continues:

Second, he could propose some incremental changes in a range of areas and prove Washington can at least take small steps. Senator Lamar Alexander has been arguing that, given the climate of distrust, this is not a good period to push big, comprehensive reforms. He’s right.

Who gives damn what Lamar Alexander thinks? Until his party shows any semblance of willingness to be honest and open to rational discussion, he can take a running jump like the rest of the mindless GOP robots. You're in the minority, you don't get to set the bloody rules.

Third, Obama could serve as a one-man model for bipartisan behavior. Right now, the Republicans have no political incentive to deal on anything. But the president could at least exemplify the kind of behavior voters want to see in their leaders. For example, he could take several of the Republican health care reform ideas — like malpractice reform and lifting the regulatory barriers on state-based experimentation — and proactively embrace them as part of a genuine compromise offer.

See above. Brooks may now be venturing in to "fucking moron" land here. Yes David, it's Obama who needs to show bipartisanship. Missing our meds daily now are we?

Nothing new perhaps, but I feel the need to hold these fucker's feet to the fire whenever I can find time. Especially someone like Brooks who starts with soft, conciliatory language before then stridently pushing his right-wing agenda.

Also at Right Hypocrisy