Brooks says the failure of the “rescue package” (that’s an Obama-ism, BTW, and does nothing to endear me to the concept since I abhor victim mentalities of all kinds) means our political leaders have ”failed utterly and catastrophically to project any sense of authority, to give the world any reason to believe that this country is being governed.”

Apparently for Brooks, defeat of this bill equals de facto anarchy in America.

Brooks then makes a few apt remarks (ok, so he has not completely lost it), but quickly disappoints again:

And let us recognize above all the 228 who voted no — the authors of this revolt of the nihilists. They showed the world how much they detest their own leaders and the collected expertise of the Treasury and Fed. They did the momentarily popular thing, and if the country slides into a deep recession, they will have the time and leisure to watch public opinion shift against them.

No:  they showed the world that they were willing to listen to the people who elected them, the constituents in their own districts, who bombarded their offices with variations of “vote no” via email and telephone because they (we) don’t trust the “leaders,” and the “experts” at the Treasury and the Fed.  And why the heck should we, after a colossal failure of social engineering the likes of which this nation has never seen…?!

House Republicans led the way and will get most of the blame. It has been interesting to watch them on their single-minded mission to destroy the Republican Party. Not long ago, they led an anti-immigration crusade that drove away Hispanic support. Then, too, they listened to the loudest and angriest voices in their party, oblivious to the complicated anxieties that lurk in most American minds.

Good freaking grief, Mr. Brooks!  These House Republicans (and the 95 Democrats who voted with them) are the ONLY people standing up for proper conservative principles, including taking a careful, pragmatic approach to complex problems rather than giving people like Paulson a blank check. 

And nobody on the right led an “anti-immigration crusade”:  they just asked the U.S. government to enforce its own laws (what nerve, ay?!)  As for your take on the ”complicated anxieties that lurk in most American minds,” stick with the op-eds because a gifted psychoanalyst you’re not.  The only anxiety we’re having is over whether this bill will really fix what’s wrong, and whether anyone in D.C. is willing to do the hard work of making sure it does.

Now they have once again confused talk radio with reality. If this economy slides, they will go down in history as the Smoot-Hawleys of the 21st century.

So now we’re all just mindless sheep who totter zombie-like after Rush and Laura who are themselves out of touch with real life?  Do you have any idea how elitist and left wing that sounds?  Perhaps you’d like to come out in favor of the Fairness Doctrine also so we can get a dose of “reality” and not be hypnotized by the likes of the evil Limbaugh?

I can’t quote the rest of your op-ed, because frankly, my hair hurts.  My advice to you is stop wringing your pretty little hands and give it some time.  A bill will be passed; the markets will not collapse; and all will be well, if a little dicey for a time. 

And please stop calling it a “rescue” because that’s one of the words that is turning us off out here in Sheepville.

Krauthammer pointed out what most of us probably didn’t think about while we were figuring out whether Gibson’s glasses could slide any further down his condescending nose:  there have been at least four working definitions of the so-called “Bush doctrine” over the past eight years, none of them official.  

So, neither Palin nor Gibson nor Santa Clause could say for sure what it is without some sort of clarification.  Which is why Krauthammer called the NYT’s view that Gibson ”informed” Palin of the meaning of the Bush doctrine (anticapatory self-defense) “rubbish.”

Krauthammer knows a little something about this because (he points out) he was the one to first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, “The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism,” Krauthammer wrote that the Bush policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol (and others) amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called “the Bush doctrine.”

Then came 9/11.  In his address to Congress nine days after that event, Bush declared: “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” This policy re: terror became the essence of “the Bush doctrine.”

Until Iraq. When Bush offered his major justification for the war vis a vis the necessity of a preemptive act. (This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks of as ”the Bush doctrine.”)

And then there’s the fourth (current) definition of “the Bush doctrine”:  as Krauthammer puts it, “the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world.”  It was clearly enunciated in Bush’s second inaugural address: “The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.”

Near the end of his piece, Krauthammer wrote, “If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume — unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise — that he was speaking about the grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda of the Bush administration.

So, ok, Sarah Palin doesn’t know what “the Bush doctrine” is.  But apparently neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least Palin didn’t pretend to know — while, as the New York Times noted, Gibson “looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and “sounding like an impatient teacher.” 

Seems Gibson is the one in need of a teacher - and I’d say Krauthammer schooled him real good.

Over the weekend, someone faxed him some old copies of the Bullfrog County Times newsletter (circa the late 80s).  Apparently this publication tried to tell ”the other side” of the Yucca Mountain issue – which Nevadans weren’t getting from Bob Loux and the Nuclear Waste Project Office (NWPO).

One Bullfrog newsletter mentioned a letter-to-the-editor written by a man from Carson City who had suggested that “Nevada should be receiving financial compensation for the study of Yucca Mountain.”

According to the Bullfrog, Bob Loux of the NWPO “mobilized his office, cranked up the typewriters and copy machines, called in all of his envelope stuffers, and fired off [a]…news release to every newspaper in the state, large and small…”  In his missive, Loux insinuated that the original letter-to-the-editor was written by the Department of Energy or someone in the nuke industry, “implying that no right-thinking Nevadan could possibly conclude on his own that our state should be compensated for what’s happening at Yucca Mountain.”

The Bullfrog concluded: “The poor guy in Carson City must be wondering what he did to incur the wrath of an entire agency.  We’ll tell you what you did, sir.  You dared to think for yourself.  You dared to speak the unspeakable.  That’s the way it is in Nevada these days.  And it appears that no one in any higher position cares what Loux does with his power or budget.”

Twenty years later, it looks the ghosts of Bullfrog’s past can croak with joy as they finally get to see Lady Justice comin’ ’round the proverbial Mountain for Mr. Bob Loux.

I took it this way:  ”See, it’s like this” and “See, let me tell you how” and “See, this is what you have to understand.”  As she delivered her lines, she was just shy of being vein-poppingly earnest.  Which is to say, she wasn’t quite convincing except in her obvious desire to make us See what she thinks we need to See in order to put she and her husband in the White House.

Coupled with the finger pointing and subtle head-bobbing which both increased as the moments ticked on (go back to the video and watch for it) I couldn’t help but think, “You can take the girl out of the South Side, but you can’t take the South Side out of the girl.” 

No soft dress, salon-styled hair, and suave speech writer can make Michelle Obama other than what she is:  an overtly proud and condescending woman with an attitude a mile high.