In response to:

Eddie Haskell Brooks

Mary Carol Wrote: Sep 22, 2012 10:05 AM
Yes, he's a sham! Anyone that equates a pants leg crease with the presidency and leadership is sadly lacking in smarts. Can anyone explain to me why he is labeled as "conservative"? Nothing he says or writes indicates even a mustard seed size drop of conservatism!
soccerman Wrote: Sep 22, 2012 9:54 PM
Are you really a conservative, or are you just an Obama acolyte lost on a conservative site?
upwithRomney Wrote: Sep 22, 2012 7:59 PM
You are exactly right. The only difference between Romney and the other Rinos is that he has a lot more money. A conservative! Wow, what a joke.
soccerman Wrote: Sep 22, 2012 9:55 PM
DITTO! (This post is a typical libtard screed, which is nonsensical and off topic. Disregard!)
New York Times columnist David Brooks is the Eddie Haskell of the Fourth Estate. Like the two-faced sycophant in "Leave It to Beaver," Brooks indulges in excessive politeness while currying favor with political authority. He prides himself on an oily semblance of maturity and rational discourse.

But the phony "conservative" back-stabber, who has spent the last four years slavering over Barack Obama like a One Direction groupie and trashing the tea party like an MSNBC junkie, isn't fooling anyone.

Lately, Brooks has been given to dispensing passive-aggressive advice to GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney. His column this week titled "Thurston Howell...