In his latest blast at GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, New York Times columnist David Brooks calls the Romney campaign “the most insincere campaign I think I’ve ever seen.”

Asked by Daily Beast columnist Howard Kurtz about criticism he has been getting from grass-roots conservatives, Brooks says:

“If it’s from like a loon, I don’t mind it. I get a kick out of it. If it’s from Michelle Malkin attacking, I don’t mind it.”

But if it’s “people who are thoughtful,” including some former colleagues at the Weekly Standard, “then it bothers you.”

Malkin, the CEO and owner of Twitchy, recently wrote a column calling Brooks the “Eddie Haskell” of the media:

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.

Howard Kurtz’s tweet (see above) implies that Brooks draws a distinction between conservative “loons” and Malkin. In the video, it seems that Brooks in fact sees no such distinction. In his eyes, Malkin is just as loony as all the other “Tea Party teens.”   That point was underscored by several liberals on Twitter:

Some “loony” conservatives, however, aren’t buying what Brooks is selling:

Interestingly, Brooks acknowledges that he has been on the receiving end of an “avalanche of love” from “really partisan liberals.”

For once, we believe him.

  • Love of Country

    David Brooks is the worst kind of idiot ….. a self important one.

  • $30423294

    David, you say you have been on the receiving end of an avalanche of love from liberals….

    Many a maiden can tell you she has been on the receiving end of an avalanche of love from some guy who wants to get in her undergarments.

    Even high school girls know when they’re being played.

    Not you, Mr. Brooks?


    • AMERICAN Kafir™(KAdams)

      Well, to be clear, I never want any sort of ‘liberal love’. I’ve seen what they have to offer, and if that’s their idea of love…. no thank you.

  • Discontentwliars

    It’s a pleasure to not know who he is.

  • Jack Deth

    Never in the annals of history
    Has so little been said so often
    With such laughably miniscule results
    As with David Brooks’ bloviations!

  • nc

    Can we finally drop the pretense and quit using the word “conservative” in the same sentence as Brooks?

    Just like Specter, Crist and yes, Ahnold, he is lost.

  • d1comment

    So Howie Kurtz is a pants crease watcher as well…hmmmm good to know.

  • d1comment

    David Brooks is just as much a Conservative as Howie Kurtz is a media “critic”.

  • Brett McMicken

    someone who waxes orgasmic about a trouser leg crease calling others “loons.” david, just pray over your autographed photo of obama 57 times and it will be alright. if that fails, throw your underwear at him at his next campaign stop.

  • Postbackxp

    Not sure which I hate more RINOS or HIPPOCRITES
    They are both strange animals.
    When you put them together. You have a so called conservative
    that works for CNN or MSNBC.

  • Libertyship46

    I wonder if Brooks is still drooling over the crease in Obama’s pants? I never bother listening to RINOs like that. It’s just a waste of time.

  • Streetiebird

    Let’s be fair now, Malkin is at least as much of a loon as these other lunatics in the rightwing media. She just happens to be their trained attack-dog, which I think is why he made the distinction. Typically Michelle gets called in when they need a loon to make a specific attack, she really knows how to stay on message and demonize the opposition. She may be a loon, but she’s the nastiest loon in the flock.

    • AMERICAN Kafir™(KAdams)

      Explain ‘nasty’.

      If she truly were ‘demonizing the left’, as you say, she’d be sinking to the levels of the left, and calling liberals every name in the book. Exposing one’s actions isn’t ‘demonization’. If it quacks like a duck, you know? ‘Lapdog media’, for example, would point to the MSM that’s in the tank for Obama. You disagree?

      • Streetiebird

        Here’s a quick one I found in a couple seconds of googling where she demonizes the President: ‘He doesn’t like this country very much. And I think you did a great video tour there of all of his wonderful hits on his “We Suck ’09” tour, ah, so far. And this latest speech before the United Nations and its cast of villainous characters — it was really a Legion of Doom parade that he dignified with his presence — and he solidified his place in the international view as the Great Appeaser and the Groveler in Chief!’

        Now your turn to show me a pundit calling conservatives “every name in the book”.

        • AMERICAN Kafir™(KAdams)

          How is it demonization if it’s true? The UN is a “Legion of Doom”. Obama is an appeaser and he does grovel.

          • Streetiebird

            lol cute

  • AMERICAN Kafir™(KAdams)

    And… how is ‘liberal’ partisan?

  • Paul Marks

    Conservatives do not like New York Times “loons” such as David Brooks.

  • AgntOrngVctm

    The Beav said: “It’s on account’a he’s all’a time bein’ a liberal and junk.”

  • Bob Marsh

    Michelle Malkin is a patriot who makes good decisions based upon conservative standards. In addition, she is a superb writer who never makes grammatical errors, unlike a number of the bozos who have written nasty comments about her on these pages. As for David Brooks, he comes up short in the IQ department and is not worthy to do Michelle Malkins’ laundry. When I first heard his remarks about the crease in Obama’s pants, I immediately wondered what Brooks has in his own pants and what he uses it for.

  • MarvinGoldfarb

    Chris Matthews gets the tingle up his leg from listening to Barack Obama orate. David Brooks get a similar sensation from observing the crease on Barack Obama’s trousers. The columnists at the NYTimes compete to top one another in Obama sycophancy. Radio host Don Imus showed a clip of Obama telling a joke at a White House function and receiving modest responses from most audience members. But Tom Friedman was different. Friedman doubled over in laughter and nearly became spastic laughing at a mildly amusing punch line. Imus found Friedman to be cloying to the point of it being sickening. Maybe David Brooks can top Friedman with his wandering eye for President Obama’s trousers.

  • vino veritas

    So another NYT ivory tower liberal is posing as a conservative and calling conservatives like Michelle ‘loons’ simply because they disagree with the erroneous bile he spews and expose him for what really he is. Wow, so whats new? Too bad for him that he cant back up any of that arrogant drivel he states via his actual record, isn’t it? The obvious reason he tries & fails to portray Michelle and other legitimate conservatives as ‘loony’ is simply because he thinks he won’t have answer them and their pesky facts. The idiot doesn’t get the fact that most independents and conservatives who know of him don’t agree with him nor probably even like him and the rest, of course, don’t know or care about him. This is what happens when someone like him spends their entire career ‘working’ in a bubble populated with ideological sycophants and lemmings.

  • Kendall Gray

    Why is Obama winning if all the fringe loonies are right, oh I forgot it’s a huge “conspiracy” by the leftist media. Karl Rove will take out the trash after Romney loses and we’ll see who you nuts blame then.

  • john

    This faux conservative is full of ****. Its up to your eyes Brooks!