So, has anything happened in the last 12 hours?

I think Brooks reflects the general reaction to Obama's acceptance speech, which in general seems oblivious to Obama's impossible circumstances: 

The next president has to do three big things, which are in tension with one another: increase growth, reduce debt and increase social equity. President Obama has the intelligence, the dexterity and the sense of balance to navigate these crosscutting challenges. But he apparently lacks the creativity to break out of the partisan categories, the trench warfare gridlock.

Thursday night’s speech showed the character and his potential. It didn’t show audacity and the fulfillment of that potential.

Consider the enormity of those challenges: "increase growth, reduce debt and increase social equity." And as you do so, keep in mind that conservatives have historically and philosophically argued the preposterousness of any president believing in the presidency's power to effect such changes. Simultaneously you must strike from your mind that a growing list of Republican presidents nevertheless possess a demonstrable record of having slowed growth, increased debt and exacerbated social inequity.

OK, now that you're in a hopelessly contradicted frame of mind, consider the intensely ridiculed audacity that Obama took to the White House, whose softening is now just as intensely ridiculed. And consider, as well, that after all the mockery of Obama's superhuman, messianic powers, he's now scorned for lacking the creative trifling of altering the human characteristics of combative partisanship and political trench warfare.

By the way, about a half-hour ago the employment figures came in--96,000 net jobs. Disappointing? Not at all. In fact, according to those who brought you the above contradictions, we just made extraordinary progress on the unemployment front, since the unemployment rate rather dramatically dropped from 8.3 to 8.1. Well, it was the percentage rate's importance they were arguing last month. Please don't suggest they'll have the audacity to change the rules now.

Comments

[AnneJ]

I find it very sad that in some peoples' minds even the so-called liberals, that this president can't do anything right. I expect it from the crowd that has the audacity to call themselves conservatives, they had their minds made up from day one. I thought he gave a classic Obama "come together: speech last night though some complained that he didn't offer any specifics. But again, it's the same people that wanted him to fail from day one so what other kinds of reviews are we to expect?

[japa21]

Of course the rules change. Or rather, for the right there is only one rule that applies when the President is a Democrat.
If the economy improves, the President has no real power to affect the economy, but if the economy worsens it is the President's fault. The corollary applies to gas prices. If prices go up, it is the President's fault, if they go down the President has no real influence.

[Beulahmo]

The only rule for conservative commentators is this: if a Democrat is available to assign blame to, everything else is twisted to support that claim, even if it contradicts reality or your *own* previous statements.

It's amazing. David Brooks gets asinine analysis published in the New York Times, and *still* gets credit for being one of the most sane and reasonable conservative commentators out there.

[Peter G]

Can't fight stupid can you? You'll have to let Darwin clean up this mess.

[majii]

It's sad that Brooks is so willfully blind, dishonest and cowardly to mention that it isn't President Obama who has failed the nation, it's the republicans. Any journalist with a national platform who doesn't write about this isn't worthy of it. It's a waste of column space and it isn't fiscally responsible for the newspaper that employs him to continue paying him. He's one short step shy of totally absolving republicans of any constitutional responsibility for working with the president to speed up our economic recovery.