so hydro wants me to comment on the latest from david brooks. i don't want this to turn into brooks-watch, but his column was pretty egregious today. the thing is, lots of people already beat me to the punch of this one. the best analysis i saw today was josh marshall's.
see also: mustang bobby, lambert, ntodd, and peter (hey, does that count as my first LC blogaround?)
many of the above comments focused on brooks' claim that the "neo" in neo-con mean "jewish." ("con," as brooks notes, means conservative) "neo" as a prefix really means new, modern, or a revived form of something. i've always suspected that the phrase is sometimes intended to echo "neo-nazi," but this neo=jewish idea really is just an attempt to scare critics of the administration off from talking openly about the fact that a certain type of conservatism usually represented by cheyney, kristol, wolfowitz, rumsfeld, and perle is dominant in the bush white house (as opposed to the non-neo-cons in the administration like powell). it's odd because pulling the jew card like that is just the sort of p.c. non-argument that the right has been accusing the left of doing for the past decade or so.
