Comments on: Hot Or Not?

By: MR Bill

MR Bill — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:16:29 +0000

I think John is on what is important here: a nationally known journalist might not feel able to object to the prehaps unwanted familiarity from a powerful Senator.

And that ‘access’ is worth more than dignity or respect is really, really sad.

Of course, I remember the pre-Gannon days when ‘media whore’ was only a metaphor.

By: Swampfox

Swampfox — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:55:02 +0000

I wonder how long Brooks can keep this man’s name a secret? He does work at the New York Times, surely he will be hounded by his fellow news people for the name.

By: RC

RC — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 12:57:49 +0000

Me thinks David Brooks might have surprisingly enjoyed it?..and so, he “protests too much”? The act might have been shocking at first, and then some latent curiousity might have stirred him….maybe that’s why he did not remove the Senator’s hand

By: Swampfox

Swampfox — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 09:51:42 +0000

AJD, could this be act be seen as an act of sexual harassment? I don’t see it. And, it is no longer considered libel to infer or say that some one is gay. The odd thing is that Brooks brought up this event at all without naming the Senator.

By: AJD

AJD — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 03:43:28 +0000

Another thing is that Brooks has no physical proof that this senator actually put his hand on his thigh, which would be an act of sexual harassment. Identifying the senator in print or on the air could invite a libel suit.

By: Swampfox

Swampfox — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 01:25:31 +0000

“Who is he talking about? I don’t know but he obviously is a Republican and a hypocritical religious nut job that deserves to get caught.” – John

Graham is no religious nut job. He has been accused of being gay by the local Democrats since he first ran for the Senate. He deftly just runs around the issue.

By: John

John — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 22:45:09 +0000

In David Brooks’ defense.

He is a columnist which means he prizes access. He probably didn’t want to risk the wrath of someone who could provide him with a quote and some information when the time is needed and humiliating the senator by removing that hand might risks his access to him.

Besides he may have, at the time of the incident, he gave the senator the benefit of the doubt (he thought the act was unintentional) but after giving it some thought in hindsight he changed his mind.

Who is he talking about? I don’t know but he obviously is a Republican and a hypocritical religious nut job that deserves to get caught.

By: Swampfox

Swampfox — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 15:15:00 +0000

I agree, why didn’t he remove the hand? If Brooks wants to out a Republican Senator, get some better information and then do it. I am a South Carolinian. I think it would not shock too many in South Carolina that Graham is gay. We have survived the sex drive/lives of Thurmond and Sanford.

By: homer

homer — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 14:15:10 +0000

Lindsey Graham was my guess too.

By: Burr

Burr — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 12:56:55 +0000

$20 says it’s Lindsey Graham.

That said, why didn’t Brooks DO something about it? I don’t mean outing him or anything, but you know.. tell him to stop instead of waiting through the whole dinner apparently, unless I’m wrong?

I dunno, maybe he’s just full of crap as usual.