NYT: Brooks Turns Quisling on Mets

by Doc Manhattan on Mar 29, 2005 5:15 PM EST

Times columnist David Brooks has publically dumped the Mets in favor of the Nats.

The logic appears to be "I live in DC now" and "The Mets have abandoned their archetype of 'loveable losers' by attempting not to suck."

I'm particularly unimpressed with Brooks' coda that the Metropolitans could win his heart back with enough young talent. As if we want him crawling back after dissing the team, appropos of nothing, to a million of his closest friends. What's love got to do with it, Ike?

They shoot traitors, don't they?

This FanPost was contributed by a member of the community and was not subject to any vetting or approval process. It does not necessarily reflect the opinions, reasoning skills, or attention to grammar and usage rules held by the editors of this site.

Tweet Comment 4 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

RE: Absurdity

a) Who changes their favorite team when that team finally starts making intelligent personnel decisions?

b) What kind of person changes their favorite team, anyhow?

by Eric Simon on Mar 29, 2005 8:16 PM EST reply actions

Bobo

Since I try to avoid mixing politics and baseball, all I'll says is that I expect nothing less from a hack like Brooks. He's trying to be George Will and not even succeeding. Now that's pathetic.

BTW, to the OP: Cool handle. Watchmen is the best.

by DavidNYC on Mar 29, 2005 9:17 PM EST reply actions

HoJos in Paradise

Man, if I mixed baseball with politics, the Nationals (and their @#$% red hats) would probably hasten my inevitable mid-twenties heart attack. I take some small comfort that the cursive "W" device is nicknamed "the pretzel." And that's officially the last analogy I make... while sober.

(And thanks for the username snaps!)

Dear neighbor: Get used to hearing, "You suck, [name of reliever]!" for the next few months.

by Doc Manhattan on Mar 29, 2005 9:36 PM EST up reply actions