Just because David Brooks isn't the dumbest man on the planet (c'mon, look at the competition!) doesn't mean he isn't a boil on the butt of mankind

Instructions: (1) Print photo, enlarging if possible. (2) Paste to acceptable-quality dart board. (3) Fire when ready. Standard scoring system would allot maximum points for a direct hit between the eyes.

You know those free-association drills, where you're supposed to say the first thing that comes into your mind? Like if I say, George W. Bush, you say . . . okay, bad example. Ferchrissakes, we try not to use fuckin' language like that here at DWT. (I mean, filthy is one thing, but that stuff you were just saying! What would your mother think? I'll bet she would tell you to march right into the bathroom and wash your mouth out with soap. Am I right?)

Well, let's try it anyway. Here goes.

I say: David Brooks.

And you say: Dumbest man on the planet. Right?

That gave me the idea for a running feature here, which would have been called something like:

IS DAVID BROOKS THE DUMBEST MAN ON THE PLANET?

It would have been a sort of wrestling-style smackdown or round-robin type of thing, where each time we would face our guy off against one of the obvious contenders to see who was left standing at the end of a vigorous dumb-off. Each challenger our guy faced off would bring him one closer to the undisputed title of Dumbest Man on the Planet.

Then I got to thinking about the specifics of it. David Brooks vs., say, Bill O'Reilly? David Brooks vs. Sean Hannity--not to mention the rest of the Fox Noise pack? (Did somebody say John Gibson? Exactly my point! Is it possible to imagine any life form dumber than John Gibson?) David Brooks vs. Charles Krauthammer, or Bill Kristol, or the WSJ editorial page? Or Sen. Jim Inhofe or John Cornyn? (Not to mention our beloved Rep. Tom Tancredo?)

I realized that the project was doomed. It would only wind up proving that our David is not the dumbest man on the planet. I tell you, the competition is just too tough. And then he'd go putting it on his resume. ("NOT the dumbest man on the planet."--DownWithTyranny) And we couldn't even claim we were misquoted, or quoted out of context. Okay, we could claim it. It just wouldn't be true.

Still, you think about David Brooks shooting off his mouth on any subject you can imagine--or, worse, any subject he can imagine--and your whole body goes limp. Oh no, not that!

Like today, our Davy is pontificating about, of all people, John Edwards. And there's the thing, you just about can't simply let it go without even skimming to see what Not the Dumbest Man on the Planet (NTDMOTP) could possibly have to say about John Edwards. And your worst fears are realized. Well, no, not that he would have the stupid column datelined someplace idiotic like "Pocahontas, Iowa," although he does. No, your worst fear is that he will actually say vaguely complimentary things about Edwards. (They would have to be vaguely complimentary, since "vague" is the highest form of communciation NTDMOTP is capable of.)

And sure enough, when all the vomit has settled, there it is:

In a 45-minute conversation, I found him vague about subjects like social mobility and globalization, in a way that Clinton and Obama would not be. Yet beneath the pretty-boy exterior, there is something fierce lurking inside. It comes out in his resentment toward those born to privilege (which helped sour his relationship with John Kerry). And it drives him relentlessly upward, even in the face of illness and tragedy.

Surely this isn't good for Edwards. If he's attacked by NTDMOTP, the campaign could put out a press release more or less bragging about it. As it is, hell, wouldn't you think he'd be embarrassed to admit he spent 45 minutes with the guy?

I know presidential candidates are supposed to be willing to do anything to get elected. But surely there are limits.