Posted on 09/16/2008 7:35:29 AM PDT by DallasBiff
Has David Brooks come out against the idea of a VP Palin? It seems so. "Sarah Palin has many virtues. If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she’d be your woman. But the constructive act of governance is another matter. She has not been engaged in national issues, does not have a repertoire of historic patterns and, like President Bush, she seems to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness.”
“The idea that ‘the people’ will take on and destroy ‘the establishment’ is a utopian fantasy that corrupted the left before it corrupted the right. Surely the response to the current crisis of authority is not to throw away standards of experience and prudence, but to select leaders who have those qualities but not the smug condescension that has so marked the reaction to the Palin nomination in the first place."
(Excerpt) Read more at firstread.msnbc.msn.com ...
David Brooks was hired by the New York Times to be their token conservative columnist. He favors abortion-on-demand, open borders, and the complete homosexual agenda, including “marriage”. He’s a little to the right of Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd, Pinchy, and the other left-wing kooks at the Times on fiscal matters. And he sorta, kinda supports fighting terrorists, but not if it violates their civil liberties too much.
Anyway, he’s often held up by the media as a yardstick for determining how “extreme” a particular conservative is. They declare Brooks to be a “staunch conservative”, and then find anyone to the right of him to be an “extremist”. This is part of the constant process of redefining both conservatism and liberalism to the left.
David Brooks is a good guy. He has “Bobos in paradise” and “The establishment kid” to his credit, both excellent reads.
I think he’s pointing out that “Brave Reformer goes to Washington and kicks ass” is just so much campaign rheteric. You know it and I know it. However, as neither party can really deliver on a “reform” candidacy, both parties should be allowed to sling the BS if they so desire.
I suppose that sounds a bit cynical, but I’m over 50 years old.
THe establishment destroyed itself. 10 trillion in debt for Heaven’s sake.
These mutts are defending something that needs to be repaired.
McCain chose her knowing all these pooh-bahs would hate her. It makes him look serious.
David Brooks isn’t that the guy on PBS that Mark Shields urinates on his leg and tells him the rain is warm today(verbally)?.. And Brooks believes him? at least shuts up as lehrer spreads SHields propaganda like butter on on PBS bread.. THAT GUY?
“excessive decisiveness” is now a vice for an American President
Well, if we get Obama we sure won’t have that
God help us in the hours and days after our next major crisis until the messiah’s 300 foreign policy advisors and pollsters tell him to do
That’s David Brock who wrote the Anita Hill book.
No, but he's evolving into that person. David was a conservative who got hired by the NYT to prove they were "balanced."
Unfortunately, day after day of eating in the Time's Deep Liberal Lunchroom has affected David's mental processes and he is breaking down, day-by-day. For this (former) David Brooks fan out here in the Primitve West, it's a really sad thing to watch.
I liked that too!
susie
Anyone with even a mild conservative leaning would be advised not to drink the water when appearing on MSNBC as it causes you to spew studity. Look what it did to Scarborough!
Becki...Becki...Becki
“endless nuance”
That is funny, and would make a great bumper sticker.
CAMPAIGN ‘08: EXCESSIVE DECISIVENESS VS. ENDLESS NUANCE
Well, the conservative acceptable to the NYT is at it again. It’s amazing that he’d write this elitist look-down-the-nose about Palin and her lack of experience to be VP, and say not one word about Barack the Unready, who is the most unqualified candidate to be nominated for president in modern times, and maybe ever.
Community organizer (organized agitator), state legislator, a keynote at the DNC, then part of a term in the U. S. Senate spent running for president, and I guess Brooks thinks this guy is qualified to be president. If not, why is he spending his time obsessing about Governor Palin’s qualifications for VP, which are certainly greater than Obama’s thin experience to be in either slot on a presidential ticket.
There is no doubt an amount of eastern elitism involved in Brooks’, Krauthammer’s and Will’s problems with Palin. Why they choose to obsess over her as possible VP rather than Obama as possible President is strange.
David Brooks knows which side his bread is buttered on, and who butters it: Pinch Sulzberger and Bill Keller.
So it’s either get with the program or find a new job. That was the lesson the late A. M. Rosenthal learned.
Hmmm, isn't that what the Revolutionary War was all about????
“Who is David Brooks?”
“Brooks is David Gergen lite.”
Now we who David Brooks is ... Who is David Gergen
Brooks, the Time’s token conservative, is the type of “ideologue” liberals would like all conservatives to emulate. He is deferential, ideologically anemic and craves their acceptance and favor. In short, he is a weak sister who rests at the very left fringe of true conservative thought.
No, it was David Brock who wrote the Anita Hill book. It’s quite amusing that people now no longer remember who he is. He’s the super-fag former ‘conservative’ who is now a raging Commie who heads Media Matters, a left-wing attack machine pretending to monitor the media for bias. It’s real mision is to work to destroy conservatism or any opponents of whatever George Soros wants done at the moment.
There! I've said it, and I'm glad, GLAD, do you hear? GLAD!
....uh, you've lost nothing??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.