THE CONSERVATIVE ELITES ATTACK! (Laura Ingraham v. David Brooks)

Laura Ingraham e-Blast | 9-16-8 | Laura Ingraham

[Petronski]

Nice!

[Rummyfan]

David Brooks is no conservative. Like Andrew Sullivan, his politics are driven by his sexual (dis)orientation.

[ChessExpert]

I believe David Brooks is the CNN/Time homosexual “conservative.” He’s a complete phony.

[perfect_rovian_storm]

Nice except for the first half, which is an argument to elect Barack Obama.

Speaking of Barack, he's got a new movie out that his constituency will really love...

[FFranco]

I didn’t know he was a homosexual. That explains a lot.

[Canedawg]

“We have a radical elite, an elite that believes in climate change, gay marriage, unrestricted abortions, and the United Nations. We have an elite that intends to make massive, liberal changes to every aspect of American life. This elite ruins almost everything it touches — from the schools, to the media, to the universities. Giving more power to the elites means watching the United States become more and more like Europe.”

I like Laura.

:-)

[Petronski]

Here’s a good spot for streaming Bill Bennett and then Laura Ingraham.

http://www.1320wbob.com/

KRLA used to be perfect for this, but they decided they’d rather go with a lesser product in the 9-12est slot.

[Road Warrior ‘04]

Brooks, like a handful of other pseudo-conservative pseudo-intellectuals...

Fixed!

[Petronski]

Nice except for the first half, which is an argument to elect Barack Obama.

I don't read it that way at all.

[stripes1776]

She is certainly the most promising such figure to come along since the elites were denouncing Ronald Reagan.

The Washington elites and country-club set detested Reagan. They had to respect him when he won the presidency, but they were very two-faced in their dealings with him. As for David Brooks, since when does he speak for any Republican constituency? I thought he was a Democrat.

[Ann Archy]

David Brooks is GAY?? Are you SURE???

[ari-freedom]

you have to have balance. McCain has a ton of washington experience. Palin on the other hand, truly gets what the folks have to deal with. And yes, the fact that she can see Russia, a nuclear armed country that already invaded georgia, gives her a unique appreciation for national security that you can’t get from policy briefings and textbooks.

[newheart]

...her populist appeal is dangerous and ill-conceived.

That statement alone is proof of Brooks' elitism. Anyone can make the claim to be a populist (interested in the needs of 'ordinary' people.) But a true populist has to connect with those ordinary people for their populism to be ratified. And Sarah Palin has, so far, made that connection. So the people ultimately determine who is a populist and who ain't. To claim that her populism is "ill-conceived" is really an elitist swipe at her supporters.

[perfect_rovian_storm]

Well, I should phrase it better. The same exact argument could be made for Barack Obama. Sarah HAS experience. Running down others who had experience and saying that others who had experience previously failed isn’t a helpful pro-Palin argument IMHO. It seems, Laura bought the false premise that Brooks offered, which means he basically won the argument before it started.

[Lobbyist]

Brooks is married I believe. I think he is married to the woman who started some conservation woman’s organization whose name escapes me now. I’m not sure but I also think he is a naturalized citizen (Canadian).

[Rummyfan]

SORRY - confused him with David Brock! Please accept my apology.

[Doug TX]

Ingraham’s failure to deal with Noonan, Meyers, and Hutchison in a similar manner has me losing interest in her opinion. She has little or no criticism for her buddy, Andrea Mitchell, on any given disinformation project. Every day she mentions one of her new liberal buds and how they are ‘ok’....why go after Brooks? Plenty of rhinos and hot mics to write about.

She is quickly becoming a ‘back bencher’ as another radio personality likes to say.

[goldstategop]

Edmund Burke apotheosized about the importance of the people and their rash passions being restrained by a tempered elite and the tradition of the ages. Laura Ingraham turns the received conservative wisdom found in the Reflections upside down. The threat to the family, wisdom and the conservative heritage comes not from the conservative masses but from the radical elites who seek to lay waste to all before them. The people desire to keep intact what they rightly cherish. Far from being the enemy of the old; they are its best friend and in their passion for individualism and their love of the sacred, they are the bodyguards of their country. It is necessary for men to revisit how best to advance conservatism and I would like to think that in our own time, the venerable Burke would champion such a change.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[LakeLady]

He yearns for the day when "conservatism was once a frankly elitist movment," one that stressed "classical education, hard-earned knowledged, experience, and prudence."

NO!!!! He did NOT say that. Only a RINO would say that...what?...ooooooooooh!

[facedown]

But he overlooks the fact that in America we have a particularly bad elite, an elite that holds most Americans in contempt and has no sympathy for the history and traditions that make us great.

As it always is. Classical Greece, Imperial Rome, even in a twisted sort of way, the Soviet Union. There are leaders and there are elites. Leaders look out for their people. Elites look out for themselves.