PING
Palin is no the cancer, she is the cure!
I’m not sure I disagree with him. McCain had me at hello, but to be frank, I’m sick of the cult of Palin. I just don’t get the attraction. I’m voting for McCain here in a few weeks, but I don’t ever see myself directly casting a vote for Palin, for anything.
David Brooks and the putrid RINOs are the fatal cancer..... unless a huge dose of Palinotherapy can kill off all the malignant cells before they propagate more widely.....
Am I supposed to recognize the name David Brooks? I don’t. . . . Googled him. Oh, he writes for the New York Times, and does commentary on PBS. So why would you quote him on this website? How is it you’re even reading his stuff? He asked suspiciously.
brooks didn’t write it, he said it. That’s why you can’t find the article...
Original Article Here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2101056/posts
Fundamentally, Brooks does not understand conservatism nor conservatives. Oh yes, he declares himself to be a “conservative”, but that’s a conservative who doesn’t associate with the help.
I don’t consider myself to be a “pure” democrat. I am glad that we live in some semblance of a constitutional republic. But Brooks tends towards more of a, well, royalist, or perhaps a class based kind of conservatism, in which the commons may benefit, but most definitely are not seen and not heard, save for the trips by presidential candidates to the rustic parts of our country for a trip down nostalgia lane.
This is why Sarah Palin offends him so. He is absolutely opposed to the notion of the citizen-politician. Politics is too important to be left to the masses. Their betters are the ones who should be entrusted with governmental power. Nevermind that Lincoln was essentially a self-educated hick from the boondocks. Truman was another commoner who through a series of unfortunate occurrences ended up in the Oval Office. Men like Roosevelt (either), Kennedy, and Bush41 are the type of men Brooks believes should be the executive in our federal government. Patrician, wealthy, Ivy League educated, and ‘wise.’ Men like, well, him.
Last time I checked, we referred to this condition as Tourette's.
Believe it!
Rabble-rouser.
He is the problem with the republican party.Sarah is the cure.Conservatives versus rinos.Pure and simple.
I will be the first to admit that Palin is not everybody’s cup of tea. But she sure as heck works for me.
No candidate is going to be right for everybody. The Republican Party will always be an uneasy conglomeration of different people. But no Republican should be calling any other Republican a “Cancer”. This just demonstrates that the person who does so want to be in control, and doesn’t have the best interests of the party at heart.
If Palin is a Cancer, sign me up for Cancer!
We can see from the dizzy talking and talking that the only discourse in politics is libertine, prattling discourse with no exceptions. The concerns of the talkers (including writers) about personalities and appearances are far removed from our national and foreign relations realities.
Foghorn Leghorn for President!
Brooks is an idiot. Palin is the best that has happened to the Republican party since Reagan.
David Brooks represents Terminal Stockholm Syndrome (TSS).
or Deadly Dementia,
It was much later Reagan was seen as being a man of ideas. Actually, it was not until his writings for his radio commentaries were found that many Reagan insiders discovered those ideas were Reagan's original thoughts, rather than someone elses.
The Noonan's and Brooks have Bush fatigue, and they miss being with the popular crowd, like they were from 1980-1991, and again in 2002. They are pissed off, and want a scapegoat, but don't want to just bash Bush. They see certain political players now as Bush clones. Worst of all, they are jealous of Obamamania, and know their careers are over, as they will be too old to matter during the next conservative revolution.
It is Brooks and Noonan who are devoid of ideas, not Palin. Politically and ideologically, Palin is closest politician to Barry Goldwater's western state libertarian Republicanism to be seen since Alan Simpson retired. She is very libertarian in both her political views and political actions, and it is sad this has been hidden by the MSM since she was selected as McCain's VP candidate. That is very Reaganesque to have strong social conservative views but to maintain a libertarian political philosophy. Instead the MSM portrays here as three-headed monster who runs a pentecostal theocracy in Alaska. And the dip$hit (I'm an intellectual!) Brooks buys into that because he is stupid enough to believe his colleagues (look! they're intellectuals too!) at the NYT. He should know better, but sometimes I think only Bernie Goldberg has figured this one out.
Maybe we needed a Carter to get a Reagan, and maybe we need an Obama to get a Jindal or Palin.