Posted on 10/12/2008 8:04:47 PM PDT by neverdem
David Brooks is taking some heat from doctrine-enforcement agents of the left and right for stating, in an interview with me at that famed redoubt of populism Le Cirque that Sarah Palin represents a "fatal cancer" for the Republican Party...
(Excerpt) Read more at jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com ...
He's the token conservative at the NY Times and PBS' The News Hour.
So why would you quote him on this website? How is it you’re even reading his stuff? He asked suspiciously.
Suspect what you please. If you want firsthand sources, most of the time it's from the left.
I posted it here. Searching the archive couldn't retrieve it.
That should read “Stupid person offending since 1963”.
One can only hope.
Did you ever think maybe you’re the stupid one, and it’s smart people you’re offending?
Or worse...Lindsey Graham.
How am I tied into all of this?
No, even worse...George Voinovich.
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!
It's your enchanting and engaging personality. (And the little wiggle in your walk.) LOL!
Brooks is an idiot. Palin is the best that has happened to the Republican party since Reagan.
Thanks for that link, but I included it at the start of the thread. That’s why pissant was mentioned in parentheses in the title. I was looking for Goldberg’s interview.
I can't believe that Lowell Weicker is still alive, as is Brendan Byrne.
Olympia Snowe?
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.
Susan Collins.
I'm not saying she doesn't have some promise, but at the moment she's far from perfect even many conservatives are worried about whether she's ready for the position. The Republican party has done little to show it's capable of effectively running the country over the past eight years and Palin doesn't help change that image.
I’m pretty ecstatic about Sarah Palin myself. Surely it’s not some kind of ‘cultish’ devotion, as has been mentioned here. I certainly hope that doesn’t characterize my views. I do find her peculiarly fascinating, though, especially upon popping up at this rather dangerous point in our nation’s history, amidst an abundance of incredibly uninspiring leaders.
Here she is, embodying ‘mid-America’ more vividly than any politician in eons, and with a rather feisty, independent (even a tad populist) approach to governing... taking on her own party’s leaders when needed. Add the motherhood angle, the very staunch 2nd-Amendment stances, the energy expertise, the unapologetically pro-life aspect, the exotic ‘far frontier’ backdrop. And, of all things, she’s a doggone beauty, too!
Altogether a bizarrely fascinating composite; iconoclastic, and marvelously appealing.
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.