Oh I took stalkerazzi pics at both conventions, but the one person I made a point to strike up a conversation and get a legitimate picture with? Mr. David Brooks. I find his sensibly reasonable pragmatism electric. Somehow I trust those who I feel call it like they see it over how they think people think they should see it. Which is why his recent column about Palin not being ready to be president didn't strike me as particularly counter-conservative, just his honest assessment.
Yesterday however, Brooks extended that thesis, in decidedly stronger terms. At the launch of the Atlantic's new look, Brooks said that Palin:
Represents a fatal cancer to the Republican party. When I first started in journalism, I worked at the National Review for Bill Buckley. And Buckley famously said he'd rather be ruled by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty. But he didn't think those were the only two options. He thought it was important to have people on the conservative side who celebrated ideas, who celebrated learning. And his whole life was based on that, and that was also true for a lot of the other conservatives in the Reagan era. Reagan had an immense faith in the power of ideas. But there has been a counter, more populist tradition, which is not only to scorn liberal ideas but to scorn ideas entirely. And I'm afraid that Sarah Palin has those prejudices. I think President Bush has those prejudices.
He said much, much more yesterday from his predictions to the final outcome (Obama by nine points even though he's a "mediocre" Senator) to whether experience matters (decidedly, yes) and honestly, it's all worth a read. What do you make of his commentary on what Palin represents about the Republican party? Is "drill baby, drill" replacing more. . . subtly thought out dialog? Did he go too far?
Ludd
Pieces
Hanii Y
The word "cancer" is a little strong but I see what he's saying.
1It is most fun to be a fan of someone who is not super-dee-duper famous. You are more likely to get to meet them, and they are happy to talk to you. I have never been so star struck as when I met David Parfit, and I was almost as bad meeting a couple of public radio personalities. Very cool you got to meet him and get a photo!
2Is this guy single? He made some great points, I think I have a new crush.
3mydiadem NO. If you read enough of Brook's writings the love affair will quickly end.
4It's a strong word, but I'm sure it was carefully chosen to make his point.
There is nothing in the paragraph included below that shows how Palin represents the loss of ideas, but perhaps the rest of the article does a better job.
5I don't like the usage because it implies she will be bad for the conservative party. From what I've seen, she is what the conservatives need, which is a return to the conservatives of the 80's. So yes, I can see his point, as she is different from the current typical conservative of today, but I wouldn't call that bad. Refreshing is a better term.
6Does Brooks want to know what most conservatives think about him? I can't wait to see what Levine has to say about this.
7I don't give a sh*t about the republican party.
8mydiadem, I'm with you! I completely agree with him. I just don't think she is ready; if you can't take Katie Couric's slowpitch softball questions, what are you going to do when you are confronted with real questions that have real consequences? For all the conservatives who love her, she may be ready down the road. She is nowhere near ready now.
9I think cancer was a perfectly accurate word for him to use. Insidious, spreading, potentially deadly...
10If by deadly, you're describing where the republican party has gone over the last 8-10 years, then I agree steph, and that's a good thing.
11I think it's really refreshing to hear a conservative voice talk about the power of ideas and how dangerous and yes cancerous a disdain for enlightenment through knowledge is for not just a major political party but for the country. There's a revealing article in The New Republic about Palin's insecurities around people she perceives as more educated than her and I think that if Republicans reject Palin and the idea that intellectualism is somehow a bad thing then I think we'll all be off to a better place. The Bush presidency has proved just how bad things can get with a leader uninterested in facts and more reliant on gut instinct and "not blinking."
12I dont agree with that term at all, and i disagree that she is bad for us.
13Palin IS playing a very dangerous game here and she'd better think twice about the consequences. She's highly ambitious, I'll give her that, and is trying to position herself. I really think she is simply using McCain to get to the White House. Pretty obvious I know but, she wants to be the first Madame President.
Ha, I'd love to see Hillary let her do that. Imagine if they went up against each other in 2012 for the Presidency. I can see the fur flying now...
14the repubs are saying worse.
15A lot would have to happen for that to be possible Indie, first of which is McCain would have to win. So come to think about it, I'd like to see that too...
16I'd sooner vote you for Commander-in-Chief before I ever even begin to consider Palin as POTUS. You can sense the disdain here...
17Well, if you want to write me in, I'd be greatful.
18You betcha!
19So UnDave, what the republican party needs right now is someone who can't answer a question intelligently and is one wink away from popping bubble gum and twirling her hair around her finger during an interview? Are they really that bad off?
20OMG -- now that (Roarman) was hillarious
and sooo , sooo true!
21
Ready, OK!
22Ummmm, no. The Republican party needs to remember what it was 24 years ago, and get back to that. We've strayed dangerousily close to the socialistic tendancies of the far left, in an attempt to get the middle. It's not a good thing, and will be a disaster for this country.
23It has been a disaster for the country.
24Personally I think the biggest problem for the Republican party is that it was hijacked by the religious right and lost the ability to think. If you truely believe in conservative principles, you would be a libertarian.
25You mean 'soulless' religious right.
Isn't that a paradox?
26I agree MM, but can't we take the party back?
27Because I don't think most voters really want government to be that uninvolved. With the religious right taking over, there is guidance and an easy way of separating the good guys from the bad guys. With really conservative ideals, everyone gets to do what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone else. They get to be atheists and have abortions and be gay and no one can tell them otherwise. Conservative voters, despite all their talk of small government, don't really seem to want that.
The Libertarian party does seem to be gaining followers. Maybe that's where your votes should be going.
28Yes, and far, far away!
29Brooks makes some good points. One of the things that bothers me most about the Republican candidates--from Bush 2000 on--is the celebration of the "person just like you and me, with whom you'd rather have a beer" persona, the elevation of average-Joe mediocrity, and with that the demonization of intellect and education as "elitist." Like Bush, for whom a number of people seemed to have voted based on the fact that he seems like he'd be a fun drinking buddy, Palin, with her moose-hunting Six-Pack Joe persona, is the apotheosis of that.
I like Brooks. I used to read him in the Weekly Standard a lot.
30"One of the things that bothers me most about the Republican candidates--from Bush 2000 on--is the celebration of the "person just like you and me, with whom you'd rather have a beer" persona, the elevation of average-Joe mediocrity, and with that the demonization of intellect and education as "elitist." Like Bush, for whom a number of people seemed to have voted based on the fact that he seems like he'd be a fun drinking buddy, Palin, with her moose-hunting Six-Pack Joe persona, is the apotheosis of that."
I loves me some Jude postings.
31I was just thinking that came out funny because I'm still half-asleep. Thanks, indie
32Remember when the fact that Dan Quayle said some dumb things and didn't know how to spell "potato" was a bad thing?
33Jude, that was before Jessica Simpson & Co. made it cool to be stupid. Now if you are a female and want to be in the spotlight you better make a few chicken or fish comments.
There was an episode of the West Wing when they were talking about taking a word out of a speech because they thought no one would understand what it meant. The decided to leave it in because they wanted of their accomplishments to be raising the bar. It seems like these days the bar is so low its underground.
34Palin is the new Bush... just a decoy. The "puppet masters" can do what they wish with her, they're the ones who tell her what to say and do... Why else would they pluck a small town girl from the remote confines of Alaska? She's charming and "cute" but most importantly, she's malleable.
Palin isn't necessarily the dangerous one but she's playing the part of the white rabbit, everyone focuses on her while the true culprits can lurk in the shadows and continue to go unnoticed.
35Yeah, the bar is so low now that people have to limbo under it. Good point, MM.
It's disgusting that the culture glorifies stupidity and ignorance. That's one of the things that really makes me angry, and I hate to see politicians--who are supposed to be the elite!--pander to it. Lowest common denominator indeed.
36Jude: didn't you hear about those conservatives yammering about the way Obama says 'Pakistan' is "ostentatiously exotic"?
Give me a break.
37Yeah, totally. Ugh.
38"Palin is the new Bush... just a decoy"
That's one I hadn't heard before. First McCain was the next Bush term, and now Palin is the new Bush. How about we try this comment on for size:
39"Bush isn't running for president. Senator McCain and Governor Palin are different people, not like Bush in any way."
How about McCain is pushing Bush-like policies and Palin would be a worse VP than Cheney?
Can we reach across the aisle and agree to that one?
40"Bush isn't running for president. Senator McCain and Governor Palin are different people, not like Bush in any way."
41Doesn't fit reality at all.
"Bush isn't running for president. Senator McCain and Governor Palin are different people, not like Bush in any way."
42Am I pointing out something obvious here but aren't they all Republicans that supposed have the same political ideals? I don't see Bush excommunicated for the Republican party, if Bush and Palin are the future of the GOP then I'm never going back.
Undave- If you agree with MM that the republican party was "hijacked by the religious right" then why would you think Palin is going to steer the party away from that? She is very much a part of the religious right.
43Yes, I'm still trying to figure out how McCain and Palin are different than the current administration. It's no secret McCain has supported Bush throughout Bush's presidency. Now suddenly he's changing his mind?
44Yesterday, JC Watts spoke at my university and he said “I think the greatest damage to America was the fact that the bar was lowered (with the presidency)." He was referring to Clinton and lying to the American people (though he never called Clinton by name and later listed him as one of the most interesting people he'd ever met), but I think it fits in here well.
I'm not so sure I'd go so far as to call her a cancer, but I definitely think her being named VP is a direct result of the "bar being lowered."
45Too far? Nope. He should have gone further...
46I think the use of the word was used to imply how bad he personally thinks she is for the conservative party. Although I don't think she is " an evil that grows and spreads" I do think that she is decisive. I also think this is on some level this is nit picking, the use of the word "cancer" in this way is not new, I mean who hasn't heard it used in this was before about a person, cause, or issue? I have had two grandparents succumb to cancer, my aunt is a Breast Cancer Survivor, and my mom just got a biopsy yesterday, and I'm not offended at the slightest. I mean I understand that there are some social issues effecting both issues voter turn out but to be so edgy about one word that isn't technically derogatory is silly!
47I have had cancer several times. I am not offended by the use of the word, I am continually offended by this man though. It is obvious to anyone who reads his eds and listens to all his little quips that this man is not a republican. He may be conservative, though more moderate in my opinion, but he is not a republican.
48I'm not associated with any political party for the simple fact that they are devisive. But both parties have major flaws and have gone far off the track they orginally where on and far off the track of what is really good for this country....
by the way UnDave35 have you ever read...
"The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It, How to Get It Back by Andrew Sullivan "
it's a great read
49Whatever you think about Bush and his Presidency, the man still had a decent education.( I know about the whole family influence thing but he was still at the school)
50Sarah Palin has had a second rate education and I think it shows, no doubt she is a cunning politician, good soundbites, but there is no depth.
What I really hate about this campaign is I think Obama has had to dumb down to appeal to the masses, because that's what wins elections.I don't think you get to be pres of Harvard Law review without a great deal of intellect.
Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.