Brooks: Palin a "fatal cancer" on GOP

This is too true, Rod. Thanks for posting this.

I agree Whole heartedly with Brooks on this. It's just one more reason why I will not be voting this year.

Oh screw him. He's been a major league ass since he went to the NYT.

Sadly, David Brooks has grown far from the roots of Buckley's conservatism, forgetting that what is important is not the grandeur of the ideas our political officials hold, but the limits and boundaries those ideas ought to prescribe to the government as but one institution in a healthy society.

As his vehement support of the bailout demonstrates, Brooks is all about the Heroic Government with Grand Ideas saving us all.

Gov. Palin has an idea of what the government should be like. But no, it's nothing like what Brooks has come to believe.

Of course Palin's unqualified to be vice president she lives west of the Hudson River.

What's amazing about Brook's column is that all his blue state friends will love it; which turns out to be quite convenient for his social life. It's always wonderful when what's best for you personally, and career wise coincides with the truth. Imagine the stones it would take for him to actually stand up to the puerile attacks that all his friends, neighbors and colleagues have launched against Palin. Which attacks consist entirely of: she talks funny, and dresses funny and she's a religious nut, and most importantly, she's not one of us. This is what passes for the celebration of ideas among blue state "conservatives." If I didn't know Brooks was a Canadian I'd have assumed he was a little girl writing under a pseudonym.

What's worse is that he invokes Reagan, and a man who was and is still regularly reviled by Brook's friends, neighbors and colleagues in the exact same fashion that Brooks savages Palin.

The last few weeks have been a showcase of what a wonderful job all of these great Ivy league, learning celebrating and idea celbrating genius have done for the economy. Maybe we need to give the graduates of the University of Idaho and Eureka College a chance.

Stylish prose is not the same thing as reasoned thought.

Greg Marquez
goyomarquez@earthlink.net

It's great to see these recriminations begin. I'd like to see the GOP run by sensible, moderate, market-oriented people, and ditch the pre-moderns who think that dinosaurs and man walked together, etc. In a dangerous and high-tech world, we need leaders who realize it's the 21st century.

I agree completely that Brooks's statement is rather harsh. We don't know what Palin will become in the future, but at present, it is clear to me (at least) that she is not ready to be Vice President or President. Regarding the future, I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.

Bill Maher said some interesting (and funny) things on the Tonight Show last night - he said that someone like Palin is so popular even though she does not appear to be that smart because she appeals to the narcissism of average Americans, who don't want a leader they feel is smarter than they are.

I feel there may be some truth to that, and certainly, there is an anti-intellectual strain in American politics that someone like Palin is able to exploit. However, it is also true that smart people can be very dumb. Dick Cheney comes to mind. Does anyone think he isn't smart?

On the other hand, the reverse does not seem to be true. I'm not talking now about education, because it's not "book-learning" that makes people smart. People without access to education may put a high price on it, while some people who have every advantage, like George W. Bush, don't have the sense to know that education is important.

It is to be hoped Palin does not resemble George W. Bush in this.

Well, after last night's abysmal snoozefest called a "debate," one can almost believe that there has been a secret bipartisan agreement to embrace intellectual bankruptcy as the prerequisite for pursuing public office; the thing that amuses me most about the drumbeat of "Palin is incurious/devoid of ideas/temperamentally unsuited for any office higher than Postmaster/etc." is that you could say pretty much the same thing of the top of each ticket. I mean, where's the startling brilliance? Where's the genius-level solution to the economic meltdown? Where's the keen insights and brand-new ideas? Heck, I'd settle for quiet competence--no, I wouldn't "settle," I'd be wildly enthusiastic for it.

Instead, we get mushmouthed stump-speak dressed up as an exchange of ideas, where both "exchange" and "ideas" are hopeful exaggerations. But seriously: what are Obama's wonderful new ideas? What are McCain's grand new plans? They've both been campaigning for this office for a lot longer than we'd like to remember, and they've been so busy repeating words like "Hope" and "Change" and "Country First" that they've somehow forgotten to give us a compelling reason to vote for either one of them.

Which favors Obama, of course; the one good idea that never loses political currency is "Throw The Bums Out!" I have a strong feeling that whoever is elected in November, he'll be a one-term wonder. Which means that about eighteen months from now we'll be hearing from the first of the 2012 candidates, if they can contain themselves that long.

If I didn't know Brooks was a Canadian

As Johnny Carson used to say, "I did not know that!" I did know that Charles Krauthammer was Canadian. Morley Safer was the one that really surprised me (finding out that he was Canadian.) And William Shatner.

As Michael Moore said, when promoting his movie Canadian Bacon some years ago, "They look like us, they talk like us, they walk among us undetected!" ;-)

If McCain's loss means that the religious right finally gets tossed back into the trailer parks from whence it came, it will be a good thing.

If I knew you weren't playing a role and putting us on, Charles, I'd take my theocon rear end down to vote for Palin just to spite you!

"Which attacks consist entirely of: she talks funny, and dresses funny and she's a religious nut, and most importantly, she's not one of us."

No, no, no. The problem with Palin is not that she "talks funny" but that, based on her debate performance, among other things, she can't seem to put together a coherent sentence. I think mushy talking indicates mushy thinking, and that worries me. What is more, when I can understand what she is talking about, I don't hear ideas and arguments but pandering and populism. She's a demagogue, is what I'm saying, and that, more than most things, frightens me.

The whole Palin affair has, from the start, felt to me like the end of something for the conservative movement and the Republican party. Exactly what is ending I haven't put my finger on -- maybe the reliance on certain kinds of conservative modes or postures that have been recently masquerading as ideas. But I'm not sure it matters. The question I am more interested is, what will rise from the ashes? Put another way, what is the intellectual and cultural work that will need to be done amid the ruins of conservatism?

This might have more to do with the collapse of the Republican intelligentsia which has always harbored a suspicion of populism. Last night, watching that interminable debate, I was surprised to hear McCain promise to basically write off the lost value of the homes of those near default. We'll refinance them at present value he promised. So I hung on until the talking heads segment following the debate.

The only one who brought it up was the liberal commentator who described it as something like "the Republican ship of free enterprise crashed aground and is sinking." Sure is true I thought. Fred Barnes and Bill Kristol nervously pooh-poohed it and moved on as fast as they could (FOX). What happened to the ideas?

The Republican pundits have always disliked the populist riffraff. When the Weekly Standard crowd supported McCain against Bush eight years ago, it was an attempt to jetisson the Religious Right using the war hero moniker. Now they want to blame their failures on Palin.

A liberal criticism, and a cruel one, was that a lot of the Republican pundits who supported Iraq were "Chicken Hawks." I didn't think it was fair, but it does contain a grain of truth. Many of the conservative pundits seem woefully short of real life experience (they are a lot like liberal pundits in this way), pontificating, as they often do, from a life or priviledge or detachment. They are brainy but often not that smart, articulate but to the point of glibness. (Ann Coulter called some of them "girly men.") No wonder they can't stand Palin.

I went and saw Sarah Palin last Monday just to get a read on her. (Hey, I went to hear Ted Sorensen speak (architect of the Kennedy campaign) when Mondale ran years ago just to get a read on him.) I liked what I saw. A stunning intellect? Nope. Someone who has been shaped by real battles in real life? Yup. That's probably a big factor in her popularity. It's a quality hard to find in leaders, even aspiring ones (I include Obama here who seems shaped more by ideology than bedrock values). Call it a culture war in the Republican camp.

I agree, the Republicans deserve to lose, but I can't vote for Obama. Way too much ideological baggage for my taste. McCain is an American expansionist but probably will be more restrained than Obama (a calculated gamble), he will have a better grasp of the economy, and most important, I just don't trust who Obama will appoint to the Supreme Court. That's a huge issue in my estimation.

One more thing. Brooks invokes Reagan, but Reagan never held the conservative populists in contempt. They sensed he had respect for their values and concerns. That's why he was popular with them. I don't think McCain disrespects them, but Brooks sure does.

Let her talk with the press. Have some real in depth interviews and resolve this.

Steve

In my opinion, Mr. Brooks continues to show a strong desire to be coddled by the right and the Republican establishment. This comment says a lot more about him than it does about the Gov. Palin. Here is a translation of what he said: the Republican party should be, in fact must be, a lot more like David Brooks to be a force in the new millennium. C'mon David, get over yourself.

I totally agree with Brooks' argument about intellectual debate and anti-intellectualism in the GOP. Bush made crude and simplistic arguments throughout, and McCain has stuck with those.

On the other hand, the GOP needs Sarah Palins a lot more than it needs the David Brookses of the world, because David Brooks doesn't usually advance genuine conservative ideas. He's much more aligned with the GOP power structure. If Ron Paul won the presidency, in 2009 you could look forward to David Brooks' columns extolling the virtues of Austrian economics. But there are those on the right, the intellectual heavyweights, who are worth 1 million Palins. Palin will never convince a person to become a conservative. She may gain supporters through strong leadership, but when she leaves office, they will go back to the Democrats. Reagan and Gingrich, on the other hand, left their heirs a greater legacy than they arrived with.

Palin will prove to be just another of McCain's Hail Mary passes: perhaps the one that came closest to connecting.........but no touchdowns in sight.

I saw today that the old war hero now has his wife, too, out slinging mud at Obama, when he was too timid to speak up last night at the debates. I never thought I'd see such cowardice from the man.

This is interesting. David Brooks advances an argument. Readers here respond by saying a) he's a Canadian, b) he's a hack, c) he's a crypto-liberal, and d) he's an egoist.

I'm so tired of ad hominem attacks dressed up as discourse. C'mon, people. Y'all can do better than that.

After last night's panderama, blaming Palin for Mccain's loss is ridiculous. Mccain's campaign is a braindead rerun of Dole and the Bushes. There's nothing conservative about his advisers, who are chock full of those wonderful Ivy degrees.People like Brooks. Don't fight, John Mccain; that would be DIVISIVE. They will call you a RACIST! The Left is going to say those things whether they're true or not. Better to lose with something these softheaded dopes think of as respectability, so they can still get Upper West Side and Georgetown cocktail invites.That is called failure. But at least David Brooks can go to cool dinner parties.

If John Mccain lived his life this passsively, as Brooks and his ilk would suggest, he would've perished in a Hanoi jail cell. And sadly so far that is how he has conducted this campaign. We have seen $3 trillion in retiremnt and investment cash of Americans dissappear in the last 6 weeks. If that's not grounds to get angry, go moneychangers in the temple, I'm not sure what is. SOMEONE should get angry. If John Mccain won't he should go back to Sedona today and allow Obama to be coronated and let's be done with it.

David Brooks is audtioning to be the next David Gergen, looking to cross the aisle as a career move. If he ever going to be held to account for idiocy like neocon "American Greatness" and bobos(oh, they're on their suburban patios with their organic steaks and pouring Pinot Grigio-what awful prose!).

David Brooks has never been to a roadhouse on a Sautrday night, nor to a heavy metal concert nor an NFL football game. David Brooks has no Johnny Cash on his ipod. David Brooks has never gotten his hands dirty with bait, nor pulled an icy Bud out of a cooler. But if you want to know about what kind of caviar is best at Zabars, he's your guy.

If conservatism is going to win ever again, it's going to have to get out of the country club,get down to the Costco, stop paying fealty to the myth of free trade, cut spending , control the borders and at least turn back the leftist drip into the culture.And explain and solve this economic crisis by discussing culture's impact, how it's broken and how we can fix it, along with locking up some of these greedy criminals. That would mean getting a little angry, which Brooks and his pals abhor as bad. But on each if these things that really matter, I'd rather have a pitbull like Palin in our corner than David Brooks looking to get petted like a polite lapdog.

Can we please get a candidate in my lifetime who isn't embarrassed to be a conservative, who can explain what conservatism is, and why it's important and preferable?And do so without worrying about whether David Brooks might write a discouraging word in the NY Times?

"David Brooks has never been to a roadhouse on a Sautrday night, nor to a heavy metal concert nor an NFL football game. David Brooks has no Johnny Cash on his ipod. David Brooks has never gotten his hands dirty with bait, nor pulled an icy Bud out of a cooler. But if you want to know about what kind of caviar is best at Zabars, he's your guy."

This is the kind of thing that I sure hope is ending with the Sarah Palin affair: The equation of conservatism with "real American" lifestyle postures like football, fishing, and drinking Bud, rather than things like, to name only one possible example, the idea and practice of ordered liberty.

And I say good riddance. Once the decks are clear, maybe we can start over.

Did Sarah 'giggle' and 'laugh' when she heard that or does she only do that when shock DJs say that about her political rivals?

May be you should read the next paragraph; my point stands.

If you equate being an intellectual with paying respects to the Left and conceding the validity of their worldview while poormouthing conservatism, it will get us nowhere.Worse, if you don't understand culture of the great unwashed, if you look down your nsoe at them, as Brooks and others do, it will hurt. We've been told that free trade as great, unfettered immigration was no big deal and the loss of blue collar work was a positive by Brooks. That hasn't worked out at all, knocking out the bottom rung of the wage ladder and the concurrent societal havoc. Those flophouses of immigrant men popping up, work shape ups down at 7/11, your kids not finding entry level and summer work-all no big deal to Brooks. And using poor Mexicans as slave labor in nonunion construction and cheap restaurant work and lawn care is just grand to him, to hell with the fact that those were once good jobs for Americans with the cash staying here.

As with Mccain's pander to nationalize the mortgage industry, once you start espousing socialism, why would anyone vote for you over a real leftist socialist like Obama? This election after last night is now a race between real leftist and wannabee leftist. The real leftist wins every time.

And if you have read Brooks since he decamped to the Times, he's no longer conservative.And given some of his turgid dreck he churned out at the Weekly Standard, may be he wasn't ever a conservative. If Palin makes him uncomfortable, good riddance. Take those idiots running the Mccain campaign into the ground with you, and don't let the door hit you in the hiney.

What evidence is there that Gov. Palin is not intellectually curious? The evidence against Pres. Bush is manifest, but Gov. Palin not really. After barely being on the national scene for just over a month, Gov. Palin is skilled performer and vastly superior to Pres. Bush - even after his eight years in the White House. Pres. Bush to this day is still a cringe inducing public speaker. Mr. Brooks supposition is that Gov. Palin is anti-intellectual. My supposition is that Mr. Brooks is basing this more on his own elitism than any thing Gov. Palin did. She did not go to an elite college so she does not have her "union card" of elitism and intellectualism. I think Mr. Brooks criticism of Mr. Bush are very fair and in some respects the criticism is applicable to the Republican party more generally. Gov. Palin was certainly intellectually curious when it came to discovering improprieties in her own party in Alaska and in challenging existing sweet heart deals in place for the oil companies. Not only did she demonstrate intellectual curiosity in these instances, she displayed courage.

Also, I too wanted to dazzle Mr. Brooks.

I just hate that metaphor-- a "fatal cancer". It could be just because I've lost too many loved ones to fatal cancers that I'm sensitive to it, but it's just a certain kind of ugly hyperbole that gets tossed around far too much. I don't think Palin is the DEATH of the GOP, for goodness' sake. She merely represents a certain kind of current problem that the Republican Party has yet to come to grips with. Stop it with the ciphers, Republicans! That's a nickel's worth of free advice from a loony liberal.

David Brooks has never been to a roadhouse on a Sautrday night, nor to a heavy metal concert nor an NFL football game. David Brooks has no Johnny Cash on his ipod. David Brooks has never gotten his hands dirty with bait, nor pulled an icy Bud out of a cooler. But if you want to know about what kind of caviar is best at Zabars, he's your guy.

If conservatism is going to win ever again, it's going to have to get out of the country club,get down to the Costco, stop paying fealty to the myth of free trade, cut spending , control the borders and at least turn back the leftist drip into the culture.And explain and solve this economic crisis by discussing culture's impact, how it's broken and how we can fix it, along with locking up some of these greedy criminals. That would mean getting a little angry, which Brooks and his pals abhor as bad. But on each if these things that really matter, I'd rather have a pitbull like Palin in our corner than David Brooks looking to get petted like a polite lapdog.

What a steaming pile of horseshit.

I've been to a Roadhouse on a Saturday night. Friday and Sunday sometimes as well.

I've been, in the last year, to two different heavy metal festivals in Lousiana and Oklahome.

I've been, in the last year to three NFL games, six college football games, several NBA games, two NHL games, and two rodeos.

I have Johnny Cash on my IPOD. Actually I have Johnny Cash on my Ipod AND on my IPhone. I also have Black Sabbath, Lee Greenwood, Nelly, Tim McGraw, Snoop, Panic at the Disco, Carrie Underwood, and The Dixie Chicks, among many others.

I don't drink Bud because it's pisswater, but I'm there if you have a Henry's, Sierra Pale Ale, or Anchor Steam.

If Conservatism is ever win again, it's going to have to get rid of hateful, divisive people who choose to focus on differences than commonality. The GOP is, right now, a parochial, small town, party. Here's a hint: There are more "elites" than there are small town, parochial folks. Also, Costco is run by a staunch Democrat, as is Target. I think you meant Wal-Mart for your tirade.

As for free trade, too late. We're part of a global economy. Either get on board, or get left behind.

As for cutting spending. Great. Good ideas. But don't, for a second, try to play the "Conservatives are fiscally responsible". The last 8 years, six of them with a Conservative (Bush) in the White House, and a Conservative (Tom Delay) leading the house, and a Conservative (Bill Frist) leaving the Senate, leading us to the largest addition of Federal Debt in history. So, please, spare me the "Fiscal conservative" crap.

You want to control the borders? Start with companies. Fine them amounts that matter. The next time Wal-Mart is caught with illegals, fine them $25Million per person. That will solve the problem, right. Oh, that's right, Conservatives like all the cheap labor. So, again, spare me the idea that Conservatives are going to cut the flow of illegal aliens.

How, exactly, do you propose turning back the "the leftist drip into the culture?" How, exactly? It's a nice slogan, but how does government do that. Maybe "enhanced interrogation techniques?"

I mean, seriously. What has happened to conservatism? It used to be, in the time of Buckley, a serious movement. Now it's nothing but gays, guns, abortion, war, and torture. It's a freaking joke, and it needs to die a horrible death in order to be reborn. Think of it, you have people, American Citizens, overwhelmingly Conservative, who are now OPENLY supportive of torture.

Angry?

I'm angry.

I'm angry that small minded people who chastise those who try to educate themselves and explore the world as "elitist".

I'm angry at small minded people who embrace the idea that to be uneducated, pregnant, and seventeen is somehow a good thing.

I'm angry at people who claim to be pro-life who pushed and supported a horrible war (Iraq) which has led to too many civilian deaths.

I'm angry at people who claim to be religious using the worst kind of racist language and guilt by association to slander those with whom they disagree.

I'm angry at US Citizens who think so little of this country that they'd think a woman like Palin is actually qualified to lead the country.

I'm angry.

And because I'm angry, I'm voting for Obama.

Because he's not Bush. He's not McCain. And he's not Palin.

As noted, Brooks of the Times never sought to discuss his misgivings with Mrs. Palin directly. Better to look down his nose from his perch on 43rd Street, call her a rube, and get to Ben Bradley and Sally Quinn's latest soiree.

Yeah, Obama's qualified-not. What has he run? WHen has he taken his own party or his own machine to task(Ithings Palin has actaully done? And yes, being associated with the likes of scum like AYers, Wright, Rezko et al should disqualify him in a sane world, which this is not. While he whined about AIG, he never actaully took a stand on that bailout, never bothering to tell us what he thought. But he said what ever the hell it was he said quite well, and to many people that matters most. I can understand the anger at Bush, or disliking the braindead Mccain campaign. But spare me the wonders of The One. It's the biggest pile in our history.The One is blessed with a lousy opponent, but I wouldn't trust him to get a coffee order right.

Bugg, if your point is, "on each of these things that really matter, I'd rather have a pitbull like Palin in our corner," I'd reply that I'd rather have a Bill Buckley or a Russell Kirk or the like. But here's the thing: even if we let that paragraph stand, why did you feel you had to preface it with all that "real American" posturing? Why is anti-elitism your response of first resort, and not your ideas?

You haven't convinced me that today's Republican party isn't intellectually bankrupt and that that bankruptcy is responsible for their coming defeat.

Bugg: "Yeah, Obama's qualified-not. What has he run?"

Well, he's been running Obama for President, which has a larger staff and budget than many major companies, longer than Palin's been governor of Alaska. So far, that looks like it's working out pretty well. But we'll all know for sure in 4 weeks.

Bless
Doug

"Millions of Republicans who, like him, belong to what the Bushies sneeringly referred to as "the reality based community" will not continue to allign themselves with the know-nothings and fanatics being whipped up by Palin"

Not to mention young people. I'm at about the age when one starts to think in more conservative terms, but I'm not exactly going to be lured away by a party that thinks it's okay to tar anyone who doesn't fall behind the party line 100%. Especially if its public response to a candidate who does excite my generation is "kill him."

At the moment, the only young people who are visibly behind the GOP are home schooled evangelicals. They seem like nice people with stong principles they believe in, but they're not exactly the mainstream. If you have to keep a kid in a bubble until 18 and then send them to a college with an explicitly Christian ideology to keep them from straying away from your ideas, what you've really done is lost a generation.

You may be right. If McCain loses, this will be the end of both conservatives and any notion of anything other than career, corrupted politicians in Washington. At least if you have any say in the matter.

I wonder if there's some party, some nation, some place left on this globe, where good, ordinary people take on extraordinary challenges and leave a mark in history. You know, like Washington, Lincoln, Truman did. Apparently, there's no room in Rod Dreher's America for it.

EddieInCA
If Conservatism is ever win again, it's going to have to get rid of hateful, divisive people who choose to focus on differences than commonality. The GOP is, right now, a parochial, small town, party. Here's a hint: There are more "elites" than there are small town, parochial folks. Also, Costco is run by a staunch Democrat, as is Target. I think you meant Wal-Mart for your tirade.

*clap* *clap* *clap*

As I'm a progressive and a liberal, you'd think I'd didn't want conservatives to get back on track...but I do. There does need to be someone injecting a moment of sanity into insane plans, and, in theory, that's what you used to do, although I don't personally remember it except once.

The very first thing I remember politically, and I'm just shy of thirty, in about 1992, is you guys shooting down Hillary's Health Care, and, at the time, I was stupid enough to think that was a good thing, or at least a tossup. So my actual first 'memory' of conservatives is a 'good one', or at least one where you were serving your purpose, raining on the parade of progressives. I've changed my mind about the need of the policy, and realize now what happened behind the scenes and how the insurance industry killed it, but it at least was some rational behavior for conservatives.

But then...but then...the next thing was you people riling people up about gays in the military, which even I could see was horsecrap, and I didn't even know any gay people then. Soldiers do what you tell them to do. If they cannot handle working with gay people, you court martial them. There is no crying in baseball, and there's no whining you're uncomfortable in the military. But no, you made a big issue about it, and Clinton triangulated into don't ask don't tell.

And then, Clinton 'scandal' after 'scandal', and, unlike some people, I actually kept track as each scandal was revealed to be nonsense, so much that I was rather surprised you actually caught him on something. But all that time, I was thinking 'Hey, where's the actual laws you're supposed to pass to make things better?'.

And then I actually started paying attention at elections. Not really the 96 one as I wasn't old enough to vote yet, but in 2000 I noticed that while Al Gore actually appeared to have ideas, George Bush appeared to completely ignore those ideas and run against some hypothetical opponent.

And it's just gotten worse. And for the longest time I wondered why, until I finally realized: Republicans lose on issues because no one agrees with them.

I've been trying to point this out to you guys for a while...the reason you can't elect conservatives, but instead get fake conservatives, is that people don't want actual conservatives running the country. Trying to move the party back to actual 'conservativism' would doom it.

Heck, as McCain proved, even a middle-of-the-road fake conservative does not agree with Americans on the issues. I was actually impressed that McCain stuck to the issues until last week, and it's somewhat ironic that behaving in an honest political manner is going to be what killed him. (That is, if you think that changing all your positions on all the issues is 'honest', but at least it's still running on the issues.)

Of course, the reason he did that is that, emotionally, people are a lot more pissed at the Republicans than they are worried about teh gays, so running on emotions wouldn't have worked either.

"If you have to keep a kid in a bubble until 18 and then send them to a college with an explicitly Christian ideology to keep them from straying away from your ideas, what you've really done is lost a generation."

That brings up a good point. If anyone other than evangelical Christians did this to their kids, they'd be targets for deprogrammers (remember those?) and cult experts.

The very first thing I remember politically, and I'm just shy of thirty, in about 1992, is you guys shooting down Hillary's Health Care ... So my actual first 'memory' of conservatives is a 'good one' ... But then...but then...the next thing was you people riling people up about gays in the military, which even I could see was horsecrap, and I didn't even know any gay people then.

You actually have the order of those two events reversed. Which would be a trivial mistake, except that the point you're making depends on the wrong order you provide.

The GOP is about to it from the American people with zero lube.

Smile, you've earned it.

"I wonder if there's some party, some nation, some place left on this globe, where good, ordinary people take on extraordinary challenges and leave a mark in history. You know, like Washington, Lincoln, Truman did."

Good question, Nightstalker. So far in this thread I've seen nothing but scorn for the notion that anybody who isn't a certified left-leaning elitist imbibing the cultural poison has anything to offer (homeschoolers are cultists? Really?). Gives me a pretty fair idea of the kind of thing we can expect from the gentle, tolerant citizens of Obama's America.

In the video, Brooks says that he sees himself more as a republican (I can't recall the exact words but that was the gist of it). I always thought that he was a tried and true republican, is he waffling now and trying to reposition himself as an independent? His first job was working for Buckley after all.

It's not fatal cancer, it seems quite operable to me. Simply excise the undesireable elements (Palin and the theocrats), and let the patient heal. Let the party focus on sensible economics and foreign policy.

The note accusing me of being wrong came from 1219, not 1239.

Ooops.

After the last six years, someone on the right complaining that a policy might erode civil liberties doesn't really have a foot to stand one. Maybe you should have been concerned when it was Bush doing it. Oh, but 9/11 changed everything, and people who think that American can be defended without eroding civil liberties are giving "aid and comfort to the enemy," right?

Anyhow, in context, Obama was talking about expanding the concept of PeaceCorp and Americorp:

"That’s why as President, I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots, and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their efforts connected to a common purpose. People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem – they are the answer.

So we are going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We’ll call on Americans to join an Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects in their neighborhoods all across the country. We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, to be there for our military families. And we’re going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.

We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

After the PATRIOT Act and Gitmo and the debate over Habeas Corpus, I have few polite words to say to someone who thinks that expanding the Peace Corps is somehow an alarming threat to American liberty.

"That’s why as President, I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots, and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their efforts connected to a common purpose. People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem – they are the answer.

This is fatuous blather.

Yes, the answer to our problems is the individual, empowered, unshackled from runamok government... Not this pure nonsense. This is emotionalism, symbolism, and utterly irrelevant and worthless feel-goodism.

It may appeal to a certain kind of superficial, shallow mindset, but it is truly pablum with NO redeeming qualities or truth.

They may be impractical ideas. It's hard to tell, because you think that insulting anyone who supports them is all you need to back up your arguments against them. But they're hardly the SS coming for you in jackboots, which is the angle you were playing before.

LOL, Obama claims Americorp or Energy Corp is a "civilian national security force"? A "national security force" is 250,000 volunteers taking the jobs of nurses, doctors, everyday volunteers, etc?

What have you been smoking?

No, a "civilian national security force" is just what he says it is. Unless, of course, you think Obama says stuff he doesn't actually mean. Of course, we could point out the other blindingly obvious truth here, that he is as obscure and vague as he can possibly be... So he can "revise and extend" later, just in case someone points out he's slipped a word here or there.

As for insulting people. Look, anyone falling for this stuff insults themselves, forgive my impertinence for pointing out the glaringly obvious. I didn't figure anyone needed the help, but I thought I'd try to be helpful anyway.

"As for insulting people. Look, anyone falling for this stuff insults themselves, forgive my impertinence for pointing out the glaringly obvious. I didn't figure anyone needed the help, but I thought I'd try to be helpful anyway."

Given that a few posts ago, you were willing to believe that this program was actually a secret plan to destroy American freedom, I'm not sure you qualify to lecture anyone about who is a fool for falling for what.

Bugg, you may not have noticed, but Sarah Palin hasn't exactly made herself freely available to professional journalists. And no, Hannity does not count as a "journalist".

HEHEEHEHEHEHE!!!!

Considering how the press is nothing more than an extension of the Obama campaign, and has sacrificed even the appearance of journalism in a desperate attempt to force an election, I say... She's doing exactly what she should be doing. The press is incompetent, dishonest, partisan, and interested only in advancing Obama, there is nothing to be gained by helping them or talking to them.

"interviews" or "press conferences" reveal nothing to the public. The press simply filters it, twists it, or distorts it to fit the predetermined outcome.

Given that a few posts ago, you were willing to believe that this program was actually a secret plan to destroy American freedom, I'm not sure you qualify to lecture anyone about who is a fool for falling for what.

HAH! So, after failing to explain what a "civilian national defense force" is, and not being able to explain why we need one, and then rambling on with a diversionary tactic about Americorp and so on...

You then mock my question about what one needs a "civilian national defense corp" that has "funding equal to the military" for in this country. Yet, you can't answer it.

No, we can't rely in the military to defend us, we need another governemnt agency with the same size of budget, but civilian, operating under the federal government...

There is ONLY one purpose for such things... Federal occupation. Not healing the ill, not "saving the earth" (oh, my God, how stupid can the conversation get!!!???), or any other kind of "make work pork" spending.

Mind you, I'm using the QUOTE YOU MADE. I've read it before. I heard it repeated by Obama himself in a different time and place.

There is no justification of ANY kind for duplicating the power and budget of the military for a "civilian national defense force" except for forced control of the subjects. None.

Middle Eastern countries have these. They're called 'defense' and they serve only one purpose. To keep the government in power over the citizens. We have no such need for a "civilian national defense force". Never have. never will.

That you would defend such nonsense cannot be explained rationally.

Also the "Know-Nothing Party", generally called itself "American Party", was about Nativism and Secrecy more than anti-intellectualism. One of their VP candidates, Andrew Jackson Donelson, apparently graduated second in his class from West Point. Although some were uneducated, they also included doctors and lawyers. The Populist Movement, like Bryan, I think was more associated to anti-intellectualism.

"'Bush destroyed the country, Bush destroyed (insert any random thing here)' has been repeated endlessly." NS

TR: Whether he was good or bad he is unpopular and you can't blame that all on the press. Some of what he wanted failed, for example privatizing Social Security and Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court. While other things hurt our nation's reputation or were poorly explained. That unpopularity is going to hurt any nominee of his party.

Although in retrospect "last eight years" is unfair. It'd be more accurate to say "the last five years." In the first three years of his first term I was a defender of him and he was still fairly popular.

"Oh, I've heard all the "Bush destroyed the country, Bush destroyed (insert any random thing here)" has been repeated endlessly.

Of course, truth simply is a complete stranger to this mindset.

This recitation will go down in history as one of the most effective propaganda/brainwashing efforts to ever occur on a wide scale. Certainly, nothing that happened anywhere in the last 150 years can even hold a candle to this mass delusion."

The delusion is that the country has been destroyed/insert random thing here. We haven't. We're doing our darndest to be destroyed in the last few weeks, apparently, but we've got some pretty good kick in us yet.

I'm old enough to remember a famous line from Gerald Ford, "Hi. I'm Gerald Ford. I'm President of the United States, and you're not." No utter incompetent will ever hold the office, if they at least are competent enough to show up, or audacious and hopeful enough, as the case may be. But let's not be so busy to defend or condemn politicians that we lose sight of our national strengths despite them.

What I've learned from our leftist brothers above-

Running a campaign is sufficient experience; thet fact you've run nothing before this campaign is irrevelant.

That stuff mom told you about judging you by your friends; no longer true.

Katie Couric, CBS, Charles Gibson and ABC are parts of the vast right wing conspiracy.

Americorps-paid volunteers; not sure whether it's more violative of the English langauge or common sense.

This going to be 4 interesting years.

I just love it, Rod. All the conservatives coming on to the blogs of late and tearing down Obama, but they cannot find ONE POSITIVE THING to say about any policy advanced by the McCain campaign.

Maybe that is why the GOP is going to lose, Rod. They have lost the ability to put forward a positive campaign.

I haven't been a fan of Sarah Palin's nomination, to put it mildly, but Brooks calling her a "fatal cancer" is just more of his self-serving squish tripe. The "fatal cancer" has been his group of ideologues and President Bush who've pushed one failed policy after another, interventionism, amnesty, easy credit, diversity-lite, and "national greatness". In fact, McCain is Brooks' man. Brooks has had a man-crush on Johnny Mac for over a decade. Now that his ideal candidate is sucking wind, David wants to pin it all on the one person who's given this awful campaign a bit of life, mistaken though her selection was.

Brooks is truly a worm, no one you'd want to share a foxhole with--not that there's any danger of that. David prefers to have other people fight his wars.

I think you hit the nail on the head in your last paragraph, Rod.

All the people arguing if I'm right or wrong...are wrong. You're all too late.

I was talking about health care reform during the 1992 election. You know, one of the campaign issues. Bill and Hillary were for it, Republicans were against it. (I did say '1992' instead of '1993'.)

I don't know where Don't Ask Don't Tell came up in that, but I remember that Clinton had a sane position on that until the Republicans hounded him into a new one. (Some of the objection to, incidentally, would have been called treasonous by the military if he'd been a Republican.) I'm pretty certain that it didn't start until after he'd been elected. Or, if it started before, I simply was not aware of it. (I was only 14.)

The Health Care issued lasted longer, or, to rephrase, Clinton took longer to 'triangulate' the issue into exactly what the Republicans wanted, but I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about when they showed up, or rather, when Republican objection to them showed up.

This thread is interesting as much for what people are not saying as for what they are saying. If I am understanding Brooks's assertion, it is that the conservative movement -- or at least its mainstream -- has somehow ceased to celebrate ideas and celebrate learning, and that Palin's popularity embodies the end of that. Some folks here have spent some time personally attacking Brooks (about whom I don't care one way or the other), but no one, as far as I can see, has tried to refute his essential point.

Put another way, if Brooks is wrong, then show me by pointing out where in the conservative movement ideas and learning are being celebrated. And, if they are being celebrated, why doesn't there seem to be evidence of that in the Republican party?

David Brooks has nothing interesting or insightful to say.

Just Some Guy:

Palin represents those who are a. socially conservative; b. fiscally conservative; and c. hawkish on foreign affairs. This is the Regan formula. Brooks, on the other hand, disagrees with a. and thinks that Republicans should compromise on b. and c. Brooks supported Giuliani. Giuliani was neither an intellectual nor an ideas man. This is not about Palin's anti-intellectualism but about her support of a political formula with which Brooks disagrees vehemently. His formula flopped with Giuliani, and was about to flop with McCain's pre-Palin campaign. He's ticked off now that Palin seems to be improving McCain's poll numbers.

jsog,

I think you mean JimN, not AnotherBeliever, and, yeah, it was a scummy comment.

It has been consistently clear that the majority of US citizens have rejected the criminal enterprise known as the Bush/Cheney/Rove social experiment, which has combined a unique blend of authoritarianism, fear-mongering, jingoism and incompetence. Yet at the end, the joke that is Sarah Palin, who is not even qualified enough to give a press conference for crying out loud (something that has more to do with places like North Korea and Iran than the US -- sorry, Ahmedinijad has actually given MORE press conferences than Palin since her nomination) -- Palin is whipping crowds into a hate-mongered frenzy with dubious assertions and barely disguised racism.

Have any of you Republican supporters stopped to think -- what if McCain/Palin were to win this way? What if, despite a consistent Obama lead this election, their hateful lies stirred enough racists and xenophobes to elect the right-wing ticket? Is that any way to win? What do you think will happen with the majority of people who respect Obama, who think he is a decent man and will be a good leader? It will be ugly, I can tell you that. And McCain and Palin and their hateful enablers will have full ownership of whatever tragedy ensues. Do you think they could govern, having won in such a dishonest and misleading manner? Have they even thought beyond election day to what it would do to this country if they won in this way? We should all pray Obama wins, because McCain and Palin's rash, erratic and foolish smears will lead to tragedy should they squeak out a victory in this small-minded, breathtakinglyl immoral way.

I absolutely do not hate Palin or her supporters. I have lots of social conservative friends, close ones that I love and admire. I respect the principles the movement is based on, even if I don't agree with them. Where it is right now, though, is scary. People at Palin rallies are yelling at reporters, calling Obama a treasonous traitor. Palin's saying Obama doesn't support the troops, doesn't love the country. Someone at one of her rallies said, "kill him." She said nothing in response. Someone else told a black camera man, "sit down, boy." Palin is blaming her inadequacies on MSM outrage and unfairness, and people at her rallies are extremely angry. That's where the hate is. It's getting crazy, and we've seen where this leads.

"Save us, O Smart Ones, from our silly ideas of faith and family, hard work and common sense that this false prophet Palin represents."

I have nothing against faith, family, hard work, and common sense, but they're not ideas per se. Invoking them this way is, as Rod said, mere sloganeering.

I think Sarah Palin is a refreshing change in politics, and I think here ideas if implemented would help the country. Away with the we're smarter than everyone else elitism of the pundits. What good are they? How do they help anyone?

The press has been unfair to Sarah Palin? What a joke. She can't even give a press conference. That's the sort of strong-arm tactics they use in banana republics. How could she ever be vice-president, let alone president, if she can't even answer a few questions from the press? Oh that's right -- after the disaster of even the softball questions lobbed by Katie Couric, the McCain campaign is scared to let her off the leash. Her mouth moves way faster than her brain, and it terrifies them.

I think Sarah Palin is a refreshing change in politics, and I think here ideas if implemented would help the country. Away with the we're smarter than everyone else elitism of the pundits. What good are they? How do they help anyone?

Which exactly ideas are you talking about? She is ignorent and she is proud of it. Her rallies remind me what I read in books about communist Russia and communist China: elitism (education) is bad.

The only thing that scares me more than McCain's presidency is Palin's presidency.

This is the take-away I get from McCain/Palin's switch to race-baiting, hate-mongering -- McCain knows he is almost certainly going to lose. So instead of staying on the issues, and retiring with a little dignity and honor, he goes full-Rove -- smearing and lying and whipping up the under-educated, ill-informed, impressionable "base" -- the rubes that actually believe this "terrorist" nonsense. And I believe he's doing it out of spite -- that if he can't win, he's going to wreck Obama's chances of governing effectively, because McCain is sowing these seeds of discontent and suspicion. So in the "worst economic disaster of our time," instead of contributing to a solution, McCain would rather see the country flounder just because his party isn't in power. Rod hinted at something similar in his post the other day -- at least the Democrats will be stuck trying to fix the mess, which probably can't be effectively fixed, so the stain will be on "that one."

Country first? It's always been about power first with the Republicans, country be damned. The fact that it's so predictable makes it all the sadder.

"We should all pray Obama wins, because McCain and Palin's rash, erratic and foolish smears will lead to tragedy should they squeak out a victory in this small-minded, breathtakinglyl immoral way."

Talk about politics of fear. Vote for Obama or there will be hell to pay? Nice. And small-minded and breathtakingly immoral, Roger.

Put another way, the win-at-all-costs approach of the rabidly right wing consistently fails to think ahead; that is, thinking about what it would mean to win, if it means winning IN THIS WAY. Nothing good can come of it. It's a rotten seed that will only grow a hideously deformed plant.

I live in a suburb near Cleveland, OH. McCain/Palin were in Strongsville yesterday. There is a video tape (which I am sure you can all find by now) where people actually believe that Obama is a terrorist. It is downright frightening that this campaign has become a lynch mob.

McCain sure doesn't have a great track record on whom he hangs out with either. I have to say that it will be a long long time before I can ever push the lever for one of them again. I am not saying that the Dems are any better, but the Republicans have become despicable.

anonmom: That's what I am talking about. That is what a McCain/Palin win would legitimize at this point -- winning by accusing your African-American opponent of racist-tinged terrorism. And it is hardly small-minded and immoral to point that out.

If McCain ever had any honor (which is subject to doubt), he has lost it now, no matter which way this election goes.

Did anyone catch Michelle Obama on Larry King last night? She was so gracious when asked about how she felt about how McCain/Palin/McCain's wife were handling their campaign, etc. She is first class in my book.

It always strikes me that the people who claim to be Christians (I mean this by making it part of why they should be voted in office) end up looking like the most un-Christian people. I saw Ann Coulter on TBN once when she was promoting a book. They asked her about how ofter she prays and what does she pray about. Her answers sounded like the answers that Katie Couric got from Palin. Remember, by her definition she considers herself Christian.

That is another reason I left the Rep party. The RR looks scary, sounds grumpy & crazy, and are the poorest representatives of Christ I've ever seen. When I read this blog (which I do daily) I STILL cannot get over how mean & vicious the people who identify themselves as Republican Christians are.

For those of you who believe in God you have to ask yourself if what you are saying is in anyway keeping with how he would want you to act & speak.

Rod,
I just want to say thanks for running the only intelligent discourse on American politics I've found on the Web. It is very refreshing to see reasonable (not intellectual) people from all sides passionate about political differences in an unobtrusive manner.

I hope your efforts gain support in returning accountability and true conservatism to the republican movement.

That's the sort of Change We Need.

Sarah Palin deserves a lot of credit for holding her ground, that I will give her. She is, indeed, a tough woman, but she is not ready to be the Vice President of the United States.

The Republicans made a HUGE mistake with John McCain; Ron Paul would have been much better. Why are Americans so fickle, so afraid of sound principles that would help our country truly? It would have been a much more interesting race, that is for sure.

On another front: why are folks so terrified of open debates? Third party candidates should be heard and have a chance to stand against the Republican and Democratic nominees.

Your memory is still wrong because health care was not particularly identified as Hillary's issue until she was made head of the commission after he took office. And in any event, what could "Hillary's Health Care" possibly have meant in the context of a campaign and what could "shooting [it] down" possibly have meant in that context, except defeating Clinton outright (which is not what happened)?

What on earth does that have to do with anything? I called it Hillary's Health Care because that's what everyone calls it at this point in time, regardless of the fact that, indeed, it wasn't specifically identified with her until well after the election.

Your memory is still wrong because Republicans didn't "shoot down" the plan until 1994. There was a broad consensus that something needed to be done throughout 1992 and 1993 (that's all in the Fallows Atlantic article here.)

Yeah, there was a 'broad consensus' that was exactly slightly to the right of where the Democrats were, and continued to be to the right of them for years, regardless of how they moved.

And I'm sorry that you think 'shot down' meant 'stopped'. That was probably at least somewhat unclear, but I think I clarified it just fine.

You see, what you failed to notice is I wasn't talking about Republican politicians. I was talking about 'conservatives', and there was a reason I said things like 'you guys' and 'you people' and 'you can't elect conservatives'. You guys. The people reading this. Conservatives. Republican voters.

You guys attacked Democrat's (I guess I'll call it) Health Care plan of giving everyone 'last ditch' insurance, and that was fine and understandable to me, in fact, I mostly agreed. And then you guys attacked Clinton overturning the ban on gays in the military, because, apparently, we don't want to make soldiers uncomfortable, which I could see was possibly the most absurd rationale ever.

But it is one on which the facts are crystal clear and uncontroversial, and on a fact that you depended on to construct a false narrative (the "Amazing Grace / I-used-to-be-a-sinner-before-I-saw-the-Light" tale).

If someone thinks that was some sort of 'redemption' tale or whatever, they are very confused. I was a Republican and/or Libertarian for almost a decade after that. I didn't start disagreeing in principle with conservatives until 2002 or so, when I got out of my little college bubble.(1)

I thought most of what the Republican Congress did during the Clinton Administration was crap. I was simply trying to point out the last time 'conservatives voters' had a principled stand against expanding the government. I was trying to be nice and mention the 'moment of contemplation' you demanded we take in 1992, the first and only one I remember, because after that it was all attacks on personal issues and crazy religious right incitement.

1) And there is no 'tale' there, I simply started seeing things that the government could improve, and at that time me, and the Republican party, which was backing Bush's Iraq War, were having disagreements, and I had realized the Libertarians were clearly insane a few years earlier, so I decided to go check out the 'enemy' and discovered we actually had a lot more in common than I thought. That is the sum of my 'conversion experience', and there's an interesting question there of how much my political beliefs drove me to the Democratic party, and how much my being driven to the Democratic party ended up influencing my political beliefs, but this is not the time or place.