Video: The obligatory “David Brooks calls Palin a cancer on the party” clip
posted at 5:17 pm on October 8, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
You read the Headline item, now see the video! His point about anti-intellectualism being a cancer is well taken; attributing that prejudice to Palin, whom we’ve known for fully six weeks, isn’t. What’s most irritating about this, I think, isn’t the fact that he’s underwhelmed with how she’s performed, it’s the fact that he had almost nothing but praise for her in his op-ed about the debate last week. Quote:
Still, this debate was about Sarah Palin. She held up her end of an energetic debate that gave voters a direct look at two competing philosophies. She established debating parity with Joe Biden. And in a country that is furious with Washington, she presented herself as a radical alternative.
By the end of the debate, most Republicans were not crouching behind the couch, but standing on it. The race has not been transformed, but few could have expected as vibrant and tactically clever a performance as the one Sarah Palin turned in Thursday night.
Vibrant, clever — and a cancer on the party. Funny how that last bit slipped in when he was among “equals” from The Atlantic, where the maternity of Trig Palin remains a hot topic, but not when writing for a mass audience. That feels … familiar somehow.
I know people respond viscerally to ‘Cuda insults so let’s have civility in the comments, please.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
And David Brooks is healthy for the party…how?
Hannibal Smith on October 8, 2008 at 5:19 PM
David Brooks: the Liberal intelligentsia’s favorite blow-up sex doll
ManlyRash on October 8, 2008 at 5:19 PM
What a weenie.
benrand on October 8, 2008 at 5:19 PM
But, in his view, McCain is the optimal republican?
lorien1973 on October 8, 2008 at 5:20 PM
A strictly enforced demand for civility would significantly reduce the traffic on this thread, I suspect. In fact, even the request is a bit of a buzzkill.
CK MacLeod on October 8, 2008 at 5:21 PM
David Brooks should go back to writing pithy pop-sociology books and leave the commenting on politics to those who know something about it.
Illinidiva on October 8, 2008 at 5:21 PM
He’s marginalize himself. No comment from me is needed to do it further.
Spirit of 1776 on October 8, 2008 at 5:23 PM
Yep. Some of us are in a crappy mood after night’s debate.
Let us work out, AP. Brooks seems like a good victim.
lorien1973 on October 8, 2008 at 5:23 PM
NYT and WaPo don’t have conservative columnists, they have conservatives Alan Colmes’ who are only there to look retarded
lodge on October 8, 2008 at 5:24 PM
We common, filthy, ignorant, unwashed masses beg to differ. Is that civil enough for you?
bloggless on October 8, 2008 at 5:25 PM
David Brooks is happy to welcome his socialist overlord. It might help the guy to cross the Hudson every once in a while.
Mr. D on October 8, 2008 at 5:25 PM
FTW!
Hoodlumman on October 8, 2008 at 5:25 PM
[ManlyRash on October 8, 2008 at 5:19 PM]
The NYT got just the what they bargained for with their diversity hire, it just question now whether it was a fox, chameleon or lemming.
Dusty on October 8, 2008 at 5:26 PM
See? And now I’ll be forever wondering what the non-civil version of that comment was.
omriceren on October 8, 2008 at 5:28 PM
Okay, Allah, you want civility? Brooks called Palin a cancer. I call Brooks a carbuncle. That work for ya?
Mr. D on October 8, 2008 at 5:28 PM
Wow, he probably just doubled his invites on shows where he can be the lone token “Republican”. If there is one kind of Republican the media loves it is the conservative loathing type. May he make so much money that it will enable him to retire early.
Cindy Munford on October 8, 2008 at 5:28 PM
pompous dork
CinnamongirlUF on October 8, 2008 at 5:28 PM
Gosh Darn Him, I don’t think I care for that one bit. Shoot! What a dum dum face.
kahall on October 8, 2008 at 5:28 PM
Brooks is a walking circumcision.
David in ATL on October 8, 2008 at 5:29 PM
… I knew Mr. Buckley, and you sir, are no Buckley!
Thought I’d give it a try. … It feels good but somewhat lacking.
AeroSpear on October 8, 2008 at 5:29 PM
David Brooks is now officially dead to me.
The dude’s heading down the David Gergen/Kevin Phillips road, soon to be everyone’s favorite pretend Republican.
DelD on October 8, 2008 at 5:29 PM
Beltway Republicans are our problem.
p0s3r on October 8, 2008 at 5:30 PM
Cancer, my ass. Chemotherapy. If she’s toxic to the party then it deserves to die.
As for her “scorn[ing] ideas entirely” – yeah, like honesty in government, energy independence, federalism and state control over resources, and a little intellectual honesty about climate change?
Please explain to me what better ideas either of the Presidential candidates have. I’m waiting.
JEM on October 8, 2008 at 5:31 PM
The David Brookes must be forced over to the Democrats where they belong.
TheBigOldDog on October 8, 2008 at 5:31 PM
I don’t think he’s attributing that prejudice to her, but rather to those among her supporters who elevate her
mediocrityhockey-mom-osity as an American ideal while crying elitism about anyone who claims to value lengthy experience or education.Big S on October 8, 2008 at 5:31 PM
I like how Brooks referenced how Obama knew who Niebuhr was. As a member of the Socialist Party in his youth I’m sure that he related with the guy.
However, Niebuhr’s later philosophy was critical for the development of the Christian “Just War” theory. Obama doesn’t believe in that obviously and what Brooks quoted about Niebuhr was “vacuous and phony”.
darclon on October 8, 2008 at 5:31 PM
Brooks is a fraud; a big-government-loving “conservative” (sic).
I wonder what he thinks of Reagan, who was reviled by the Left as being stupid. Yet look at the kind of leadership that he provided. These two runni9ng for the Presidency are no worldbeaters, brain-power wise. not exactly Krell material, to use a SciFi phrase.
I’ve seen some of the strangest things this election cycle, so-called conservatives and libertarians who have jumped wholeheartedly into the “big government” lovefest. Peggy Noonan is a part of this trend as well, and I’ve had doubts about some of even Newt Gingrich’s statements a while back.
Levin calls Brooks a “phony conservative”, which is as precise a definition of Brooks (and many others) as you can find.
It’s up to the NRA and Sarah Palin and the republican core voters as well as truly conservative congressmen and Senators to stop this “slouching into Babylon”, even as we seem to be facing a national socialist fiasco that will certainly dwarf this coming 2-year recession.
TexasJew on October 8, 2008 at 5:31 PM
[/thread]
spmat on October 8, 2008 at 5:32 PM
Slowly but surely since he joined the Times he has lost his sense of direction. Now he is around the bend. Personally I would not be surprised that women like Plain scare the hell out of him.
patrick neid on October 8, 2008 at 5:32 PM
Yesterday I read a speech on energy given by Palin about a month before McCain picked her. She’s anything but anti-intellectual.
Oh, and Brooks is … well, it starts with a ‘p’ and ends with an ‘ussy’.
thirteen28 on October 8, 2008 at 5:32 PM
“Hello I’m David Brooks. No I’m not a conservative but I play one on TV.”
There I said it again. We may plug in any other number of talking heads who partake in these ritualized televised farces passed off political discourse, “Hello I’m Peggy Noonan. No I’m not actually (yuck, pew!) a conservative but I play one on TV….”
Nyog_of_the_Bog on October 8, 2008 at 5:32 PM
Corsi says he has emails a strategy document sent between Obama(or Obama staffers) and Odinga…
There’s one thing I want to go research myself and that is whether or not the troopergate thing is a setup… I think Palin innocent but did enough so that if the investigation was stacked they could find her guilty… somebody needs to look hard into the police union there, hollis, etc because I don’t beleive for a second that Palin wasn’t on Axelrod’s swoT chart… Team Obama contacted the police union, but then they backtracked and said that it was for an endorsement but that they don’t endorce federal candidates… but that is a lie since they have endorsed a Senator…
ninjapirate on October 8, 2008 at 5:33 PM
MAKE me. This pigdog’s head should be mounted on a plaque and hung from a wall in Palin’s place.
Spanglemaker on October 8, 2008 at 5:33 PM
A cancer on the current GOP? The one that grew government, engaged in an orgy of deficit spending, and threw away a generation’s worth of good will by engaging in widespread corruption and influence peddling as bad as anything the Democrats managed to pull during their years in power? THAT GOP?
If so, hide the scalpel, pour the chemo down the drain, lock up the radioactive isotopes and let the illness run its course.
Planet Moron on October 8, 2008 at 5:33 PM
I think that this reflects a schism between the Beltway conservatives, and the Middle American conservative ethic. There seems to be some concern among the punditocracy over whether Palin’s ascension reflects a groundswell of Joe Six-packs, ignorant of classical liberalism, but vehemently opposed to Lefty liberalism. I think the Noonans and Brooks of the Right (for what they’re worth) see rural, populistic conservatism as the end result of the obsessive focus on the Everyman. They’re scared that their personal stake the movement will be pushed aside for the rubes in the Heartland.
Unfortunately for them, conservatism is, at its heart, a populist ideology. That is, it’s not the province of unions and class warfare – conservatism is held as correct by so many precisely because it advocates a commitment to First Principles, American greatness and a faith in the American people to make the right choices. Anytime the people get too far gone in reasserting their status as a people of freedom, the elites on BOTH sides begin to get nervous.
Brooks and Noonan don’t hate Palin herself. Like the liberals, they are fearful that her greatest strength is re-igniting the conservative fire at the community level, in a way not seen since Reagan. They want to control the conservative base with a leash…Palin wants to let the base speak through her, to the entrenched elites. That frightens the hell out of them, I think.
Flyover Country on October 8, 2008 at 5:33 PM
[/postscript]
spmat on October 8, 2008 at 5:33 PM
No… Palin is the embodiment of everything the party SHOULD BE but no longer is. (i.e.: Reaganesque conservatism)
Geesh!!!
ErinF on October 8, 2008 at 5:33 PM
And everybody who knows Obama all have these stories to tell about his capacity for social perception.
Hmmm, with That Guy’s interesting social circle, it might be in Mr. Brook’s interests to revise his remarks. It just doesn’t make much sense for a drooling sycophant to raise questions about That Guy’s “social perception” regarding with whom he has chosen to have lasting personal associations.
Tongueboy on October 8, 2008 at 5:34 PM
How can I keep my job with Barry in the WH. Pucker up! Plant them hard!
Limerick on October 8, 2008 at 5:34 PM
There is a reason she is so much more popular than McCain! Conservative Americans are craving what she represents.
ErinF on October 8, 2008 at 5:34 PM
David Brooks is with the New York Times. Of course, he loves the glitter the left offers. Typical media and they actually don’t know where they are heading – the cliff!
mariloubaker on October 8, 2008 at 5:35 PM
Heh.
Darth Executor on October 8, 2008 at 5:35 PM
Agreed and Agreed.
phronesis on October 8, 2008 at 5:35 PM
So who is David Brooks, and why should I give a rat’s gaseous emission about what he says?
rmgraha on October 8, 2008 at 5:35 PM
Dear Mr Brooks,
We aint ‘anti ideas’. We’re anti bad ideas.
Partisan on October 8, 2008 at 5:35 PM
How many people at the event do you think chuckled knowingly at that anecdote, then ran home and googled “Reinhold Niebuhr”?
My theory is that Brooks seems himself in Obama. Of course he is attracted.
MayBee on October 8, 2008 at 5:36 PM
David Brooks has a forked tongue, and I don’t even want to think about tongues and the Atlantic.
RushBaby on October 8, 2008 at 5:38 PM
The cancer on the party has been the damn intellectuals who refuse to listen to the base on spending and liberal ideas.
Oh and it’s a cancer on America as well.
roux on October 8, 2008 at 5:38 PM
Thread winner in the second post.
Lehosh on October 8, 2008 at 5:38 PM
Beltway elitists, it doesn’t matter what party they belong to, they are all the same.. paging Peggy.. Some bloggers thrown in for good measure as well.
redrock on October 8, 2008 at 5:38 PM
Let’s test Mr. Brooks’ theory:
For a day, let’s swap names on the Republican ticket to Palin/McCain. Or better yet, let’s change it to Palin/Jindal. Let’s then watch the shock-n-awe of the MSM and Brooks at the skyrocketing poll numbers of the GOP ticket.
I find it strange and very grotesque that people have such hatred for a woman simply because she practices a true pro-life agenda. Very weird.
ErinF on October 8, 2008 at 5:39 PM
I want McCain to win for the simple reason of stuffing it in the faces of all these conservative elite a$$hole nay sayers & the outrageous liberal jerks. Does this fool realize that it is possible to be a conservative and not be an overly intellectual punk. The most basic things in life don’t require half the deep thought these people profess. After all wasn’t it these same “economic intellectuals” who got us into a mess that a 14 year old with common sense could see would happen.
Then this idiot got a hard-on for Obama because he happened to be able to discuss some book that they both read? How deep of a thinker could Brooks possibly be?
titus_pullo on October 8, 2008 at 5:40 PM
ManlyRash, you are an asset to our HotAir community.
hoosiermama on October 8, 2008 at 5:42 PM
Brooks plays Dr. Robert Stadler.
JiangxiDad on October 8, 2008 at 5:42 PM
As Sarah says, she isn’t one of those guys who says something to one group of people and another thing to another.
Brooks is — and that’s the only kind of person who makes him comfortable.
someone on October 8, 2008 at 5:43 PM
See. This is the problem. The RNC has been killing itself for years. That’s why we are about to get a Communist POTUS.
FiveWays on October 8, 2008 at 5:44 PM
He’s a RINO and an uppity horse’s backside, God bless ‘em.
tru2tx on October 8, 2008 at 5:46 PM
Can Axelrod see the future? If so, McCain may really be screwed. The troopergate investigation began long before Palin was picked, and it was well known that it had the potential to really mess with the campaign if it came to anything. Heck, I even said something about it here on HotAir as soon as I heard that people were pushing Palin’s name into the VP conversation. If this whole thing blows up in McCain and Palin’s faces, Lesson One for 2012 will be to avoid choosing a VP nominee who’s under an ethics investigation.
Big S on October 8, 2008 at 5:46 PM
Apparently its vital that we have a tent so big, that we want people who will bash our own nominee and VP pick.
Great, huh? The democrats love guys like this.
wise_man on October 8, 2008 at 5:46 PM
Meanwhile ACORN is being investigated for voter fraud AGAIN, this time in Nevada, I don’t know about other networks but Fox has been running with the story all morning, including discussing similar issues in 10 other states over the last several months. According to the organization they have turned in 1,271,150 voter registrations in 17 states so far this cycle through the end of September. A representative from the State of Nevada in an interview this morning noted that in the last batch from ACORN out of about 2500 submissions half were blatantly fraudulent. Will ACORN ever be held to account? Don’t hold your breath.
- KnightHawk (Polipundit)
MB4 on October 8, 2008 at 5:47 PM
This is the same doofus that praised China’s socialist government for their organization in the summer olympics.
You are no republican Brooks.
jencab on October 8, 2008 at 5:47 PM
Lawl.
yessir.
wise_man on October 8, 2008 at 5:47 PM
Theory: Obama waving his tongue about Niebuhr for Brooks.
Practice: Palin cleaning up those in the Alaska GOP corrupted by the exercise of power.
Which ability matters more in office?
JEM on October 8, 2008 at 5:49 PM
Well bless his heart. D*ckweed.
TugboatPhil on October 8, 2008 at 5:49 PM
You should also understand that Brooks and Noonan of course, depend on liberals literally for their livelihood and are betting on an Obama realignment which will dominate their existence for the remainder of their careers.
Nyog_of_the_Bog on October 8, 2008 at 5:49 PM
McCain should hold a press conference and denounce ACORN as a threat to American democracy, and a cancer upon it, and demand that Obama do the same.
MB4 on October 8, 2008 at 5:51 PM
Is Chris Mathews now going to take the title of “the greatest columnists of our times” he gave to Peggy Noonan, after she declared that she doesn’t know yet who she’s going to vote for, and give it to David Brooks? I know that’s what the “conservative” intelligentsia is really after.
neuquenguy on October 8, 2008 at 5:51 PM
Awesome response.
wise_man on October 8, 2008 at 5:53 PM
Yeah… that’ll happen…
ErinF on October 8, 2008 at 5:53 PM
And this after Hitchins called palin a bible thumper hick in his article today.
These two never had our best interest at heart, why so many HA people got so gagag over them to begin with is beyond me.
kangjie on October 8, 2008 at 5:54 PM
Do you know what a SWOT analysis is? People had been talking about her being a potential VP candidate forever… the idea that they were completely taken off guard by the pick is ridiculous…
ninjapirate on October 8, 2008 at 5:55 PM
Brooks is no republican, he’s a Richard Cranium!
Liberty or Death on October 8, 2008 at 5:57 PM
That’s a very good question, kangjie.
wise_man on October 8, 2008 at 5:57 PM
How prescient of AP.
Baphomet on October 8, 2008 at 5:59 PM
Brooks is the smegma of the party.
Blake on October 8, 2008 at 6:00 PM
People are strange, but many of our Republican leaders are strangers.
Griz on October 8, 2008 at 6:02 PM
Hitchins is a bomb thrower. Sometimes he hits you, sometimes he hits the other guy. You just never know.
MB4 on October 8, 2008 at 6:02 PM
STUPID MOTHERF**^ING BROOKS CAN BLOW IT OUT HIS SAGGY FLESHED #$%^&* #$%^&* #$%^&* #$%^&* #$%^&* #$%^&* #$%^&* #$%^&* #$%^&* #$%^&* #$%^&* #$%^&* #$%^&* #$%^&* #$%^&* #$%^&* #$%^&* #$%^&* #$%^&* #$%^&* #$%^&* #$%^&* #$%^&* #$%^&* #$%^&* #$%^&* #$%^&* #$%^&* #$%^&* #$%^&* #$%^&* #$%^&* #$%^&* #$%^&* #$%^&* #$%^&* #$%^&* #$%^&* #$%^&* #$%^&*
Ok I’m done.
Lincoln on October 8, 2008 at 6:03 PM
Or denounce ACORN and its former lawyer, organizer, teacher, and financier Barack Obama, along with the stooges in Barack Obama’s Democratic Party who wanted to funnel millions upon millions in its direction.
Sort of like Monday’s speech – squared.
CK MacLeod on October 8, 2008 at 6:03 PM
Heh, Blake that was truly disgusting and I loved it, but are you sure that’s not a picture of Madonna’s v-jay-jay?
Send it to Dennis Rodman, he’d know…
Liberty or Death on October 8, 2008 at 6:05 PM
The left, being scared of Sarah Palin, has now progressed to them being petrified of her suggesting that the left still isn’t sure if Obama is going to win, and are pulling out all the stops to convince the un-decided that she’s the embodiment of the anti-Christ.
pocomoco on October 8, 2008 at 6:05 PM
Kathleen, meet David.
David, meet Kathleen.
Kathleen and David, meet Andrew.
Andrew, meet Kathleen and David.
Andrew, Kathleen and David, meet Linda
Linda, meet David, Andrew and Kathleen.
I’m sure you all have loads to talk about!
Kensington on October 8, 2008 at 6:06 PM
Aw, Blake, did you really have to go there?
I should have looked at the little link box in the bottom left of my Firefox browser.
Per AP, I’m not allowed to cuss you out, but your uppance will come. Funny comment, by the way.
Flyover Country on October 8, 2008 at 6:07 PM
I was in the Reagan White House, David Brooks was a laughingstock. One of the kindest things I remember being said about him in private was that he was a “legend in his own mind.” The others were on the line of that he was living proof that education is wasted on the deaf and the blind.
Jdripper on October 8, 2008 at 6:07 PM
Hitchens is a brilliant writer. Isn’t that enough?
RightOFLeft on October 8, 2008 at 6:08 PM
I don’t know. His back and forth sounds a lot like you, AP. Just saying.
Sultry Beauty on October 8, 2008 at 6:09 PM
People loved Hitchens because he supported (still supports) the Iraq war and some tried to pretend he wasn’t a Marxist.
aengus on October 8, 2008 at 6:11 PM
Everything David Brooks will ever have to say about anything is right here.
David Brooks is patently lying when he claims that he does not oppose everything that Ronald Reagan ever stood for.
David Brooks is, however, telling the truth when he says he believes that everyone is “anti-intellectual” until he personally pronounces otherwise.
Unlike Mr. Brooks, I have no desire whatsover to exhume William F. Buckley’s body, shove my hand up his ass, and use him as a meat puppet to precisely reverse the meaning of one of his most famous quotes.
No, I do not presume to guess, let alone wordsmith, what the great Mr. Buckley might conclude regarding Brooks’ latest bout with AIDS-induced dementia.
However, I can tell you how his response would likely BEGIN. With those immortal words: “Now listen you God-damned queer…”
logis on October 8, 2008 at 6:13 PM
I think Sarah Palin has those [anti-idea] prejudices.
Brooks doesn’t actually know what Palin thinks but he’s prepared to guess nonetheless.
I saw one of Sarah Palin’s friends, or perhaps it was her sister, being interviewed. She said that as a child Sarah always had her nose in a book. This does not sound to me like she is anti-intellectual.
The fact that Sarah Palin has a great deal of common sense makes her a populist but it does not follow from that she is anti-intellectual.
The fact that David Brooks makes assumptions about Sarah Pinto makes him the anti-intellectual. This would come as a surprise to him but it is nevertheless true.
And the fact that the mainstream media thinks it’s quite fine to have a socialist as the next POTUS does not make them intellectuals. To the contrary, it makes them idiots, who know nothing about history.
Basilsbest on October 8, 2008 at 6:13 PM
Blame Brooks. He was the one who went with the disease analogy. And, I didn’t know it was a word that applied to female anatomy. I was wrong. Thanks.
Blake on October 8, 2008 at 6:15 PM
To the Noonan’s and Brooks (and any other fake-conservatives or leftist Repubs.) of the world,
Sarah Palin is a threat to their power because just like in Alaska, her power comes from the grass-roots up and bypasses the MSM elitist power-holders.
Brooks is some kinda freak of what I cannot figure out?
What the hell is he?
Noonan is just another columnist that has to write stuff she doesn’t believe to make a living, but boy does she hate that she doesn’t run Palin’s show.
Sapwolf on October 8, 2008 at 6:19 PM
Hey Brooks if you were half as smart as you think you are .Then you would be a half ass smart ass!!!!
thmcbb on October 8, 2008 at 6:20 PM
Doesn’t Brooks have a Georgetown circle jerk to attend?
csdeven on October 8, 2008 at 6:21 PM
Why are liberals so full of hate for those they cannot stand in the shadow of. It has to be deep rooted insecurity to be jealous of so many people. He knows he is inferior and draws attention to himself with attacks on those who are novices in dealing with human scum as he is. Brooks is truly pathetic.
volsense on October 8, 2008 at 6:21 PM
It still makes me sad.
When I was in school, I used to read the NYT Op-Ed page every day. Will Safire and George Will were my introduction to conservative thought. Yes, I was a reactionary lefty at the time, but the seeds of sensible thought were planted daily by their fine writing.
The New York Times used to be a beautiful thing, and I’m sorry to see it gone.
(And sorrier still that I just can’t justify paying the subscription fee, and supporting that filth, to get the crossword puzzle…)
ClintACK on October 8, 2008 at 6:22 PM
David Brooks is to Reagan as Reverend Sharpton is to MLK.
csdeven on October 8, 2008 at 6:23 PM
Hitchens must be conflicted. He’s one of the few leftists who hasn’t been prepared to consign Iraqis to the hell of dealing with the Islamofascists. Barack Obama, the Socialist, has no such compunctions. He pretends that he would use US forces to prevent genocide in Darfur. But he would not lift a finger and in fact opposed helping the Iraqis who were fighting to resist the mass killing of innocents which was being carried out in that country by al Qaeda prior to the Surge.
Americans will discover too late that Barack Obama is in a league of his own.
Basilsbest on October 8, 2008 at 6:24 PM
One good point we can look forward to about an economic downturn is that it just might hasten the demise of the NYT, as it’s currently constituted, before the 2012 race.
Unless a Bloomberg throws them a lifeline. Or Murdoch. Or some Russian oligarch.
Or unless they decide to stir up some paper sales by tearing big holes in President Obama.
JEM on October 8, 2008 at 6:26 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »