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 | regular view
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: « Previous 1 2
YEP. I know I cannot prove it, but I’d bet even money Noonan had an abortion when much younger. I don’t know, but I suspect it. If she has, she may not have come to terms with it yet, and Palin’s rise just reopens terrible psychological wounds for millions of American women who don’t want to be reminded indirectly by Sarah that they made the wrong choice.
Sapwolf on October 8, 2008 at 6:28 PM
Who’s afraid of Sarah Palin?
Crooks and liars.
Who cares any longer what David Brooks says?
maverick muse on October 8, 2008 at 6:28 PM
Why should we pay any attention to this gay jackass?
bill30097 on October 8, 2008 at 6:28 PM
At around 1:22-1:26…does he say Reagan celebrated ideas and learning and thereby indicates Gov. Palin does not and by proxy neither do we, the grassroots?
I never really believed Rush when he said the blue-bloods hate us. I no longer doubt him. Time to let the vinegar sink to the bottom and the oil/grease of the wheels of the party rise to the top.
SouthernGent on October 8, 2008 at 6:30 PM
Basilsbest – “A Jacobin in a ministry will not be a Jacobin minister.”
If Obama takes office and does what he’s been claiming during the general election that he’d do, the Obamabots will go bonkers.
If he takes off the mask and reverts to leftist form, everyone else will.
He’s pushed his rhetoric so far to the center that it’s truly amazing anyone will actually believe him. But apparently some folks do.
JEM on October 8, 2008 at 6:31 PM
SouthernGent on October 8, 2008 at 6:30 PM
never doubt Rush- he is on the money all of the time.
kareyk on October 8, 2008 at 6:38 PM
Brooks should be an authority on cancers because he sees the effects of what it can do to the human mind every titime he looks in the mirrors. Brooks is not worthy of the opportuniyty to kiss Bill Buckley’s backside. Just another name dropping liberal trying to associate with those so vastly superior in stature than they could ever be.
volsense on October 8, 2008 at 6:38 PM
Thats not a very good analogy. For it to ring true David Brooks would have be espousing extremist versions of Reagan’s ideas – say several new arms races against multiple enemies simultaneously.
aengus on October 8, 2008 at 6:38 PM
Someone who believes he can prove a point by saying he’s an “intellectual” isn’t just an idiot – he’s the worst kind of idiot.
logis on October 8, 2008 at 6:39 PM
He’s not gay. He’s Canadian (and grew up in NYC.) Understandable mistake.
JiangxiDad on October 8, 2008 at 6:39 PM
What is wrong with people like this? Just because Palin went to a state university and does not come from a certain class of people does not make her a cancer.
In fact I would say that is this kind of attitude that is responsible for a lot of the socalled anti intellectual prejudices out there. I know I am becoming prejudiced myself.
Terrye on October 8, 2008 at 6:40 PM
Scumbag.
marklmail on October 8, 2008 at 6:41 PM
Isn’t it like 98.7% of the time? ;-)
SouthernGent on October 8, 2008 at 6:41 PM
1) Who cares what this zero thinks? He seems to think that we all do.
2) Speaking for the dead — like Brooks does here for Bill Buckley —
3) When has the Divine Sarah ever gone on record as having scorned any ideas? What are those ideas?
It would seem that this chic, snobbish, elite intellectual meat puppet is miffed because, more than anything, Sarah didn’t drop by and kiss his ring.
His remark about 99% of the rest of us not having political savvy or talent or whatever we’re not supposed to have is telling. He’s a faux-aristocrat in an egalitarian republic, and anywhere else — even in his native Canada, with its remnants of titles and orders — he’d be among the in-crowd. Here, he’s just another scribbler with a name a few people can recognize…oh, how it must sear his soul.
…it would seem that the elites today have withdrawn that old offer of anybody growing up to be president…now, only those who’ve been through the cursus honorum, been to the right schools, and have kissed the right butts in the media who can even campaign….
I wonder if Mr. Brooks is aware of what a boob he is….
Puritan1648 on October 8, 2008 at 6:43 PM
Tell me you’re kidding.
Its crazy that all reservations about Palin are being cast as psychological dramas (we had jealousy upthread), especially where women are concerned.
Palin is not a tragic hero in a Shakespearean play like King Lear or Othello.
aengus on October 8, 2008 at 6:43 PM
…didn’t finish #2 above…and it would’ve been so very clever, too…ah, well…such is the nature of an analog brain in a digital world….
Puritan1648 on October 8, 2008 at 6:46 PM
I hate Nina Easton. She’s an idiot. and I don’t want to hear about how you all think she’s hot.
anniekc on October 8, 2008 at 6:49 PM
A selection of a Palin bypasses the (formerly) great institutions of our country that produces our leaders. It would be like passing over West Point grads when choosing military leaders.
It grates on libs that whole segments of our population think these institutions so corrupted by liberalism (read Obama). It’s exactly the same thing that happened to their newspapers and tv stations–decent people stopped subscribing.
Is it worth scrimping and saving and sacrificing and working hard to send your kids to an ivy school, knowing the kind of indoctrination they’re going to receive?
Palin offends them on so many levels. But it has nothing to do with her–it’s that she represents that America which repudiates liberals, liberalism, and their holy institutions.
JiangxiDad on October 8, 2008 at 6:51 PM
Heh. Sucks , doesn’t it, Puritan, being born analog and dragged kicking and screaming into the digital age.
The above was not sarcasm, but empathy.
irongrampa on October 8, 2008 at 6:52 PM
David Brooks is nothing more than an elitist journalist who has just a smidgeon more sense than the average lib journalist. Still, he’s totally out of touch with real America. Just like Peggy Noonan. Drudge has a good article about some reporter who had to cover McCain after months of covering Obama, He’s polite but you don’t have to be a genius to see his point; A snob is a snob, (obama) and a real person looks beyond his own ego, (McCain). Check it out.
anniekc on October 8, 2008 at 6:53 PM
Brooks is right on the money. Goldwater and Reagan wouldn’t recognize the conservative movement of 2009, and I’m guessing neither one of them could get nominated in today’s Republican party. Palin is a phony and a prop and she’s illustrative of the sad state of affairs currently existing within the conservative movement. Hopefully, out of the ashes of the last 10-15 years will emerge a triumph of classical conservatism over the religious fundamentalism and authoritarian populism that has taken over the conservative movement and the Republican party.
dakine on October 8, 2008 at 6:55 PM
for the last time it isn’t about being against intelligence it is about those that think that our more inteeligent think they are somehow better. they are not. they were the kids were beat up on in grade school, the nerds. I din’t want a nerd leading me in grade school and I surely don’t want one leading me now.
unseen on October 8, 2008 at 6:58 PM
revenge of the Nerds. that is what the MSM has become.
unseen on October 8, 2008 at 6:59 PM
You can take the boy out of Canada, but…
ManlyRash on October 8, 2008 at 7:02 PM
Ugh. A fucking troll. I hate trolls.
ManlyRash on October 8, 2008 at 7:03 PM
Brooks writes as though someone threatened to purge his name from the invitation list of the Georgetown cocktail circuit.
petefrt on October 8, 2008 at 7:06 PM
Ugh. A fucking troll. I hate trolls.
ManlyRash on October 8, 2008 at 7:03 PM
Now just hold on there a sec…Would a Troll be able to espouse the virtues of the conservative movement with such glaring generalities???…
err…Hey, he threw Regan and Goldwater in there…and he declared Palin a phony and a prop and backed it up with 3 or 4 more sentences!!!
Troll indeed!!!!
BigWyo on October 8, 2008 at 7:09 PM
Think about it: What kind of jackass still uses the word “intellectual” as a noun in this day and age?
How bizarre is that? I suppose it made sense hundreds of years ago when only a tiny fraction of the population could get an education. It used to be that an over-privileged, inbred twit with a few years of book learning could literally “lord” it over people who spent their whole lives in a hand-to-mouth struggle for survival.
But – newsflash, Mr. Brooks – education is no longer the exception; it’s the rule. The fact that you graduated from Fancy Pants College doesn’t magically make you’re right about anything anymore. All it does is eliminate every possible excuse you could have for being wrong, save one: congenital stupidity.
logis on October 8, 2008 at 7:09 PM
*BINGO*
…she represents America…stop there….
…Brooks, the Ivy League, punditry in general (Allah the exception), and the media represent something that is at least dead, if it ever actually existed…the “best people” in charge….
Puritan1648 on October 8, 2008 at 7:17 PM
…the fact that you graduated from a prestigious school only means that you’re educated…and at great expense….
…it doesn’t mean that you’re smart.
…this guy isn’t one of the century’s great political thinkers…he wrote “Bobos in Paradise” and other pop-culture crap tarted up to look droll.
…deep….
Puritan1648 on October 8, 2008 at 7:21 PM
I hate cocktail parties only marginally less than I hate trolls.
ManlyRash on October 8, 2008 at 7:23 PM
…nope…strictly anatomical…analog neural pathways, digital environment…I blame Halliburton….
…like a Democrat trying to start a business on his own…no union…no handouts…have to make it up out of whole cloth…out of my depth….
Puritan1648 on October 8, 2008 at 7:24 PM
BigWyo on October 8, 2008 at 7:30 PM
That’s what bigots used to call “good breeding.”
Now, it’s what bigots call “intellectualism.”
logis on October 8, 2008 at 7:36 PM
…paradoxically, those who used to talk of “good breeding” were often from classes who were historically inbred….
…and they wouldn’t've accepted Brooks, a Jew, in any case….
…what the man must want is an oligarchy of intellect…a party of whatever-the-hell-he-believes-today…as his views seem to shift…a sign of no moral or political rudder….
Puritan1648 on October 8, 2008 at 7:46 PM
I’d like to see Mark Steyn and David Brooks have a nice little chat…
The Rumble in the Great White North!!!!
wait…is that racist???
BigWyo on October 8, 2008 at 7:53 PM
Palin is natural talent….her energy is scary.
She’s self made and rough around the edges.
If she immerses herself in national issues she will be formidable.
The system is skewed to the advantage of an attorney skill set.
When we see a non-attorney practicing the political craft, it’s a paradigm shift.
mylegsareswollen on October 8, 2008 at 7:54 PM
This guy had me kinda bamboozled after I watched a CSPAN speech at some Ivy League school a few weeks ago. Since then I have come to understand him a bit better. He is a cloaked, glib, scary bamboozling pseudo. How dare he make any recommendations, comments or evaluations of Conservatives or Conservatism. I am ashamed I was conned.
PaCadle on October 8, 2008 at 7:56 PM
From Wikipedia:
“In a March 2007 article published in the New York Times titled No U-Turns, Brooks explains that the Republican party must distance itself from the minimal-government conservative principles that had arisen during the Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan eras. He claims that these outdated concepts had served their purposes and should no longer be embraced by Republicans in order to win elections.”
Yet it sounds to me like he praises Reagan at around 1:35 talking about celebrating ideas and learning. It’s garbled so I’m not sure exactly what he says.
Mr_Magoo on October 8, 2008 at 8:05 PM
Oh yeah, and “He wrote a book of cultural commentary titled Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There. Brooks also writes articles and makes television appearances as a commentator on various trends in pop culture, such as internet dating.”
Well that certainly qualifies him to call Sarah “a cancer.”
Mr_Magoo on October 8, 2008 at 8:07 PM
…remember the old saying: fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
…doubt his word and keep his hands in plain sight and it’ll work out OK….
Puritan1648 on October 8, 2008 at 8:30 PM
I’m thinking Populism and Conservatism should join hands for the next 8 years. Let’s get a conservative Congress and a conservative President that looks out for the middle class.
Then Brooks would really have something to complain about.
huckleberryfriend on October 8, 2008 at 8:36 PM
Ha Ha Brooks did ya ever stop to think your in the minority?
If Sarah Palin is a cancer on the party then your a hemorrhoid!
sonnyspats1 on October 8, 2008 at 8:41 PM
Because we all know how Beltway “intellectualism” has worked bloody wonders for conservatism and the GOP, don’t we? No doubt about it, he’s right. We need more Kristol and less Palin.
Wouldn’t have it any other way, so here goes: I think that self-important, overrated, narcissist blatherati like Brooks are a cancer upon humanity, and I’m waiting impatiently for the oncologist to arrive.
There. Every bit as “civil” as he was.
Misha I on October 8, 2008 at 8:46 PM
He doesn’t like her because she isn’t a naked boy.
revolution on October 8, 2008 at 8:51 PM
Sarah Palin is a cancer on the Republican party? Hmm Well she sure is spreading like one. Nice analogy Mr. Brooks.
So it only stands to reason if Sarah Palin is a cancer then
Mr.Brooks must be a hemorrhoid! Pompous Ass
sonnyspats1 on October 8, 2008 at 8:55 PM
We won’t have to suffer all that MSM atrocities and vile for long.
They know that their time on the air/print is very short.
They are appealing to the lowest common denominator, those that don’t have internet, don’t read, don’t think. They’re losing the battle to bloggers (who have the decency to quote sources), they become sensational in order to satiate the uneducated and gullible.
They’re becoming the Jerry Springers of intelligent people. Within a year or two a new form of medium will taking over, TV “news” will be dead, just like newspaper readership is down.
I noticed David Crooks flipping positions in order to be heard. What a rat.
ViviAviv on October 8, 2008 at 9:11 PM
why is that every left leaning news caster talks palin being A HEART BEAT AWAY FROM THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT and that she lacks experience. and all this time ignores how stupid obama is. maybe i should not say stupid. how about corrupt? how about socialist? how about anti american?
TomLawler on October 8, 2008 at 9:19 PM
Whoever told that jerkoff he was smart? Some classy guy, going to an Atlantic lunch and getting down on his knees to service a whole room of liberals.
peacenprosperity on October 8, 2008 at 9:23 PM
Palin is a conservative, intellectual warts and all.
The Governor of Alaska is a woman that gets things done. People that get things done rarely have the time, nor the inclination to waste time contemplating the great philosophers.
Why don’t you run for office Mr. Brooks?
I bet you 2 dimes to a donut that Buckley would have politely supported Palin over a pretentious snot.
He had intelligence and class, and he probably would have forgiven you your sophistry, but he certainly would have ripped you apart for being simply, wrong.
Saltysam on October 8, 2008 at 9:41 PM
until most people understand that the left hates the u.s. it will never known what obama really says.
TomLawler on October 8, 2008 at 9:42 PM
As I said earlier, the difference between Obama’s prattling about Niebuhr and Palin’s sweeping out the corrupt GOP stables in Alaska is the difference between theory and practice.
Apparently Mr Brooks prefers academic pondering of a principle to its energetic exploitation.
JEM on October 8, 2008 at 9:46 PM
Isn’t it ironic that Brooks uses Buckley in the video in AP’s post?
And then he tosses aside these foundational conservative principles that Reagan and Buckley championed?
I’m just regular Joe that works with his hands, but I think there is something a little sinister about a guy that’s afraid of girls. I’d keep an eye on the boy, he might harm someone.
Saltysam on October 8, 2008 at 9:56 PM
Have to interrupt your point right there, anegus.
Phrases like “hopelessly over her head” and “a cancer on the Republican party” are inconsistent with the expression “reservations”. Imho.
Jaibones on October 8, 2008 at 9:56 PM
Amen.
Saltysam on October 8, 2008 at 9:58 PM
dakine on October 8, 2008 at 6:55 PM
You fool only yourself. New at this?
Saltysam on October 8, 2008 at 10:01 PM
Why don’t these ’smartest guy in the room’ tools ever run for high office? Because people would laugh in their face at the mere mention. Being an intelectual prick is not a leadership skill. It’s the kind of thing that gets you fragged.
BDavis on October 8, 2008 at 10:01 PM
As for Brooks and Buckley, it’s true that Buckley, too, could take positions that were strongly against the party stream. If I’m not mistaken, before his death he called the Iraq war a grave mistake.
But Brooks Fisks himself right off the bat by quoting Buckley with the anti-elitism quote of all time. Once Fisked, he can’t recover. He’s an idiot, of course.
Jaibones on October 8, 2008 at 10:04 PM
No, not fragged. He’d never engage in the kind of risky conduct that could lead to violence. He’s spent his life cowering from that sort of thing.
Jaibones on October 8, 2008 at 10:06 PM
Only if he admits that the institutions that formerly trained our intellectuals are in shambles. Exactly where are they supposed to spring from?
Columbia + Harvard = Obama.
JiangxiDad on October 8, 2008 at 10:18 PM
I’ll just assume you are kidding.
kangjie on October 8, 2008 at 10:39 PM
And that my friend is the problem. It’s nice seeing the left getting eaten by one of there own no doubt, especially someone with some real talent to intellectually zing someone. But some people went completely off the deepend thinking he is something he is not, while casting conservtives who disagreed with the war completely overboard(Robert Novak, Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul and the list goes on).
We hate these people but we love a stone cold marxist.
And now these people kick you when your down, surprise surprise.
Take David Frum, David Brooks, Warren Rudman, C Hitchen and file them under pay no attention fair weather friends.
kangjie on October 8, 2008 at 10:50 PM
kangjie – let’s remember that Hitchens is one of those Brits who was convinced that the rise of Thatcher and Reagan signaled the End of Days.
All the good little British socialists had through the ’60s and ’70s whittled themselves down to ever less competent leadership, eventually arriving at an irreducible minimum in Prime Minister James Callaghan. Thatcher was as close to a Palin as you’d get in postwar Britain, almost a character right out of Monty Python – but fearsomely competent.
So when you read Hitchens, bear in mind his opinion of Palin is little if any worse than his opinion of Reagan.
Of course, he was wrong then, and he’s wrong now.
JEM on October 8, 2008 at 10:54 PM
Sorry, but “a cancer on the party” is not a civil formulation. It’s David Brooks who is becoming the embarrassment to conservatism.
JM Hanes on October 8, 2008 at 10:57 PM
edit: “It’s David Brooks who is
becomingthe embarrassment to conservatism.”ignatzk on October 8, 2008 at 11:05 PM
JM Hanes – I think Mr Brooks has been observing a GOP that for so long has had no real leaders that he no longer knows what one looks like.
He’s gotten comfortable with a party adrift, a party that has succeeded in doing nothing since the Iraq war ate everyone’s brains.
If there’s been a cancer in the GOP it’s been Bush. Palin is the cure, not the disease.
JEM on October 8, 2008 at 11:13 PM
I’m sure they told Brooks he was smart. Go ahead and laugh all you want – it worked, didn’t it?
I’ve done similar things; just not with anybody nearly as ugly (or as stupid) as he is.
logis on October 8, 2008 at 11:22 PM
Thanks, Sapwolf
I worked as a therapist for many years and professionally ministered to women who tragically suffered mightily from having undergone abortions. It’s a huge psychological burden that many women never bear easily. Although no one can know about Noonan, your comment in general was very insightful. However, Sarah’s choice actually reminds women quite directly about their wrong decision to kill and stands in stark contrast to societal norms. Abortion affects many women in ways that are unimaginable but predictable. Nevertheless, God bless Sarah’s courageous, loving example.
marybel on October 8, 2008 at 11:36 PM
Civility.
There you go, AllahPundit.
EscapeVelocity on October 8, 2008 at 11:49 PM
manlyrash and saltysam (nice), you two tools are illustrative of the problem. Unthinking, rigid ideologues who wouldn’t know a true conservative if he/she bit them on the ass. Read Sen. Goldwater’s book and get back to me you ignorant asshats.
dakine on October 9, 2008 at 12:48 AM
Well, I would suggest as civily as possible that David Brooks does not represent a cancer on our party, but does represent an ailment in our party that can best be treated with Preparation H.
adamsweb on October 9, 2008 at 1:30 AM
That tumor is calling Palin a cancer?
entagor on October 9, 2008 at 2:08 AM
The job of David Brooks and the rest of them is to ensure Republican party is nothing more than a quasi-Democrat Party. I am so glad the worms are coming out of the wood. Clean the party.
promachus on October 9, 2008 at 6:43 AM
The comment I was responding to concerned Peggy Noonan. I would not characterise Brooks’ vile statements as reservations either.
aengus on October 9, 2008 at 8:13 AM
Just as no one can know whether or not George Will likes to rape little girls on the subway. Its just one of those things we may never know.
aengus on October 9, 2008 at 8:20 AM
When did we resume caring what David Brooks thinks?
chiefeditor on October 9, 2008 at 11:35 AM
He works for New York Times… Enough Said…
CynicalOptimist on October 9, 2008 at 2:57 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2