Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

David Brooks: Sarah Palin "Represents A Fatal Cancer To The Republican Party"
E-mailed to me | October 8, 2008 | Danny Shea

Posted on 10/08/2008 3:16:45 PM PDT by publius1

David Brooks spoke frankly about the presidential and vice presidential candidates Monday afternoon, calling Sarah Palin a "fatal cancer to the Republican party" but describing John McCain and Barack Obama as "the two best candidates we've had in a long time."

In an interview with The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg at New York's Le Cirque restaurant to unveil that magazine's redesign, Brooks decried Palin's anti-intellectualism and compared her to President Bush in that regard:

[Sarah Palin] represents a fatal cancer to the Republican party. When I first started in journalism, I worked at the National Review for Bill Buckley. And Buckley famously said he'd rather be ruled by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty. But he didn't think those were the only two options. He thought it was important to have people on the conservative side who celebrated ideas, who celebrated learning. And his whole life was based on that, and that was also true for a lot of the other conservatives in the Reagan era. Reagan had an immense faith in the power of ideas. But there has been a counter, more populist tradition, which is not only to scorn liberal ideas but to scorn ideas entirely. And I'm afraid that Sarah Palin has those prejudices. I think President Bush has those prejudices.

Brooks praised Palin's natural political talent, but said she is "absolutely not" ready to be president or vice president. He explained, "The more I follow politicians, the more I think experience matters, the ability to have a template of things in your mind that you can refer to on the spot, because believe me, once in office there's no time to think or make decisions."

The New York Times columnist also said that the "great virtue" of Palin's counterpart, Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden, is that he is anything but a "yes man."

"[Biden] can't not say what he thinks," Brooks remarked. "There's no internal monitor, and for Barack Obama, that's tremendously important to have a vice president who will be that way. Our current president doesn't have anybody like that."

Brooks also spent time praising Obama's intellect and skills in social perception, telling two stories of his interactions with Obama that left him "dazzled":

Obama has the great intellect. I was interviewing Obama a couple years ago, and I'm getting nowhere with the interview, it's late in the night, he's on the phone, walking off the Senate floor, he's cranky. Out of the blue I say, 'Ever read a guy named Reinhold Niebuhr?' And he says, 'Yeah.' So i say, 'What did Niebuhr mean to you?' For the next 20 minutes, he gave me a perfect description of Reinhold Niebuhr's thought, which is a very subtle thought process based on the idea that you have to use power while it corrupts you. And I was dazzled, I felt the tingle up my knee as Chris Matthews would say.

And the other thing that does separate Obama from just a pure intellectual: he has tremendous powers of social perception. And this is why he's a politician, not an academic. A couple of years ago, I was writing columns attacking the Republican congress for spending too much money. And I throw in a few sentences attacking the Democrats to make myself feel better. And one morning I get an email from Obama saying, 'David, if you wanna attack us, fine, but you're only throwing in those sentences to make yourself feel better.' And it was a perfect description of what was going through my mind. And everybody who knows Obama all have these stories to tell about his capacity for social perception.

Brooks predicted an Obama victory by nine points, and said that although he found Obama to be "a very mediocre senator," he was is surrounded by what Brooks called "by far the most impressive people in the Democratic party."

"He's phenomenally good at surrounding himself with a team," Brooks said. "I disagree with them on most issues, but I am given a lot of comfort by the fact that the people he's chosen are exactly the people I think most of us would want to choose if we were in his shoes. So again, I have doubts about him just because he was such a mediocre senator, but his capacity to pick staff is impressive."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: chat; davidbrooks; gay; gopcoup; homosexual; ickygirl; itellectualloid; misogynist; pseudointellectual; rinorevolution; unsourcedemail
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-197 next last
Our guys lose it when they get to the Times. Brooks predicts a 9-point Obama victory -- that's Reagan-level, isn't it? Also -- can you stand it -- he says, "Obama has the great intellect..." After a discussion about Niebuhr, "I was dazzled, I felt the tingle up my knee as Chris Matthews would say."

Brooks has the gall to quote Buckley's line about the 2,000 people in the phone book being preferable as a governing body to the faculty of Harvard et al -- then disagree with it -- then claim Buckley disagreed with it -- then go on to prove the truth of the aphorism on himself. What an ass!

Maybe this is all a misquote -- but, I think probably not.... Brooks & Peggy Noonan must be having high tea together, with some chemical chasers.

1 posted on 10/08/2008 3:16:45 PM PDT by publius1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: publius1

Brooks is definitely hallucinating.


2 posted on 10/08/2008 3:19:27 PM PDT by Parley Baer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: publius1

David Brooks being his eastern elite catty metrosexual self.


3 posted on 10/08/2008 3:19:27 PM PDT by DallasBiff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: publius1

Ah — here’s the quote by the man himself on YouTube — no way to dissociate himself from it — including the fatal cancer quote —

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvxQwNqZSOQ&eurl=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/08/david-brooks-sarah-palin_n_133001.html


4 posted on 10/08/2008 3:19:46 PM PDT by publius1 (Just to be clear: my position is no.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: publius1

Where did you come up with this BS? An email from whom? I am not buying it.


5 posted on 10/08/2008 3:20:13 PM PDT by kabar (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: publius1

The video is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvxQwNqZSOQ


6 posted on 10/08/2008 3:20:16 PM PDT by UndauntedR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: publius1
If Brooks is a Republican, then I am an astronaut and I am engaged to Princess Zargon of Neptune.

Brooks, is at best, a Rockeffeller, limp-wristed, country club, psuedo-intellectual, dweeb who could only pass as a Republican in Lower Manhattan. Not anywhere else.

7 posted on 10/08/2008 3:20:17 PM PDT by keithtoo (GOP - Our Veep candidate can kick your Veep candidate's @ss!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: publius1

Palin has all Dems and most Pubs scared.

Let’s get her in there.

McCain/Palin Nov 4th 2008


8 posted on 10/08/2008 3:20:34 PM PDT by silentreignofheroes (Shoul have seen it in color.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: publius1

The NYC beltway types indicated a year ago that they wanted to see a black guy win.....to heal our nation, or some such affirmative action pap.

Well, they will get their wish, and will see an even greater rift in our nation.

Because they..the media and the DNC have cheated and corrupted this election.

Paybacks will be a bitch.


9 posted on 10/08/2008 3:20:38 PM PDT by roses of sharon (The MSM vampires must die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: publius1

Here’s what is so galling:

One may agree or disagree with whether Palin’s approach is “anti-intellectual.” (I disagree and believe she is challenging eggheaded Ivory-Tower naive liberals, as did Ike vs. Adlai Stevenson.)

But let’s keep some perspective and just write, “I don’t like her approach and think it’s wrong.”

Instead, Brooks goes off the proverbial deep end. Not only is Palin’s approach a “cancer,” but it’s also a “fatal” one.

Mr. Brooks, get it together.


10 posted on 10/08/2008 3:21:00 PM PDT by pogo101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: publius1

I don’t understand the benefit of republishing obvious garbage on Free Republic.


11 posted on 10/08/2008 3:21:12 PM PDT by devere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: publius1

CANCER, Heres your Cancer, Obama Cancer!
Ayers Obama Chavez!
Ayers has since lectured the Marxist dictator of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, on using public education as an instrument for advancing “revolution.” Meanwhile his stepson, Chesa Boudin, has gone to Caracas as an “adviser” to the anti-American Chavez.

Oh, by coincidence, Chavez and Castro are two of the dictators Obama said he’d like to give face time as president of the U.S.

It gets worse when one looks at Obama’s political organization.

Obama’s own Web site has held at least 15 favorable mentions of Che Guevara, according to a count by blogger Henry Gomez.

When an Obama precinct captain in Houston flew a Cuban flag bearing Guevara’s likeness, Obama said only it “disappointed” him and “does not reflect (his) views.” He never publicly ordered the flag down, nor rejected Guevara’s blood-soaked communism.

Another Obama supporter, acting in Obama’s name, secretly contacted Colombia’s Marxist FARC terror chief Raul Reyes to tell him that Obama would cut off U.S. military aid to Colombia to hinder its war against FARC, as well as deny Colombia free trade, a strategy FARC considers key to overturning Colombia’s democracy.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=294880428846293


12 posted on 10/08/2008 3:21:36 PM PDT by OPS4 (Ops4 God Bless America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: publius1

Brooks if this is true, let the party die and we will rebuld a new, revitalized one, with Sarah at the helm.


13 posted on 10/08/2008 3:22:35 PM PDT by BornToBeAmerican (Sarahcuda = the dems worst nightmare)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DallasBiff

You think he’s NOT gay????


14 posted on 10/08/2008 3:22:57 PM PDT by Ann Archy (AbortiDUH!!!on.....The Human Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: publius1

A writing based on flawed premises = zero.


15 posted on 10/08/2008 3:23:04 PM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: publius1
And I stopped reading right about...... THERE!

David Brooks spoke frankly about the presidential and vice presidential candidates Monday afternoon, calling Sarah Palin a "fatal cancer to the Republican party" but describing John McCain and Barack Obama as "the two best candidates we've had in a long time."

16 posted on 10/08/2008 3:23:11 PM PDT by bayliving (Democrats used to be funny. Now they're just plain dangerous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: silentreignofheroes

RINO/BARRACUDA 08’


17 posted on 10/08/2008 3:23:35 PM PDT by Crim (Dont frak with the Zeitgeist....http://falconparty.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: publius1
which is a very subtle thought process based on the idea that you have to use power while it corrupts you.

I don't know, but that sounds like the cancer to me unless the guy is not describing it properly.

Woodrow Wilson was one of the smartest guys to be President. Carter was pretty book smart as well. Both turned out to be pretty bad Presidents.

Reagan was portrayed as an idiot also, but is writings later disproved that. Harry S Truman was not a great academic but got to the heart of the Cold War pretty fast. Lincoln was often described as a baboon and ignorant hayseed but turns out to have been darn effective.

Elitism is not just for Democrats.
18 posted on 10/08/2008 3:24:30 PM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: publius1

I saw the video. I apologize. Brooks is one of these elitist country club Reps who hates conservatives. His arrogance is only exceeded by his ignorance.


19 posted on 10/08/2008 3:24:38 PM PDT by kabar (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: publius1

brooks went to the dark side long ago.

this must be a resentment to her personal views regarding appropriate behavior and that mating habits do not establish special rights.


20 posted on 10/08/2008 3:24:58 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: publius1

At this point in time, I would rather trust Palin than any of the corrupt politicians in DC.

David Brooks, you are not ready to be a journalist or pundit. I say that because you write as a person that embodies all that the masses hate.

If you and your buds had done so well, we would not have the problems we are dealing with right now.

David, dunce hat, corner.


21 posted on 10/08/2008 3:25:09 PM PDT by dforest (Is there any good idea out there that Obama doesn't lay claim to anymore?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: publius1

You see, pseudo-intellectuals are always impressed by other psuedo-intellectuals, because they intuitively recognize their own lack of true intellectual content and are impressed by any display of superficial intellectual ability.

All real intellectuals are intuitively anti-intellectual. The first of them all was Socrates, who famously said “The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing”


22 posted on 10/08/2008 3:25:35 PM PDT by Truthsearcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw

If you spend your time east of the Hudson or the Potomac, you can be an elitist,too!


23 posted on 10/08/2008 3:25:55 PM PDT by stocksthatgoup (`Pontius Pilate voted "Present")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: publius1

Palin is a fatal blow to RINOs. She and Bobby Jindal are the current and future stars of conservatives. I’m excited about our future.


24 posted on 10/08/2008 3:26:30 PM PDT by Night Hides Not (McCain is Lucy, McCainiacs are Charlie Brown, & the football was a secure border...before Sarah.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy

25 posted on 10/08/2008 3:27:20 PM PDT by Skip Ripley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: publius1

Interesting choice of keywords.


26 posted on 10/08/2008 3:27:28 PM PDT by Yo-Yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: keithtoo

Gov Palin IS flyover country and that is right in Mel Brook’s face...err..Dave Brooks,and he doesn’t like being reminded of the people who do the work in the US.

He’d much rather chat with Tom Friedman about how correct Tom is over actually stepping up to embrace that which is great about America, no, can’t do that.

Maybe Friedman will stop giving Mel Bro..err..Dave Brooks wedgies now that he has bowed at the alter of Obamao and thrown Real America overboard...


27 posted on 10/08/2008 3:27:34 PM PDT by padre35 (Sarah Palin is the one we've been waiting for..Rom 10.10..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: publius1

As Plato knew, politicians aren’t thinkers. We were lucky, in that Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Lincoln were probably geniuses. That’s more than most nations could ever hope for. But Washington? TR? FDR? Kennedy? Reagan? Their policies fell back on, at most, one or two firmly held beliefs. They were men of action.

All I care about Palin is that she’s got charisma and she’s a true blue conservative. Without honestly conservative leaders, the Republican party has no chance but to be the runner-up party.


28 posted on 10/08/2008 3:27:36 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Parley Baer

He’s so full of it I’m guessing his eyes are Brown.


29 posted on 10/08/2008 3:27:44 PM PDT by alpo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: publius1
Let me offer a Sarah response: "Bless your heart David; you do write for the Times dontcha?"
30 posted on 10/08/2008 3:28:01 PM PDT by jimfree (Dems beat up girls who don't toe the line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: publius1
UNBELIEVABLE.
Another damned RomneyBOT or pseudoRepublican sabotaging Gov. Palin.

"The most impressive thing about Mitt Romney is his clarity of mind.
When he set out to pursue his party’s nomination, he studied the
contours of the Republican coalition and molded himself to its forms."

31 posted on 10/08/2008 3:28:03 PM PDT by Diogenesis (Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: publius1
Our guys lose it when they get to the Times.

Impossible. Our guys don't get to the Slimes. No conservative would regard these two candidates as "very good." Obama is the cancer. Biden is the cancer which continues to grow in a dead person for a little while after they are buried. McCain is like when the body's immune system crosses over to see if it can help the diseases out in any way.

Palin is just one of us Americans who NY'ers and S.F'ers like to make fun of. Just the people who built the damn place in the first place, bless our hearts, as Sarah says.

32 posted on 10/08/2008 3:28:14 PM PDT by San Jacinto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: publius1
As for Mr. Brooks, all I can say is 'Mr. Brooks, if you are the face of Republicanism, I don't want it - no way in cowboy hell'.

How can this lady be a cancer? Do you realize what you're saying? This woman, wife, mother and fighter is the epitome of conservatism and individualism and BELIEF! You might as well be calling my mother, wife and daughter (grand daughters) a cancer. You are a pitiful fool and you are sorely mistaken that you have an influence in ANYTHING conservative, or Republican, for that matter. ASSHOLE!

33 posted on 10/08/2008 3:28:21 PM PDT by Gaffer ("Arguing with a Liberal is like not wiping yourself after taking a dump" Scatological, but true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: devere

Gives us something to laugh at in these depressing times.


34 posted on 10/08/2008 3:28:23 PM PDT by nobama08
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: publius1

David Brooks -— eewwwwwwwwwwww!!!

When I saw that name I nearly retched! I absolutely detest that guy - looking at him, listening to him — and then there’s his usual message! Such a disgusting jacka**!!!

Just had to vent there — feel better now.


35 posted on 10/08/2008 3:28:40 PM PDT by CaliforniaCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: keithtoo

I read once that one is not a real man unless he owns a pickup truck, a chain saw, and a handgun. A coon or bird dog comes in a close fourth.

Brooks?

Nah.


36 posted on 10/08/2008 3:28:41 PM PDT by 2nd Bn, 11th Mar (The "P" in Democrat stands for patriotism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: publius1

I think Brooks needs to have brain checked for cancer! What a complete idiot!


37 posted on 10/08/2008 3:29:12 PM PDT by Cricket24 (Just one of those Conservative women!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

You’re damn right. Romney and his supporters are scum.


38 posted on 10/08/2008 3:29:22 PM PDT by Minus_The_Bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: keithtoo

I love everything you wrote....very descriptive !!!!!!!


39 posted on 10/08/2008 3:29:36 PM PDT by Kimmers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: keithtoo

Gov Palin IS flyover country and that is right in Mel Brook’s face...err..Dave Brooks,and he doesn’t like being reminded of the people who do the work in the US.

He’d much rather chat with Tom Friedman about how correct Tom is over actually stepping up to embrace that which is great about America, no, can’t do that.

Maybe Friedman will stop giving Mel Bro..err..Dave Brooks wedgies now that he has bowed at the alter of Obamao and thrown Real America overboard...


40 posted on 10/08/2008 3:29:49 PM PDT by padre35 (Sarah Palin is the one we've been waiting for..Rom 10.10..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: publius1
Brooks speaks with the unintentienal insularity of the MSM elite, and doesn't seem to understand that some old fashioned common sense will win every time.
41 posted on 10/08/2008 3:30:00 PM PDT by mapmaker77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DallasBiff

RE: “David Brooks being his eastern elite catty metrosexual self.”

You sure that’s just “metro” and not “homo?” He sure seems like the latter to me .... not that there’s anything wrong with that (ha)


42 posted on 10/08/2008 3:30:07 PM PDT by CaliforniaCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: publius1
If Obama is so smart, how did he come to the conclusion that going into Iraq was a bad thing?  Did he have daily briefings from the CIA?  Did he have daily briefings from the NSA?  Did he have the intelligence agencies and leaders of all countries in the Security Council of the United Nations agreeing with Bush that Iraq was a potential danger? 

I doubt it. In 2002 he was a bumbling local politician in Illinois.  He probably didn't even have accurate readings on the local Chinese restaurant's take out menu.

You simply cannot take the known information in October 2002 and come to any conclusion other than the one that President Bush, VP Cheney, President Clinton, Senator Clinton, Senator Rockefeller, and a list of 75 other senators and 300+ congressmen came to.  You cannot find a Karnaugh map or a series of logic gates anywhere on the planet that would have come up with a different scenario.

So how did Obama miss it by so much?  His critical thinking ability is simply flawed and right now American are dumb enough to put him in office.
43 posted on 10/08/2008 3:30:47 PM PDT by HawaiianGecko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: publius1
David Brooks spoke frankly about the presidential and vice presidential candidates Monday afternoon, calling Sarah Palin a "fatal cancer to the Republican party" but describing John McCain and Barack Obama as "the two best candidates we've had in a long time."

No wonder he's the captive pet "conservative" of the MSM.

44 posted on 10/08/2008 3:30:49 PM PDT by Uncle Miltie (Bushonomics: Privatize Gains, Socialize Losses......."PAULSON'S THEFT")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: publius1

That’s really rich: David Brooks talking about Sarah Palin’s ‘prejudices’ (after he’s concluded she is a yahoo with no interest in ideas).


45 posted on 10/08/2008 3:30:49 PM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: pogo101

Sarah Palin has accomplished more in her life and had more of impact on the lives of others than David Brooks could ever dream of. Let him engage in his mastrabatory prose sitting in the clouds above the masses. Who gives a crap about him or his ilk? They are the ones who are a cancer on the GOP.


46 posted on 10/08/2008 3:30:49 PM PDT by kabar (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: publius1

47 posted on 10/08/2008 3:30:49 PM PDT by Radix (If Alaska were to secede from the Union it would probably become a power player in OPEC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: publius1

In his dreams. Sarah Palin may just be the one (with all of us) dragging McCain over the victory line


48 posted on 10/08/2008 3:31:07 PM PDT by Terrence DoGood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Parley Baer
"Brooks is definitely hallucinating."


Sarah is a MAJOR threat to his "Governing Conservatism" rejection of the traditional Reagan style limited government conservatism. If she becomes the new face of the party it surely will not be going down the path he has been advocating and he will become even more irrelevant than he is now.
49 posted on 10/08/2008 3:31:09 PM PDT by rob777 (Personal Responsibility is the Price of Freedom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: publius1

Gay wannabees like Brooks hate strong women.


50 posted on 10/08/2008 3:31:24 PM PDT by dynachrome (Mohamed yunikku khinaaziir)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-197 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson