David Brooks: Sarah Palin "represents a fatal cancer to the Republican party"
By SilentPatriot Wednesday Oct 08, 2008 5:00pmWhat does is it say about John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin when David freaking Brooks of all people is saying this kind of stuff about her? Wow.
[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.
(h/t HuffPo)
Login or Register to post comments.
Time to start refering to Barrack as President Obama.
soon enough...
Sorry if I sound like a Jerk but I'm done refering to W as President.
Hell I never want to say the word Bush again unless I'm refering to a failed tree.
I've never called Bush the President. I've always referred to him as Chimpus Maximus, the Imperator, King George the Lesser, or dumbass.
IMHO there must always be someone in America who we call our President.
For me from now till 2012 that person is Obama.
We still have to keep our fingers crossed that the Shrub doesn't manage to make things even worse in his last few months (e.g., bombing Iraq, etc.); that putz still has his finger on the trigger—actually our trigger. People like the Shrub should be allowed near dangerous things like sharp objects—that's probably why Mother Nature equipped him with a dull wit.
On the contrary W. should be allowed to be around any number of sharp objects, fire arms, poison, nooses, cliffs....you know just incase he gets the urge to do us a favor.
As for bombing IRAN I've heard that if he orders that every High Ranking General is going to resign in protest.
he'd plugged in that electric car and blown himself to Kingdon Come. A nifty solution.
The GOP has stopped embracing ideas, but heartily accepted ideologies. Ideologues have their minds made up beforehand, even in the face of contrary evidence. That is why they are so dangerous. Mantras replace pragmatism.
pretzels
I hear Barney is considering attacking Bush's ancles on air forces ones stairs.
(Hey anything to avoid another humiliating Christmas video)
we've always called Bush doofey. We couldn't call him the President since he's never been legally elected.
approves of this message.
Exactly.
We've seen this program before....
I always liked Maher's "sh.t for brains" moniker.
He lives on the Lower East side and has as much in common with Palin as she does with him. He's clueless about how middle America lives. They might as well be on different planets.
As far as Jewish people in New York I don't know what to think. I grew up in The Bronx and watched the Jews take the quickest hike when the neighborhood went brown or black yet they are in the forefront of the civil rights movement. Hard to reconcile...
By the way I still don't know who I'm voting for.
with the best of 'em, innit?
But just a tiny one.
The rats are leaving a sinking ship. Even rats(like Brooks) would stay on a rotting ship. Prepare for drastic measures. The Thugs will Not go quietly.
and that's no understatement.
call em as I see em.
Some rats can swim, and never go away after jumping ship. They lurk in the smelly underground sewers and just when you have almost forgotten all about them, they make their way up the pipes, through your toilet, and scare the hell out of you when they squeal their talking points. That’s how we got infested with Rove, Rumsfeld, et al long after Nixon.
was my point.
And if nobody of the current crop is convicted, they will be right back. David Brooks is trying to save his slimy hide. May he rot along with Palin who has so endeared herself to the lower 48.
will be tarnished by association with a fascist/gangster regime he himself supported loyally, even slavishly, for most of the last 30 years.
This doesn't count as a conversion unless the fucker's really dying...
It is not just Palin but McCain too - and of course Dubya.
Have you seen this vid from Jed Lewiston - The Jed Report?
McDumb as Bush
It puts the worship of anti-intellectualism into stark realism. Wow can you believe it?
To call this phenomenon "the worship of anti-intellectualism" is to give it a dignity it doesn't deserve. That Bush video is VERY TELLING! This is IDENTITY POLITICS in its lowest form, nothing more. Although, unlike the traditional definition of identity politics, it's not based on race or religion, it's based on a character flaw. Stupidity combined with profound insecurity and bitterness. That was SIX TIMES Bush pointed out that some really smart person with a PhD was HIS SERVANT, and then gave a sadistic little chuckle.
This is identity politics where empty headed rubes vote fellow rubes into office JUST FOR THE SATISFACTION of putting all those geeks who humiliated them in High School in their place. It's a way of getting even with the snotty school librarian who dressed you down for hiding a comic book inside the textbook you were supposed to be reading. It's a way of getting even with the four eyed, pencil necked geek who used to snicker in math class when you didn't know what a "reciprocal" was, and it's a way of getting even with the guidance counsellor who told you you should learn a trade because your grades weren't high enough to get in to law school.
Well, maybe if we provide FREE PSYCHOANALYSIS under the new universal health care plan, these people would have some more healthy, constructive way of resolving their High School insecurities.
yeah but she's hot.
With all that bondo,my dead mother would look 'hot'. Now, Michelle- That's HOT
You owe me a new monitor; this one has coffee sprayed all over it!
Larf!
And yeah, Michelle is hot (not that it matters either way).
Obama/Biden! Change Team GO!
The check is in the mail. And yes,it doesn't matter.
every so often David Brooks says something I agree with and it scares the crap out of me.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
That happens to me sometimes. The one that really scared me was a couple of years ago, Pat Buchannen said something I agreed with - I nearly had a heart attack.
It's all CYA. Don't freak out. They are all cowards and morons. Brooks probably had a lot of stock in Lehman or AIG or NY real estate. Laughing here.
I'd rather be governed by the Harvard faculty that by a Supreme Court installed chimp, an old geezer who dumped his first wife for a younger richer woman and can't fly an airplane and almost flunked out of the academy, or a caribou Barbee doll flatearther who's husband was a member of a secessionist organization that hates America.
But that's just little ole elitist me.
"Ruthless People:"
You are misrepresenting Todd Palin's brief affiliation with the Alaska Independence Party, and you are broadly generalizing the "caribou Barbee" as a flatearther, apparently exposing your prejudism against people who stand for their beliefs.
Lets discuss facts rather than feelings. Barack Obama ALLIED HIMSELF with William Ayers, who expressed his hatred of America through violent bombings on multiple occasions (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers). Barack Obama ALLIED HIMSELF with Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who expressed his hatred of America from the pulpit on multiple occasions (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M-kD0QdRJk). Barack Obama ALLIED HIMSELF with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who expressed his hatred of America by disregarding her laws on multiple occasions (see http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iQRxkYTsoP...).
The only time John McCain's ethics were called into question was during the Keating inquiries. He was thoroughly investigated AND CLEARED OF ALL WRONGDOING by a liberal Democratic lawyer who worked for the Clintons (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvTMLVe2g3Y).
Having cited no tangible accomplishments on the state or federal legislature, Barack Obama is an unknown quantity. The only facts we voters have to judge him by are his words and his associations. His factual associations betray his noble intentions.
Your comment is growing tiresome...
Get ready to say President Obama - troll
Interesting that you did not refute any part of my argument. I stated facts and cited sources; you called me a name.
Most wouldn't bother refuting this nonsense since we all know it to be the b.s. it is.
It's already been debunked ad nauseum but I'll give you the short list since perhaps you don't know how to use The Google:
Even McLame has stopped with the Ayers angle after today it showed he was himself tied to the dude. Go check out the Huffington post.
And you say Keating Five (although about as scandalous as it gets) is McSame's "only" thing? Surely you jest.
What about:
Calling his wife a **** in public, his wife's drug addiction AND stealing from her own charity to fund it, telling a rape "joke", voting against womens' reproductive and equal rights 125 times, and these cappers:
1. McInsane's friendship with David Ifshin, who denounced the USA in Vietnam on radio Hanoi. Ifshin was the one who set up the meeting between the Vietnamese and Jane Fonda. Oooh, the neocons hate them some Jane Fonda!
2. McInsane's membership in the US Council For World Freedom and John Singlaub. the USCWF is known for extremism, anti-semitism, and racism. Singlaub was active in the USCWF and involved in Iran-Contra.
Enough? We can dig up more. But, we don't need to, because Obama's winning.
And all they have (had) is Ayers, a guy Obama attended 6 meetings witho because he was on the same board to aid education? HUH?
You wingnuts love this "association by guilt" but don't even care when YOUR guy is DIRECTLY involved with his chosen scandals. Priceless.
But that's why you're losing.
Nice comeback. I see that the brave Maverick hasn't answered.
Coward!!
Please, at least use logical arguments. Those who call people names (McLame; McInsane; Wingnuts) are mocking their own cause. (I say this about conservative talk show hosts, also, including Rush Limbaugh.)
Hey, I'm patriotic enough to call Obama my president if he wins. I am also patriotic enough to work against that possibility. And like my father when his candidate lost, I will teach my children to accept the results and pray that the new president will ultimately make the country better, regardless of which party wins. I will teach them to put their country first.
Are you really going to bring up McCain's wife -- especially her drug use? Didn't Obama HIMSELF write about his OWN drug use?
And you and I apparently have different views of women's "reproductive rights." The "pro choice" position appears to boil down to this: Life begins when a pregnant woman says it begins. Thus, one woman's fetus is another woman's tumor. Obama doesn't even believe that life always begins at birth.
The bottom line about all things political and philosophical is this: it's all propaganda. There is no such thing as 100% "fair and balanced." Everyone is influenced by his or her own background and internal beliefs. In America, people are free to think and believe as we choose, even when we disagree.
All I ask for is an honest debate. Nothing is gained in sophomoric namecalling.
Logical argument? Here's some unpleasant logic for you:
www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/23316955/...
Your candidate is losing because he is a fraud and a phony that only has a thin veneer of respectability, which is rapidly wearing off because he can't find a message that voters identify with. No lie will stand forever, and so it will be with Mc Lame, the Horseshit Express, and his Boat Anchor Barbie VP.
As for you, you seem to pride yourself in being respectable and responsible, so do the responsible thing by doing some fact checking next time before you post any more of your Rovian talking points which have all been discredited.
If none of the above changes anything for you, go post your trash on somebody else's bandwidth. We don't have time here to have discussion with lemming like stiff necked dupes that robotically repeat the latest RNC trash talk because they can't of anything redemptive to say.
Good night, and good luck.
Are you really going to bring up McCain's wife -- especially her drug use? Didn't Obama HIMSELF write about his OWN drug use?
To be fair, since you brought it up, Cindy McCain did, after all, steal her drugs from the American Voluntary Medical Team, a nonprofit charity she herself founded, to supply her drug habit.
In doing so, she had the charity's medical director, John Max Johnson, make out prescriptions for the charity in the names of three AVMT employees. This was done in violation of DEA regulations.
Fortunately, the McCains hired John Dowd, a powerhouse Washington lawyer who had defended John McCain in the Keating Five scandal.
According to the Washington Post, McCain's conduct left her facing federal charges of obtaining "a controlled substance by misrepresenting, fraud, forgery, deception or subterfuge." Experts say she could have faced a 20-year prison sentence.
Dowd negotiated a deal with the U.S. attorney's office allowing McCain, as a first-time offender, to avoid charges and enter a diversion program that required community service, drug treatment and reimbursement to the DEA for investigative costs. Dr. Johnson agreed to surrender his medical license and retire. The charity folded in the wake of the controversy.
Obama was only tangentially associated with Ayers; both of them were on a community board set up by a Republican couple, the Annenbergs. At the time Ayers committed his acts, Obama was 8. Wow, what a comrade in arms ...
Obama has renounced the Rev. Wright and his histrionics. Don't know if Palin has disavowed all of her wacky religious associates, including that witch-exorcising priest from Africa ...
Caribou Barbie openly supported a virulently anti-American secessionist group.
There are so many skeletons in Moosegirl's and McGramps' closets, you could open an osteopathy lab.
So ... STFU.
Troll sucessfully pwned
While I disagree with the "trolls" views on Senator McCain and Senator Obama, I agree with his/her point that using names like McInsane just undermines your argument and makes you easy to dismiss. "McCain is insane" is just the reverse side of the coin to "Obama is a terrorist".
When someone who disagrees with you follows up by saying that s/he will support the other side's candidate if they win the election and is then told to shut the fuck up, that is NOT "pwning" a troll...
STFU? When one side says that, it's labeled "censorship." But the open-minded liberals are always willing to listen to all points of view, right? I always thought that was part of your philosophy.
What I have learned -- and this is why I am no longer a liberal myself -- is that liberals do not "walk the talk" about this. Conservatives are far more likely to judge people by the content of their character rather than by the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, their ethnicity, or their religious beliefs.
That's based on my personal interactions with people of each political inclination. Your experience may be vastly different. I learn from my experiences. I trust others to learn from their own experiences.
BOTH sides have their zealots. It's not as though being a conservative or a liberal means you are inherently more tolerant of opposing views.
...which is why I pointed out that this is based on MY experience, and why I presume that others make their decisions based on THEIR experience.
OK. You lost me. You came here complaining about insults and then just stooped to the same level in the title of your last comment. Your hypocrisy is showing.
Maybe you could get those tolerant friends of yours to get out there and spread that tolerance of people of all skin colors, sexual orientations, ethnicities, and religious beliefs. It sounds like a good foundation for a political movement.
It's true that you will find racists among both political parties. I don't know about "liberals," because I'm not really sure what that term means anymore. Once the right began to define it--and call into question the integrity of anyone who used it to define themselves--and then many on the left didn't fight back--it lost all substance. (Now when it's used by people on the right, it's an epithet.)
I know some here still call themselves liberals because it has meaning for them, but many now don't. The point is, yeah, racism runs across much of the political spectrum...except, I would say, among those who consider themselves "Progressives" (or some other left-leaning term that decidedly breaks with the "liberal-as-brand" moniker). By its very definition, you can't be both progressive and hold a racist world view--that's "REgressive."
As for conservatives, my experience--and only mine--is that race does indeed matter--often a lot. What may factor in more for some is strict adherence to ideology--which is vastly different than "content of their character." You can have great character, but as we saw with the commentators on Faux last night, if you break with the GOP or embarrass them in any way, you're toast.
Bob Roberts and RobertD -- you've revived my faith in intelligent discourse on this site. However, I'll admit that I have spent far more time here than I intended to. I really need to get to bed so I'll be able to concentrate at my job tomorrow. (Really -- is there money to be made in blogging? I'm certainly a capitalist!)
Titling my previous reply "Duhhh" (in reply to "Uhhh") was meant as friendly sarcasm. It's the way I would have responded to my best friend. I meant no offense.
I don't know if there's money to be made--but some are paid to blog.
People here do get fired up because they care (I've been "trolled" a few times, too--and I've gone over the top once or twice and been called on it--which I should have).
I think people are relieved when they can talk to someone they disagree with and not feel like they're disregarded--it may take a little convincing. Most people here are reasonable, though--it's what we've been wanting in return for a lot of years ourselves. With that in mind, you won't have any problems if you come back--we may disagree with much of what you say, but you won't be hounded off the site. ; )
Remember, we've put up with a lot of crap from less-tolerant folks for quite a while.
Peace.
George H. W. Bush used to be fond of saying "the L word", a cutesy way of making it a dirty word. Subtle propaganda at its finest.
It's silly... show me a decent dictionary with less than a dozen definitions for the word, or an encyclopedia that doesn't discuss at least ten different kinds of "Liberalism", some vastly different from others. I wonder how many of the Founding Fathers would be considered liberal for their time.
When someone starts railing against liberals, how do you even know what they're referring to?
Right. This was the Lee Atwater strategy. Appropriat the term from those who identify with it and redefine it--and them.
And it worked. Otherwise, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh wouldn't use it over and over in their hate-and-ignorance rants.
Thing is, most people who were "liberals" don't call themselves that anymore because of the way the term was stolen and redefined. That doesn't keep the right-wingers from flogging it, though. It gives them something to concentrate their hate on--kind of like the Clintons. ; )
They're not in power anymore, but it's still all their fault.
... to be much more angry, bitter, rigid, myopic, defensive, dismissive, rude and insulting than liberals, Democrats and progressives. They seem hopelessly boxed in by their allegiance to ideology.
Again, my own experience.
Ever visit some of the more virulent right-wing sites? Redstate and FreeRepublic, etc.? They're incredibly violent and nasty.
I agree with this. I've known angry/dismissive/aggressive Democrats (my father comes to mind), but it seems to be the exception rather than the rule. I think that's why it was easy for people like Lee Atwater and Richard Nixon to spin the memes that "liberals are weak" and have "bleeding hearts."
Well, hell yeah, we (lefties) don't tend to run around threatening to harm others we don't agree with or bomb the shit out of other places simply because it makes us look bad-ass. Carter was easy to bash as a weakling--because he truly did (does) believe the teachings of his religious background that preach kindness, chartity, generosity--and all those other good things.
I can't stomach right-wing talk radio because its very existence depends on playing to listeners' most base emotions--hate and fear. Going to FreeRepublic feels like taking your life into your hands.
I do not put stock in extreme arguments on either side, which is why I recommend avoiding the practice of namecalling that denegrates arguments on both sides.
But here's another reason I moved away from my previously liberal leanings. Well-organized radical groups on the left actively sought to disrupt meetings of the people they disagreed with. This went beyond protesting. This was trying to shut down free speech. I believe this first really came to my attention during the 1988 Republican National Convention.
It then dawned on me that the only truly irrational behavior I had witnessed in my very large family was between peace-loving liberals. One had protested nuclear power; the other was a college professor. Both advocated a strongly anti-violent stance. Yet the only physical confrontation I recall in my family occurred between these two peaceniks.
I noticed then -- and again, this is my experience -- that the people I encountered with left-leaning tendencies were far more likely to "blow their top" than the people I encountered with right-leaning tendencies. (I had no idea that "liberal" was a perjorative term, but I'm willing to adapt to the proper name if you'll let me know what that is.)
Most people on the left don't care if you call them liberals as long as it isn't used as an insult. Saying it like Hannity or Rush Limbaugh isn't a good idea if you just want to talk.
When someone really cares a lot about something, it doesn't take much to lose perspective at times. That isn't isolated to political affiliations--or anything else, for that matter. My observation is that Republicans tend to "fall in line." Democrats/liberals/lefties/whatever have kind of an aversion to that--well, not all Democrats (someone like Steny Hoyer or Harry Reid is a line-follower). We don't react well to "my way or the highway," is my point--that hierarchical "my party, right or wrong" thing that Republicans do well.
But you don't have to look far to see examples of Republicans eating their own--if you embarrass the party, you're out the door. Look at the examples of moderate Republicans who've been chased out of office for being "Rinos" simply because they tried to reach a compromise with Democrats. To me, this is worse than open protest because it often takes an underhanded, knife-in-the-back form that works on fear of the powerful. That's how Tom Delay ruled--in both Texas and as whip in the House. People didn't dare cross him. The result of that is to homogenize one's party so that compromises can never be reached--effectively shutting down governance.
Say what you want about Democrats/lefties, but we're a rabble. If we don't like something, we damn sure shout it out because we're not going to go quietly for anyone. That's why so many Democrats have no fondness at all for Nancy Pelosi. And we're not shy about it.
It's interesting to read that the left and right are both alike with this idea that the "other" side is a bunch of thoughtless followers, whereas "our" side is filled with independent thinkers.
By the way, McCain was often referred to as a RINO by the right-wing talkers. While I disagree with him on some issues, I respect his willingness to put his political career at risk by opposing the majority of his own party on multiple occasions.
Speaking of talk radio, I listen hoping to find intelligent debate. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity may be entertaining to some, but they are bullies. If you are interested in intelligent, respectful debate, listen to most of the hosts on the Salem Radio Network -- Bill Bennett, Dennis Prager, and Michael Medved, especially. They are clearly conservative, but they allow opposing viewpoints to be discussed without escalating into a name-calling match. (I cringe when I hear Hannity says "that's the problem with you liberals," or when Rush says "Listen, YOU people...")
I spent way more time here last night (and this morning) than I should have, but I enjoyed the discourse. Thanks for letting me voice my thoughts. I'll probably try to stay away in the future so I won't miss tucking my kids in like I did last night! (If that makes me a "coward" in some people's eyes, I can live with that.)
Peace and good will.
Sarah Palin was "healed" by a witch doctor. On tape. From one of the MANY churches she attended.
I guess he can make a few bucks showing up here and including links and can even add 2+2. KKKarl? Where did you go?
What do you mean, "make a few bucks?" Is there a market for this? Are you folks professional bloggers? I'm just trying to engage in a rational debate. Apparently, this is not the place for rationality.
Back in my liberal days, I used to identify with "oldies" music (even though I grew up in the 1980's). This discussion reminds me of the following lines from "For What It's Worth" by Buffalo Springfield:
"A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, HOORAY FOR OUR SIDE"
Cheering for your side is laudable. Ignoring rational thought from the other side is ignorant.
I don't know that I've ever read "professional bloggers" on this site--people seem to believe what they believe. Since we come at it from (mostly) similar perspectives, a pro wouldn't have much to do here--there's no one to spin.
If you go over to some of the MSM comment boards, though, they're pretty open about who they are. I don't know why anyone would want to do it. Getting paid to blog seems like it would be "prostituting for truth."
IMO.
Quoting Stephen Stills to make a point? From a song he wrote about some "hippie" riots on Sunset Strip resulting from the closing of a popular night club? I'm sure you meant it metaphorically.
This reminds me of the Republican attempts at identifying with cool when they use various rock music without authorization at their events and conventions, for which at least four of the authors of the music have formally objected.
mccain allied himself (went on paid for family vacations with the keatings to the bahamas with nanny, mind you) with a financial terrorist who was convicted. many retirees lost their life savings because of mccain's friend. mccain benefited from the misuse of the life savings of americans. obama otoh was 8 years old when ayers did what he did.
please prove that rev wright gave an anti-american sermon for all the sundays that obama attended.
and please prove that obama was responsible for rezko's wrongdoing.
if associations with people who have done anything wrong is your standard then mccain will lose as he has close ties with anti-semites, domestic terrorists like the lady who bombed abortion clinics who was praised in his presence and he kept silent, annenberg's wife (in whose board ayers served) is a mccain supporter.
even mccain is not getting into the substance of associations because he knows he will lose. his argument now is on the consistency of what obama is saying. you should try to keep up with talking points of your candidate.
David Brooks is a day late and a dollar short. I'm glad he recognizes that aPallin' is an empty shell, but everyone--EVERYONE!--knew that about bush long ago...back when Brooks was singing his praises.
As for Buckley, he never even saw the masses. He was too busy drinking 200-year-old bourbon in his den and practicing witticisms in the mirror for the consumption of fools like Brooks. If you've never read his stuff, well, there's the elitist. Funny how someone like Brooks fails to point that out.
As for Reagan's appreciation of ideas--there were two kinds: some were bad; the rest illegal. And none came from his own brain.
Man in front of camera [to his female companion]: "He's bringing up Palin and I think this meatloaf is undercooked. I need to, you know, get to the men's room."
Female companion: "Hurry!"
Waiter [clearing plate]: "I'll, uh, see if there's any chicken left."
Brooks is on Newshour, on PBS, nightly. And he's been defending Bush for years, now he wants to speak truth... give me a break.
He's only speaking the truth because he didn't know he was being taped.
We may not be hearing much from Brooks for a while after this.
yeah, he's been defending and praising the "plain-spoken" bush (calling his pre-emptive policy wilson-esque) ---and offering talking points for cheney, rumsfeld, bolton, and all manner of atrocity and ignorance, even gave shout out to michael weiner savage ...so he needs to keep his bona fides up, now?? something's up....???
i stopped watching and reading this guy about a year ago...couldn't take the propaganda; unwilling to accept him as the designated intellect to interact/liaison with the "centrist media"...besides, the obtuse posturings were wearing....
Brooks is more responsible than many for Bush. Now he wants to recant? Give me a break. My, the rats are really deserting the ship now. Wonder what he's really hiding.
McCain is an elderly Bush in a baggy suit. We do not need anymore idiots running this country. Bush did not find the "best and brightest", he wanted loyalty. And he got it. McCain wants the same "yes" men in his administration. Why won't Americans realize we cannot afford another idiot in the White House? My fantasy is Bush and his toadies indicted for war crimes, Obama is prez, and Bush and his toadies are bankrupted and put in prison for the rest of their miserable lives.
Living in Texas is kinda like prison.
Agreed. I had the misfortune of living there for a while. Now I don't even want to fly over Texas for fear the plane would have to make an unscheduled landing for some unkown reason.
This is obviously a liberal-leaning blog. What happened to the liberal ideals of tolerance and acceptance? Sounds to me like regional prejudism prevails.
is not a word.
.
You are correct. I misused that "word." I try to admit when I make a mistake, and I appreciate you for pointing that out so I can learn from it.
However, the logic of my argument stands.
What argument? That folks on a left leaning blog can't hate somewhere they've lived?
What logic.
If that is logic, you failed the course.
Tine to get lost.
Tine is not a word. Go away troll.
Hey, I'M the troll! The person who wrote "tine" by mistake was on YOUR side!
Eventually the troll is lured from its lowly perch in the gutter, to the apex of its existence, where it stands at the hilltop and proudly proclaims its trollness.
See? I can make up words too!
anti-intellectualism should be a crime
Add to that fantasy a new extradition treaty with Paraguay - first things first.
That is a fantasy. After the election president Obama will join hands with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in a kumbaya moment , proclaim the past is the past and the nation is ready to move forward and not look backward, and let BushCo completely off the hook.
Say it ain't so, please.
I'd like to know where that guy went after he got up from the table. Perhaps to the men's room for a quick evacuating of some sort?
Awfully quiet in that dining room, eh.
It's such fun to watch the repubs implode.
excuse me, but what brooks is saying is that palin represents idiocracy and treats that as a new thing
however, his thesis that reagan represented ideas is horseshit
reagan won and stayed in power on the basis of two things...low taxes and get the reds
didnt matter what the outcome of either was...and that is true idiocracy, because there is no thought of the futuer
brooks is wrong about palin in so many ways
she showed no courage by resigning her position from the regulatory board...by all indications, she hated the job, and threw a fellow republican under the bus, which got her name known statewide as someone who fought corruption....but she never fought anything...she quit
she is only a natural politician, if we accept the premise that all politicians lie every time they open their mouths
her career dies with this election
her positives were only high in alaska cuz she paid off the populace....on our dime...they dropped 20 points once the national press and the blogger uncovered the real sarah palin...
for years, the repugs have attacked the dems as being the party lacking in ideas...and that may be true
but at least we havent foisted bs ideas on the rest of the country
and our ideas didnt destroy the economy and put us into tow intractable wars
her career dies with this election
Sad to say, I don't think she's going anywhere. She gives the base the red meat it wants. As long as she's not imprisoned--or her husband isn't--or if this ethics scandal comes to naught, she's going to be out on the circuit raising money for Republicans every chance she gets.
The thing that's scariest about Palin is that she's the consummate opportunist. She's not dumb; she's just not well-versed...yet. She knows how to play to the camera and connect with "her audience," though. The political knowledge comes with coaching--and time, which she didn't have enough of in this election (and I'm talking as though it's over--I hope it is, but four weeks is a long way to go).
Palin's power-hungry...and now she thinks she's entitled. Did you see that movie, "To Die For"? That's her. In spades. And that's why the law has to work. She's dangerous--so much so that even Republicans admit it.
Inhannity is interviewing the Father/Daughter ticket right now. The McSame campaign announced that Sockey Salmon Sarah will ONLY be seen on 'HANNITY & colmes' and Greta Van Sustren until Election Day and beyond .... if necessary.
So, has David Brooks suddenly come to his senses regarding the putrid nature of the Republican party, or has he realized that being a loyal lapdog to a pack of jackals has its bad side when cannablism occurs?
Like Lieberman. A sell out who sides with "Christians" knuckledraggers who believe he's going to burn in hell because he hasn't accepted Jebus as his savior.
Maybe Brooks didn't do it personally, but the old rock-ribbed Republicans he represents made a concerted effort to go LCD for the sake of political expediency (see: Strategy, Southern ; Coalition, Christian), figuring that if you said the right things, the Great Unwashed would follow. Rather putrid maneuvers by the Old Guard in the first place.
But now that that new base has somehow realized their power- though they have no clue as how to wield it- the Brookses of the GOP wring their hands, asking themselves privately, "What fresh hell hath we wrought?"
Shoulda thought about that earlier, Davey boy.
...to ask her questions? She stepped past the curtain on her airplane for the first time in a month. And yet, again, she delivered one long run-on sentence devoid of syntax:
It's like listening to Bush with diarrhea of the mouth.
it sounded like she was quoting The Bible.I get the same problem. ...Hmmm......
All those Bush supporters who have been living a lie for the last 8 years, living in the closet denying that Bush just cannot possibly be THAT STUPID, cannot take the stress of supporting such a baffon for another minute. And with a VP candidiate on deck who is actully WORSE than Bush is just unthinkable, even to the most loyal of them.
Reach out to them. Tell them that just this once for the sake of your country to not vote for McCain. Some of them will go vote for Obama as they regain reality.
Off Topic but, it is that important. I ask all C&L'ers to write their Senators and district Representative as I have this evening to demand criminal prosecution against the officers of AIG for use of $85B in tax dollar bailout to use on pleasure junkets.
Just cut & paste. I am visiting every site where I post to pass this along. Please join me to fight this criminal outrage.
Dear Mr./Ms. X,
What do you intend to do against the corporate officers of AIG who were granted $85B of our hard earned tax dollars against, my and many of my fellow STATE NAME citizens/voters best interests and wishes, only to embezzle $400K for a pleasure junket?
This is a felony and my expectations from an honorable public servant with a stellar and impeccable record such as yours is to seek criminal prosecution against the officers of AIG.
Should you fail to take criminal action in this case I will diligently work against your re-election. If the despicable acts of AIG is allowed to pass without criminal prosecution and worth more than my or any of my fellow STATE NAME individual vote then you are not worthy of a seat in the US Senate/House.
Respectfully,
YOUR NAME
If your Senator or Rep is a no good asshole, fake it on this one for we need action now.
Good Luck with that.
They look out for two things only: themselves, and money. AIG will probably have another bail out...er...rescue...by the end of the week.
David Brooks got an invitation to interview Bush, as David reported his personal interview he had an orgasm. Now when Sarah aka Betty Boop came on the scene David again had an orgasm with the hopes that famous wink was for him. Now that Sarah has lied about the New York Times, David had to chose between his job or his wet dreams of having Sarah. Lowery and Brooks both seem to need sex as both dream that Sarah is talking to them and pampers are used by both.
You raise a good topic. A co-worker of mine, who is all in for Obama, "noticed" Cindy McCain for the first time after the debate last night and about made me drop my coffee with his lustful comments (he already thinks Palin is "hot," but thank god he recognizes his libido is not as important as his financial troubles).
First, Cindy? Umm, NOT.
Secondly, and more importantly, this is how a lot of men's minds work. My thinking here though is that not only should women be offended by McCain's pick of Palin, but men too. He played the gender card AND the sex card.
Funny how a female Faux News commentator was all up in arms about Palin's photo on the cover of Newsweek not being "airbrushed." Maybe we should also dump all the superficial women in the same bucket too?
The McCain/Palin ticket is on life-support...Lets just pull the plug right now since David Brooks of all people considers Palin a cancer. OUCH!
To bad your a minority in your own party and the crazies have taken over.
I have seen the Republicans pronounced dead before (1932, 1964). They always resurrect themselves in a more frightening manner. I never imagined the financial system of our country could unravel as quickly as it has and continues to do so. I had a discussion with a co - worker this morning. He tried to blame Bill Clinton for the financial mess. He said that it all started in 1995. I pointed out that in 1995 Newt Gingrich and his band of Merry Deregulators and Budget Cutters were then in the majority in Congress. That shut him up.
RePugs will go to their grave whimpering 'Butbutbut BBBBBill CCCClinton!' sad
I am old.
I remember when we all, Democrat and Republican alike, laughed at the prospect of electing a know nothing retired actor with a penchant for substituting Ripley's Believe It Or Not quotes for reality.
No one believed that a bad actor could become President of the Greatest Nation In The World!
Ronald Reagan was a joke.
Now Sarah Palin is a joke.
But she is a joke with the backing of far too many Americans. People who value looks and a studied actor's delivery over worldly knowledge and experience.
People who find her obvious obliviousness preferable to ijntelligent judgement.
Not that they find her a better possible leader than Obama, I would expect that from the racist Republican mindset. They prefer her to McCain!
Not now... but in the future we will see Sarah Palin running for President.
Don't laugh.
Be afraid.
You are correct. Reagan was an actor whose greatest performance was that of President of the United States. Eight years of the vacuous Ronald Reagan took a terrible toll on this country. Yet, people still talk of him as if he were a "founding father." Bereft of ideas, but long on rhetoric he acted "presidential." I doubt he knew where he was most of the time.
and I refuse to live my life in Fear. Not before. Not now. Not ever. IF the RePugs run Palin as president ,they will lose. Unless they cheat. Hope is My favorite word. I Hope the american people have wokeup enough to prevent that.
I think John McCain agrees but the deal with the Devil has been done and the ink is dry.
WilyTrax.com
Exactly when did Ronald Reagan celebrate ideas?
David Brooks is a pseudo intellectual poseur who wants to distinguish himself from the mindless right wing mob. I got news for you Mr. Brooks, the rabid right wingers hate Sen. Obama and they hate you too.
Cindy McCain said Obama's troop vote sent a cold chill through her body.
My question is this. How could she tell?
By the color of the pill she took for the cold.
My thoughts exactly. The Ice Queen would know all about frigidity.
She is married to That Thing, after all. Eeewww.
TRUCK NUTZ!
Washington Independent
Throughout Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign, the Republican nominee has wrapped himself in the mantle of U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, proclaiming himself the leading advocate of the former commanding general in Iraq who devised last year's controversial troop surge. Yet during a talk Wednesday about Iraq at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington policy organization, Petraeus repeatedly made statements that bolstered the foreign-policy proposals of Sen. Barack Obama, McCain's Democratic rival, or cut against McCain's own lines.
Petraeus relinquished command in Iraq last month. He assumes responsibility for U.S. Central Command later this month, putting him in charge of U.S. forces in the Middle East and South Asia.
http://washingtonindependent.com/11381/petraeus
Oh snap. That's gonna hurt in the morning.
As a survivor of anal cancer, I am offended.
This picture invokes a painful time in our history. I understand the historical significance but you should not have used it.
Sarah is a wonderful draw for the base! Who doesn't love an energized base?
Yeah, nothing like a nice Bund meeting to get the blood flowing.
The Republican intelligentsia (if there is such a thing anymore...where have you gone, William Buckley?) realizes they're stuck in a fucking corner.
On the one hand, it is the sworn duty of everyone even slightly to the right of center to absolutely and without question carry the water for the Republican ticket no matter how dangerously unhinged or apparently delusional it is.
"Oh, Palin was a great pick! A real game changer! Was she winking at me?"
Anyone who says otherwise is obviously just a part of the out-of-touch mainstream media elite who blah blah blah blah blah
Ah, yes, but...
On the other hand, it is the universal conceit of every pundit, left right or center, to maintain that they, and they alone among the gaggle of idiot water carriers around them, represent the sober, serious, voice of sober, serious analysis.
So, how is a sober, serious analyst to reconcile cheerleading for the Thrilla from Wasilla with any kind of qualifications-based criticism of anyone on the Democratic side?
We're about to have (another) one-party government for a while.
These sober, serious analysts are going to have to write articles arguing that the Democrats' plan to, say, offset Medicare expenses with a 15.9875% copay for recipients making more than $121,285.56 year, amortized annually is obviously (OBVIOUSLY!) going to doom our economy, as opposed to the Republican plan to offset Medicare expenses with a voluntary pre-tax personal account allowing up to $4,956.34 to be invested annually and matched at %11.2376 by the dividend from canceling school lunch programs.
It's a little hard to take that kind of sober, serioius analysis from someone with a dog-eared copy of the Sarah Palin cover issue of PUMA Beat magazine in his briefcase.
McCain is going to lose. Big. Bigger than they think. At that point, any and all reason to continue to pretend that Palin is anything but an unqualified disaster will evaporate.
Quick as the noonday sun, they will throw her under the bus of history.
"Oh, McCain didn't lose on the issues. He would have beat Obama if it wasn't for Sarah Palin, who obviously (OBVIOUSLY!) single-handedly undermined him.
"My friends, we're on this story right now. We have our people looking into whether Sarah was a Democrat plant.
"Yes, my friends! A Manchurian Candidate designed to make conservatives look like simple-minded fools!
"Next up: can the Democrat party sink any lower?"
Just watch. In the meantime, keep the tapes.
As per usual, Brooks treads softly. If he'd any 'nads or simply a conscience, he would have said "[Sarah Palin] represents a fatal cancer to the United States of America."
Republican Party Who??? She represents a pox on the nation. Little else.
If (and when) Obama wins the election, I will be glad to say those words.
Amazing. The weather hasn't felt that cold; who knew Hell froze over?
But, David finally realized his Rightard ship is sinking and is taking a shot at an easy target. Where was he when the Commander and Thief was proclaiming his mistaken war? Where was he when New Orleans was drowning? Where was he when Daddy Bush's cronies were looting the country?
"Populism" is not the appropriate term: neo-know-nothing is closer to the mark. Of course, right now another spot-on term is "GOP". If Brooks needs to find a good example of a Neo-No-Nothing he just has to look in his mirror some time.
Would you call her a cancer or anthrax? Cancer usualy gives you a few months to live or fight it off, she came on with strong simptions and very quickly took them down.
Funny & Smart Political T's -
http://www.showyourthoughts.com
"But there has been a counter, more populist tradition, which is not only to scorn liberal ideas but to scorn ideas entirely."
This tradition is also known by its common name:
Stupidity.
She makes a good point. There used to be *real* conservative leaders who cared about more than pandering to extremists and cutting taxes for the wealthy.
I find the comment a little ironic in light of the fact that at one time, these are very similar words that made Governor Palin giggle on a Morning Radio Show in her home state of Alaska that were uttered by a conservative radio jock in regards to a fellow republican (Lyda Green of Wasilla) that had once been a mentor of Palin. The DJ called her a "b*tch" and a "cancer".. the sad thing is, this woman actually was a cancer survivor.
I guess what goes around comes around.
that noise you hear is the MKKKain/Palin campaign imploding and the heads of right-wing kool-aid drinkers exploding. Put a fork in 'em, they're done.
funny that Brooks would mention Reagan, the first of the Village Idiot presidents-
As far as I'm concerned, that brain-dead jellybean blazed a trail for the likes of W and Palin
Actually, no. Like most conservatives, Brooks is behind the times. Bush and Rove were the fatal cancer, and Palin is just the putrid stench that's coming from the Republican corpse. The people of American just haven't had the common sense to burry it yet.
He's describing anti-intellectualism, and it's what the Republican Party has been running on for several decades. That's nothing new, and William Buckley didn't have a problem with it-- at least not as a sales pitch to gain public support.
People like Brooks don't like the fact that idiots have taken over the party, that's all. The theocracy advocates, largely, have decided they're through being dicked around by the corporate wing, and they're flexing their muscle. People have been predicting this for literally decades. It was almost inevitable as soon as the GOP started organizing fundamentalists into a voting block.
They took the tiger by the tail for short term gain, and it was inevitable that they'd lose their grip eventually. As usual, Brooks makes an amazing prediction of what's already happened.
[Sarah Palin] represents a fatal cancer to the Republican party.
We can only hope. I want the current conservative wacko wing of the Republican party destroyed, never to return (that's 99% of what's there now). In its place, we can put the DLC and any Eisenhower/Rockefeller Republicans that are still kicking (that haven't gone to the DLC)
...to finally realize what most people with even the most basic critical thinking skills have known for a long, long time. The Republican party has been taken over by crazy people.
Great, now both parties on the Repub ticket have links to fatal cancer. Melanoma and now Palinoma.
"The Republican Party is a disease, a cancer of this planet ... and we are the cure."
Quote from "Agent Smith goes to Washington"
http://www.ronnierayjenkins.com/topics/educat...
Now i am not sure if i should praise her or condemn her.
If you think about it he is calling the next President of the United States a terrorist. That is treason. Ok, he is not saying it to his face, he is just saying it to every gun totin' yahoo in the country. Is he hoping for an assassination so he can win by default? That is the only way he can win after last night's performance, by default.
I have met things i have had to scrap off the bottom of my shoe that i respect more than John McCain.
Is is just me or is Reagan in fashion at the moment like music from the 80s?
I swear, 2 years ago, I hadn't heard the gipper's name since he left the office. Now, everyone conservative seems to remember the good ole' days when the gipper ruled. 'Now THERE was a REAL conservative' they'd claim. He valued ideas, the free market, regulated markets or whatever crap current conservatives want to instill as true conservatism.
Is it real? was the gipper a perfect conservative? Is it just rose coloured glasses? Is it just that we all remember back 20 years ago when life was free and easy in our younger years?
In 20 years time, will conservatives look back at chimpy as the ideal conservative?
No, they will look back and say he was the Anti-Reagan. The one who really screwed up a good marketing campaign. Give them enough rope...
This is how i recall Ronald Reagan:
Let's see, there was my first arrest in his White House June 4, 1980 (my mom's birthday; it was my birthday present to her. Yes, she appreciated it.)And then there was my second arrest at his White House June 30, 1980.
Then there was the month i stood in front of his White House keeping vigil next to poster sized photos of the women he had mutilated in El Salvador by way of monsters we trained and sent down there to be Death Squad members.
Oh, the memories.
Fuck Ronald Reagan.
So as far as Joe Bidden is concerned, John McCain's running mate is Palin by comparison.
It's easy to see why a party that appeals to ignorance would be anti-intellectual. After all, one does not get people to vote against their own interests by encouraging them to think...
The Nazi movement in Germany was also virulently anti-intellectual - in fact, any party that peddles an extreme ideology is not in favour of rational, critical thought.
It is certainly ironic that a Republican water-carrier such as Brooks should suddenly come to the realization that his party prefers blind followers to engaged citizens - talking points and propaganda, form over substance, and "making their own reality" has been the stock-in-trade of the GOP for quite some time now.
There was a letter in the Dallas Morning Nudes editorials today saying take away sarah's you betchas, and pretty face, what do you have, an amazing intellect. He even tried to claim "liberals" making fun of her was only helping the mcgramps campaign.
Obviously someone who writes to the paper without reading it.
)O(
"Reagan had an immense faith in the power of ideas."
I suppose Reagan had to have "faith" in the power of ideas, since he was completely unable to have any of his own. Faith would be quite necessary in such a situation.
Reagan initiated the end of American greatness as far as I am concerned. His subsequent beatification is an obscenity.
What about reality?
Login or Register to post comments.