PETA Thinks It's Figured Out a Way to Convince Men to Go Vegan
Who Will Have the Last Word at Next Week's Trump v. Biden Debate?...
We Now Know What's to Blame for That 911 Outage in Massachusetts
Taxpayers Spend $600k Per Unit to House Homeless In This Democrat City
Trump Takes Yet Another Group of Voters Away From Joe Biden
Voters Are Turning Against This Democrat Governor
New York Now Requires Paid Breaks For Breastfeeding Employees
Progressive Mayor's Recall Effort Receives Twice the Number of Signatures Needed to Oust...
GOP Lawmakers Demand Answers From Mayorkas After ISIS-Linked Illegals Successfully Crossed...
CBS News Ratioed Into Oblivion for Posts Providing Cover for White House on...
An Illegal Alien Was Charged With Killing a Maryland Woman. Here’s How the...
Bowman Apologizes As 'Propaganda' Remarks Come Back to Haunt Him for Primary
Surprise: AOC Doesn't Seem to Understand How PACs Work
The Story About the Illegal Alien Who Allegedly Raped a 13-Year-Old in NYC...
New Poll: Trump Is Still Up in Key Swing States

David Brooks is Back on the Georgetown Cocktail List!

Today, conservaitve NY Times columnist David Brooks argues that Sarah Palin doesn't have the experience to be vice president.  Regarding the counter-argument that Palin's toughness and realness more than qualifies her, Brooks writes,

"... the problem with this attitude is that, especially in his first term, it made Bush inept at governance. It turns out that governance, the creation and execution of policy, is hard. It requires acquired skills. Most of all, it requires prudence."

So Sarah Palin is now George W. Bush?

He goes on to add that Palin,

"has not been engaged in national issues, does not have a repertoire of historic patterns and, like President Bush, she seems to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness."

... Again with the Bush reference.

Aside from thinking Palin is too much like Bush (an idea he seems to want to advance, based on the number of times he references it), Brooks also seems to believe that elitisim is, in fact, good (he notes that,"Conservatism was once a frankly elitist movement.") ...  This is quite true, but it is most certainly also at odds with Ronald Reagan's conservative philosophy. 

Of course, my long-term concern here is that the "conservative" writers the mainstream media most frequently cites are really not that conservative.  Writers such as Brooks have learned that the quickest way to earn the plaudits of the New York and DC media elite is to be critical of fellow conservatives. 

This is especially true, the closer one gets to an election (feel free to say good things about conservatives during odd years).  David Brooks -- and a hand-full of his highly-respected conservative intellectual friends -- have learned that the way a conservative can be seen as having "matured" is to criticize fellow conservatives ...


Join the conversation as a VIP Member


Trending on Townhall Videos