David Brooks Held Hostage, Day 10 -- Refuses to Come Clean on Palin

More than eight days (update: now ten, since I wrote this) have now passed since New York Times columnist David Brooks admitted at a Manhattan forum, captured on video by Huff Post's Rachel Sklar, that Sarah Palin was not qualified for higher office -- "not even close" -- and is a "cancer" on his favorite party, the GOP. Yet he has still not shared this view with readers of the Times (let alone suggested that this is a fatal blemish on his view of John McCain).

He has written two columns since then -- the latest today -- which failed to reveal/confirm his "not even close" opinion of Palin. Today's column didn't mention her at all. Last Friday he wrote nothing more negative than: "Palin is smart, politically skilled, courageous and likable. Her convention and debate performances were impressive. But no American politician plays the class-warfare card as constantly as Palin."

After the "Sklar video" broke, I wrote about this here, labeling Brooks, at the minimum, "frighteningly dishonest." Some of his friends in the media have tried to deflect attention from his "not even close" statement by focusing on the far less significant "cancer" aspect and the fact that he has criticized Palin to some extent in print (while also, for example, declaring that she "established debating parity with Joe Biden). Brooks has also mocked what he called the "smug condescension that has so marked the reaction to the Palin nomination in the first place."

Who needs Mark Shields? Maybe Brooks should debate himself on PBS.

Yet many of Brooks colleagues on the right have had no trouble frankly labeling Palin unqualified. The list includes everyone from David Frum to Christopher Buckley. Some have cited this in stating they can no longer support McCain.

Just today, Matthew Dowd, the key Bush strategist in 2004, jumped on the anti-Palin bandwagon, stating flatly that she is not at all qualified for higher office, and suggested that McCain, no doubt, will regret the Palin pick after the results in November arrive.

Myself, I am tempted to label the Brooks-Palin team "Brooks and Dumb." Or is that Brooks and Kristol?
*
Greg Mitchell is editor of Editor & Publisher. His ninth book on Iraq and the media is "So Wrong for So Long." For continual updates on the media and the campaign, go the E&P blog. http://www.eandppub.com/

Comments

[noamjunior]

leave the poor, old hypocrite alone- he obviously needs his job more than Buckley does

[DoTheMath]

Over the years, Brooks has seemed to me to make a good-faith effort more consistently than most Republicans to give credit where credit was due and to provide criticism where that was due to members of both parties. I won't say he's been completely even-handed. After all, he is human, and it has always been obvious which side of the aisle he prefers.

Since last February or March, it has become clear to me that preferring a particular candidate has proved far more of an intellectual obstacle for Brooks than preferring a particular party. He had it bad for John McCain, so bad he couldn't see straight. He has blamed everything and everyone besides McCain for McCain's shortcomings. This includes McCain's own campaign and now, sometimes, the running mate McCain chose. He has also trotted out the old campaign standard, listing inconsequential or unsubstantiated claims about the sins of the other side to create a false balance of culpability.

Probably, the more obvious Palin's inadequacies have become and the more negative McCain's campaign has become, the more conflicted Brooks has become. Then, in the middle of this epic inner conflict, his economic theories came crashing down on his head.

Let's give him time to recover. If we must prod him, let's appeal to the better angels of his nature.

[knowBuddhaU]

Thanks for illuminating this glaring omission.

By his omission, is Brooks deliberately casting a shadow over our political landscape? Or is it simply the shadow cast by his ego? IMO, Mr. Brooks is helping to create a false reality with a distinctly feudal political landscape.

[katzenroehrl]

Hey, don't be so hard on a journalist who has his opinion and expresses it at times. Why should he smash the Republican Party if this is his home in the way you expect him to? There is no reason to witch hunt people for their opinion. I found Brooks pretty fair for a political journalist on the conservative side. And most of all, it is not true that he did not point out how unqualified he found Palin to be. Shortly after she was announced to be part of the ticket did Brooks write an article, one of the first out there, claiming, that Biden was a great choice, and Palin a horrible one. He was critical of Palin when many democratic pundits did not quite know yet what to say. It makes politics and citizenship harder when we expect too much - or too little - from each other.

[refah]

Seems the poor old boy can't shake his long held monicker:

The Great Minimizer!

He seems to be holding himself hostage. That's the difference between progressives and conservatives. Progressives could care less about PRESStige. Whereas conservatives will set the country on fire to maintain the status quo. Go figure?

[obbiden]

To Greg Mitchell and the like, -time to grow up!
I can give you names of excellent child psychoanalysts. I'll even make sure they are Democrats.

[Bellanova]

Ha ha, it's Brooks and Kristol, hands down. Palin is in a league all by herself. It's a few steps down from dumb.

[mi]

No " Country First" for Mr. Brooks.
Party loyalty trumps truth.

[bandithappy]

Maybe Brooks should apply for a simpler job. "writer with brain" instead of "full time party hack with part time conscience"

[HeevenSteven]

Telling the truth isn't what gets his bread buttered. He gets paid to keep his readers happy.

[Bitsko]

Welcome to the mind-numbing world of David Brooks. Among many other things, he still hasn't fessed up to being wrong about the senseless war in Iraq.

[NationalTreasure]

David Brooks is lacking in testotrone.

[ckt]

...and the testostorone factory

[tgram]

Did you consider that Brooks may have a problem with conservatices because of his statements about Palin? They are all over Christopher Buckley following his endoresment of Obama. Poor David Brooks is probably running scared.

[GKJames]

Pom-pom wavers like Brooks need to be seen for what they are: business people. I take his recent columns chiding Republicans as a hedge against being marginalized if Obama wins. It's not good for business to have the new regime think of you as an ideological hack. And from readers' enthusiastic responses to what they deem a conversion equivalent to St. Paul's, I gather that the tactic is working, even though today's column -- with its ominous predictions of the consequences from Democratic rule -- takes back with the right hand what he just last week gave with the left. Keep both sides interested enough to keep filling the pockets.

[radiclib]

.
.
Palin is not only unqualified.
She is downright frightening.
She was on Rush Limbaugh today.
Even HIS softball questions were too much for her.
He'd lead her into what he thought was a chance to denounce Obama.
She'd reply by repeating her memorized talking points, some of them having nothing to do with the question.
Imagine putting this dangerous and simple person one heartbeat away from nuclear weapons.
Let's reach across the aisle and tell our Republican friends it's OK to vote for Obama.
.
.

[EvasDaddy]

I don't listen to Limbaugh, but would like to see a transcript of Palin's interview with him. Anyone have a link?